All 69 entries tagged Reflections
View all 245 entries tagged Reflections on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Reflections at Technorati | There are no images tagged Reflections on this blog
July 12, 2008
A few things have come to mind this week, all to do with Inconsistency.
- All the people/newspapers who a few years ago were outraged at the imprisonment of Tony Martin are now backing imprisoning everyone who carries a knife. So apparently you shouldn’t go to jail if you shoot someone with a gun, but if you just carry a knife you should.
- On last week’s Question Time the audience appeared to clap everything people said. This meant that they would clap a point by one of the commentators, and then applaud an exactly opposing argument by another panelist. This suggests both that the panelists were making strong arguments, and that the audience was full of idiots.
- It was commonly noted that during the G8 meeting politicians undertook an 8 course meal, whilst simultaneously talking about Global food shortages, and in Gordon Brown’s case telling people not to waste food. The latter isn’t hypocritical, assuming Mr. Brown finished his meal.
June 13, 2008
David Davis’ resignation appears to have caused shockwaves throughout British Politics. He could have stayed in the safe and comfortable position of Shadow Home Secretary, and pushed for his issues when the Conservatives get elected in two years time. Instead he has chosen to gamble.
People’s reaction to David Davis’ actions seem to be strongly split among those who agree or disagree with his argument.
Jackie Smith, Home Secretary, and Hazel Blears, Communities secretary, when interviewed ignored the issues and just talked about Conservative ‘disarray’, and David Blunkett called it ‘political theatre’. Conservatives who made their opinion know publically seemed to back his decision, this includes David Cameron and Dominic Grieve, the new shadow home secretary.
Civil Liberties campaigning groups, such as NO2ID and Liberty have backed his stand. Newspapers position is consistent with their editorial stand on the issues, for example The Independant is describing him as a ‘Freedom Fighter’, whilst the Sun claims he has “gone stark raving mad”, is “a quitter” and describes it as “Treachery”.
A real Motive?
A lot of people have claimed that this isn’t the real motive for his resignation, but its quite clear that Cameron & Co are backing his move, albeit cautiously. His replacement, Dominic Grieve, takes the same stance as he does on the issues so there will be no change of Conservative Policy, which means there’s no rejection of his views in central office. Whilst I’m sure many Conservatives are pissed off that he taken an action that won’t improve their electoral prospects, I doubt he was being muffled by party policy.
Another assertion, made by both The Sun and The Daily Express, is that this is a politically motived act of treachery towards David Cameron. Its certainly not Cameron’s style of politics. Its hard to see what this gets David Davis politically. He has lost his position as Shadow Home Secretary, and may loose his seat as an MP. The level of risk to his seat is, I believe, quite low – he has a strong majority and liberal democrats won’t be opposing him, but certainly the move from his current position to a back bencher is a long step down. The Sun reconcile the lack of motivation with their cynical claims by asserting that he has gone mad, an unsound argument if ever I heard one.
The liberal democrats won’t be standing against him, because they agree with him on the issues. If I were they, I would campaign for him, the only way you can get political advantage out of this is to show that you have a non-partisan principled stand on the issue.
The Labour party haven’t made their decision clear. I would be very surprised if they put a candidate forward, their narrative of these events is one that tries to undermine David Davis at every turn (‘disarray’, ‘theatre’) the most sensible way to continue this approach is to not stand a candidate against him. Furthermore, they are unlikely to win, (at the last general election their candidate placed 3rd with 6,000 votes to David Davis’ 22,000). It would also cost the party campaigning funds that it can ill-afford.
The BNP won’t be running a candidate against him, since they agree with his position, and UKIP don’t know what they are doing. Unsurprising for a party who published its manifesto for the 2005 General Election with a typo in the headline of its first page. Even worse than one of my blog entries!
Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of the Sun, has said he will stand. This is the first time that Rupert Murdoch has directly pushed his own candidate, instead of backing existing parties. Quote of the week: “The Sun has always been very up for 42 days and perhaps even 420 days.” Since he will have financial support from Mr. Murdoch its highly likely that he will have a funding advantage. This entirely suits Mr. Davis, since it will result in a debate, it also suits the Labour party since they have someone to fight their battles. I doubt Mr. Mackenzie will win, since I find it impossible to believe that anyone could like an editor of a tabloid newspaper.
Don’t believe the ‘cost to the tax payer’ argument: the total cost of a by-election according to the BBC is £2000. The cost to political parties is far greater.
Whilst there are clear negative effects on the Conservative party, people are completely ignoring the positive effects: no news about nannygate! This is a far more interesting story than the alleged corruption of the Conservative Party Chairman, whilst the corruption story is potentially more damaging. The real concern people have here is the risk factor.
For years people have called on politicians to take actions that are nonpartisan, based on principle, and creative. This is certainly creative, due to its unprecedented nature, as already established this is based on principle and its clearly not a partisan act – the man is operating off his own bat. If there is a rejection of this action by the British public I can only conclude one thing: that they are more hypocritical and two faced than the politicians.
May 23, 2008
Recently Oil prices reached a high of $135/barrel, this appears to have caused consternation amongst many. Gordon Brown has noted this as a problem when reflecting on his loss in Crewe and Nantwich, whilst it cropped up in this week’s Question Time. , that also contained the ever-annoying Hazel Blears.
There are many proposed solutions here – hybrid cars, more fuel efficient cars, better public transport. These all reduce the amount of fuel consumed by the economy. The ever-annoying Hazel Blears argued that we should seek to increase supply – newer fuel reserves. Whilst it is obvious that rising fuel prices, will make utilizing more expensive fields profitable, and thus actioned, as a government strategy this isn’t viable.
Firstly because fossil fuels are an inherently finite resource – they will run out, so this strategy is only ever going to work in the short term. On a more practical note, many scientists seem skeptical about the viability of further north sea exploration. Apparently we gave most of the oil to the Norwegians when drawing the borders.
Unfortunately many ignorant talking heads appear to have taken it upon themselves to propose a tax decrease. This, again, is a short term solution – tax decreases, so the cost of fuel decreases, demand increases, so the price increases. This would encourage exploration – due to the long term price rise, but either way it encourages increased consumption – so the fuel reserves run out sooner. After the immediate gain, we loose out in the long run.
There is another alternative for improvement. It involves a fantastic piece of technology. Its very cheap. By consuming less fuel it also reduces environmental problems. Additionally its healthy for you (though not as much as people think). My suggestion is …
BUY A BIKE
Overwhelming people’s transport options can be fulfilled by cycling – very few people in the UK travel long distance as part of their daily journeys, many of those who do can get their fuel costs subsidized by their business (e.g. sales Reps, road haulage), most of our journeys consist of urban driving. These needs can nearly always be fulfilled by bicycling.
I don’t know how to ride a bike (I never learnt whilst a child) and I’m almost sorry that this isn’t more of a stigma. Does this make me a hypocrit? Of course not … I walk to work.
May 10, 2008
After Obama destroyed Clinton’s last chances of taking the popular vote or pledged delegates in Indiana and North Carolina – the knives were out in the American press. It had gone beyond any sort of reasonable analysis and had entered the realm of pop-culture references. For example Politico described her campaign strategy as the Death Star, whilst Huff Post went the more personal “EVERYONE BUT HILLARY KNOWS IT”, and CBS implies her campaign should be euthenized.
Clearly She can see the light at the end of the tunnel – but doesn’t know its the train thats coming to run her over. Anyhow, rumour mill suggests that Obama is going to claim victory on May 20th – so it’ll be interested to see if she intend to push it beyond then, or call it quits.
April 21, 2008
It seems a bit unfair of me to have already mentioned the London Mayoral elections, given their massive media coverage, without having talked about our local vote on 1st May. Its council election time!
The election is on May 1st. It is now too late to apply for a postal vote, Your polling card will specify what what ward you live in, and where you need to vote. If you can’t be bothered to move, you can find out here . I live in Whoberley, which has a wikipedia page that really needs improving, and if you live on campus you are likely to be in the Wainbody ward. Each ward has three councillors, for a total of 54 councillors in Coventry City Council. One will be elected this election. You can find out who is running here If you live in whoberley and are confused by the map on the polling card then I’ve created a Google Map .
Historically Coventry has been a Labour stronghold. They held control of the council every year from 1973 to 2002 with the exception of 1978. The conservatives took over in 2006, with a period of no overall control in between. Both Wainbody and Whoberley have currently three conservative councillors. In wainbody in 2007 the conservatives took 56% of the vote, approximately 2.5 times the number of votes that the second place candidate came in. A student (Emma Biermann) stood for election as the Green Party candidate, coming in 4th place with nearly 9% of the vote.
Whats worth noting is that there are approximately 4,000 students living on campus at University of Warwick, the university registers everyone to vote, and the total turnout in wainbody at the last council elections is also about 4,000 people. In other words a highly motivated student populace could not only swing a close vote – they could vote in whomever they wanted. (Assuming of course that not too high a percentage of campus dwellers are ineligible to vote.)
In Whoberley the conservative majority in 2007 was only 127 votes. Furthermore, the incumbent Conservative Councillor (Joan Griffin) has been booted from their ticket due to health scares, but is running as an independant. I suspect this will split the vote, and offer somewhat of a spoiler for the conservative party.
I’d really like to cover the liberal democrats at these elections, but they don’t really seem to be making much of an effort to get my vote. The Labour Party has put out a full, front, page ad in the Coventry Times, whilst the Conservatives have sent out quite good looking flyers. I have received no such information from Brian Rees Lewis (who also ran as the Lib Dem candidate last time). I can’t even find his name listed on their website. Their website is also incredibly uninformative. They have 9 days to shove something under my door if they want me to care.
Joan Griffin seems to be emphasizing school discipline and minimising the number of drinking licenses handed out. Both of these policies put me off. The conservatives and their candidate Roger Bailey have made a series of commitments for the next few years:
“Continue the ‘Contact and Connect’ service for our elderly residents” & “Keeping council tax rises below pensions” – I think is probably a good thing overall, and that policies should be sympathetic to the needs of those on fixed incomes, but its not really a key issue for me.
“Keeping Pool Meadow open” & “Keeping weekly refuse collections” – I don’t believe any party has the balls to close it, so this seems like rabble rousing to me. Also neither of these are new policies, so making pledges on them is a pretty weak campaigning effort.
Expanding recycling – thats a great pledge, but the council also wanted to allow building on Hearsall Common before a residents petition (organised by Lib Dems in the apparently vastly more active neighbouring region) stopped it . There’s more to environmental issues that just recycling and its a very vague pledge – they don’t specify what they will actually do to improve recycling.
The Labour candidate for Whoberley, Bally Singh, seems to be making a strong effort – lots of emphasis on consultation and a blog. He also also emphasises working with other people – quite important since I expect that Coventry will remain a Conservative controlled council even if he is elected, so he will need to force change from a minority position – a hard task to accomplish. He provides 3 policy pledges:
“Protect our local environment” – he specifies problems here well (Hearsall Common, Watchmakers Building, litter) though not solutions. He also a more broad ranged view of environment than the Conservative Pledges.
“Challenge Anti Social behaviour” – I have no sympathy for ‘anti-anti social behaviour policy’. He somewhat redeems himself by discussing how they can work with the local MP to try and get more activities for people to do.
“Improve our council services” – He doesn’t actually say what he will do, but he does talk about consulting with the community, so this pledge is somewhat worthless, but not entirely.
Please do vote in your local council elections. I’ve presented what I think is a useful summary of information, so you have no excuse.
April 11, 2008
Recently a lot of campaigners have argued the case that China shouldn’t be allowed to hold the olympics due to its ongoing occupation of tibet. It has been proposed that a boycott would reduce the positive publicity that the Chinese would be getting from their hosting activities. Gordon Brown announced the other day that he wouldn’t be present at the opening ceremonies. Media fetishism suddenly turned this into some kind of important stand again Chinese policies on tibet. This was denounced by Downing Street in an effort not to upset diplomatic relations.
But even if he hadn’t turned up – how is that progress? I can’t imagine Wen Jiabao trembling in his boots. Do we think that not having to shake some fat Scottish bloke’s hand is the biggest stand we can make on foreign policy? Is that what being a world power means these days? We fight wars against 3rd world countries actively and via proxy and yet here we are facing the another major country and all we can manage is a minor diplomatic snub? Will the historians of the 22nd Century ever enscribe the sentence “Chinese human rights abuses were cleaned up thanks to a second rate act of gesture politics by an unpopular 1/2 term prime minister?” I sincerely doubt it.
The key issue here is that whilst people have been caught up in the idea of denying China the publicity and support that the Olympics brings – we politcally, legally and by implication morally acquiesce to their acts. We’ve somehow managed to completely the obvious fact that Britain recognises Chinese rule over Tibet. We signed a treaty with the Qing empire in 1904 and ratified it in 1906. We officially considered it part of the Republic of China when dealing with Chiang Kai-shek in the second world war. When the west decided to be less hostile to the PRC the Tibet issue was ignored.
Bottom line: if you really want a stand from Britain on tibet – don’t boycott the olympics. Call for an Act of Parliament changing Britain’s recognise Chinese borders to exclude tibet. Now that really would be a stand on the matter.
March 03, 2008
I haven’t blogged about the US primaries in nearly a month, so its time to get back on the prediction box again. In the last month the big day turned into a score draw, followed by 11 straight primary defeats for Clinton. (The Obama camp count 12, since the results for democrats abroad, who voted on uber tuesday, weren’t in until afterwards.) So surely the race is over now? Obama’s got the delegate lead, after 11 wins he must have the momentum.
Well not quite. Tomorrow Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont all vote, with Texas and Ohio holding the lions share of the votes. Both of these states are traditionally expected to be Clinton strongholds. Both Bill and that clever guy with no hair, Carville have both said that these are must win states for Clinton. Her campaign has focussed on them heavily in the last month, since a defeat in either would really signal its end. Polls initially going her way have turned against her in the last week or so.
The real question at this point is whether Obama’s mail to the Canadians saying he really loves NAFTA and he’s just using it as a political football will hurt him. I suspect not his late in the day. Clinton has made a resurgence in the polls – she was down an average of 7 pts in Texas from polling data 5 days ago, its back to a level playing field again. Its entirely possible her message sits better with people in Texas and Ohio than Obama’s – I can’t really see why she is gaining otherwise. And the numbers frequently lie. Especially given the inherent pro-Obama bias of the texas polling system – I wouldn’t be surprised for him to take more delegates, whilst Hillary wins the popular vote. Hillary will probably win Ohio by 5-10% or so.
More interesting than this is speculation on the final race for the presidency. McCain has been doing very well in nationwide polling recently – of the last 5 nationwide polls I’ve seen Obama has only won one of them. Still the difference is narrow enough at the moment to not really be important. McCain’s campaign is in a poor state of organisation, and highly susceptible to a heavy tv spend over the summer months – as Clinton did in 1996 against Bob Dole. Such a strategy could only really work if Obama were to take the nomination early, months of uncertainty would help McCain a lot more.
Another issue is fundraising – In Janury Obama hauled 31 million, and early february this seemed to accelerate even more for both Democratic candidates. The question is how sustainable this is. McCain has huge fundraising potential, since his campaign hasn’t reached out to many republicans, who would certainly be more interested in seeing him in the White House than Clinton (I will continue to ignore Ann Coulter since I belive she is one of the few people whose endorsement would do more harm than good) and probably Obama as well. Consequently I wouldn’t be too surprised if McCain is competitive in fundraising by the time the conventions roll around.
I’ve already mentioned a few possible running mate choices for the democrats, but lets lengthen that list a bit and increase the chance of me being correct!
She has excellent brand name recognition, good experience, she’s female, african American, clever and would help get conservatives on board with McCain. She’s a fairly long shot though, and would provide Democratic amunition to tie McCain in with an unpopular administration.
States in this region are looking competitive, and are necessary Republican holds, so two term governors from this region such as Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota are possibles. Pawlenty is McCain national campaign co-chair.
Popular florida governor, who would help secure that state for the republicans, and has sound conservative credentials. Unfortunately he’s not married, and rumoured to be gay – if there’s anything that could put off Republicans more, or the ‘Reagan Democrats’ that McCain needs the votes of then he’s running mate being ‘outed’ as gay would be it. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would have a field day. To quote a republican strategist – ‘The republican party is the party of family values – and where’s his family?’ Still he’s probably one of the strongest options for McCain.
Obama should really look for a middle of the road – cross partisan democrat who has experience and popularity. Good thing Michael Bloomberg has recently announced he won’t be running! Bloomberg doesn’t have a long term Washington History, but his business experience is invaluable, he also has unmatchable fundraising ability. Whether Bloomberg would be willing to understudy is another matter.
Virginia governor who jumped on the Obama bandwagon early. He’s also in a key swing state, and has a lot of experience at the statewide level.
Even though I mentioned him in my previous running mate rundown – its worth mentioning that he hasn’t thrown his support behind Hillary as one would expect him to. He’s also being heavily courted by the Obama camp. Even if he isn’t named as VP – I read a suggestion to name him as secretary of state at the same time – in order to bolster Obama’s lack of experience.
Governor of Arizona and thus could help Obama in the south or west of the country. Being a female helps balance the ticket, and the geography works too. Also a former Attourney General of Arizona, so comes with strong experience. Not being a washington insider helps Obama’s message of change. For the same basic reasons Kathleen Sebelius .
I’m not going to bother suggesting vice presidential nominees, since I think Clinton would have a massive uphill struggle getting elected if she were democratic nominee.
February 05, 2008
When I originally started bloggin the republican race was looking vastly more interesting than the democratic one, several series candidates, from different wings of the party all competing with each other. Originally strong candidates were looking incredibly weak (Guiliani, McCain at the time) and Huckabee was riding a strong wave with practically no money or support. Since then the tables have turned. The republican race has settled down, with McCain a clear leader in both support and pledged delegates, whilst the democratic field has narrows with the loss of Edwards, in many ways Obama’s rise has made it less predictable.
Whats worth noting is that Obama is coming good at the right time – 2 weeks ago he was nationally behind Clinton by 12%, one week ago that had dropped to 6%, on Sunday he was listed as 3% behind, and today CNN released poll figures showing that Obama was ahead by 3%. This is the first poll to show Obama ahead of Clinton nationally, and also the only poll showing that! Super Tuesday could really be the end of the line for the Clinton campaign – that is to say if she doesn’t win here its only downhill. Even a close 2nd for Obama will be perceived as a victory for him, and might possibly give enough momentum for the nomination.
Due to the sheer size of uber tuesday I have decided to present the results in a different manner to previously. Firstly I have prepared a spreadsheet that approximates the total number of votes I believe each candidate shall receive. I believe I will be massively more inaccurate today than previously, since as well the sheer size of the event Edward’s dropout has left massive numbers of undecided voters in the polling numbers.
Now the first thing to bear in mind about my figures are that Obama trails Clinton – this isn’t because he is behind nationally, but because many of Clinton’s strongest states (California and New York for example) vote on uber tuesday. If Obama can survive this, then he is likely to take major delegate hauls on, for example, Feb 12th (Maryland, Virginia and DC). The totals, for those who can’t be bothered to read are 871 – 816.
I expect Clinton to take her home state of New York, where she is senator by a significant margin, whilst Obama will take votes upstate, I believethe city will be highly pro-Clinton. New Jersey seems a lot closer, but still goes for Clinton. Its a similar story in Massachusetts. Conneticut I believe will go Obama, due to a recent flood of new voter registration, especially amongster younger voters.
Minnesota appears to be favouring Obama, in light of backing from a pair of house representatives, the same with North Dakota.
In the south Obama leads in Georgia, and I would expect him to take the state on the back of African American support. i essentially believe white southerners will vote for Clinton and against any sort of change at all. So Alabama is a tie, and Tennessee (with its lower black populace) goes to Clinton. I also believe she will take Arkansas by a high margin, as Bill was a popular govenor there, additionally she has strong backing by the states’ current leading democrats. Oklahoma neighbours Arkansas and seems to be favouring Clinton. Arizona used to be a Hillary lead, but Obama has been endorsed by the governer and a house representative recently, so I expect it shall be close.
I’ve listed California as a Clinton win, though large margin has been wiped out by Obama’s strong campaigning. His strength amongst black minorities and college educated white voters will be cancelled out by women and the elderly. Unfortunately, about 1/2 of democrats in California tend to vote by absentee ballots, and a lot early, this gives Hillary the edge, because of her past lead here. I believe New Mexico will go to Hillary, governor Richardson sat heside her at the super bowl, and her strength with hispanic voters will do her well here.
I have no idea what the hell will happen in Alaska, American Samoa, Kansas, and Democrats abroad. I believe Alaska to go Obama but its a large state with no polling data, a small populace and a republican bent. Basically I’m pissing in the wind and guessing that they hate Hillary. The last poll in Idaho was conducted in mid december and shows al gore in the lead – I’m going for Obama, since Hillary seems to admit that he is in the lead there. I’ve given Obama a small lead in Kansas due to the strong support by State Senate members.
I can’t be bothered doing a proper Republican rundown, since McCain will win and the democratic race has become far more exciting. I might write something on it tomorrow.
February 04, 2008
With Lost returning to the television screens, and its mass fans worldwide, its easy to ignore the fact that its an inconsistent program. Sometimes its plotting drags, and whilst most characters are well developed now, both Hurley and Charlie started out as joke figures in my mind. With this in mind I decided to list a few programs that I feel ought to be viewed by anyone interested in serious drama. This is by no means an exhaustive list – since I generally don’t watch much tv drama (too much crap around).
Now complete family crime drama, the show juxtaposes the family and business interests of its main character, Tony Soprano. This allows for in detailed characterisation, and the opportunity to bring a variety of characters together, from his daughter’s university friends to hardened criminals. Tony is a fascinating study in and of himself – my personal favourite is the manner in which he eats, it has a very special idiom to it. He plays with his food obsessively, then eventually his takes his fork, stabs one element of it, and eats it – swallowing quickly. Often it seems as though his eating habbits are a compulsion, a comfort for a man who has difficulty expressing his emotions. The strong supporting cast and character driven nature of the show are also highlights.
The show is set from the point of view of its serial killing title character. Fascinating insite is given to the relationship between people, through Dexter’s description of how he ‘fakes’ human emotions. The show is driven forward by his discovery of how Dexter became the way he is. Another point of interest is they way his moral code guides the way he acts and the judgements implicit and explicit within its development.
This nineties prison drama, set primarily in the experimental wing of the Oswald State penitentiary. The fast moving plot frequently focusses on the infighting between different ethnic groups within the prison. Overall narration is done in the style of classical greek theatre – with interludes where the key theme of each episode is discussed. The show deliberately chooses to offer ambiguity in response to key criminal issues – such as the debate between reforming and incarcerating prisoners.
House of Cards
Miniseries from 1990 that charts the rise of its lead character – Francis Urquhart – in a post Thatcherite conservative party. The series had the good fortune to be aired at the same time as the internal struggle surrounding Thatcher’s departure, however, it still stands the test of time. Urquhart is portrayed as a Machavellian political machine, only interested in his own political rise. The show depicts the corresponding fall of those manipulated by Urquhart’s underhand dealings. There are frequent parallels with Shakespearean work, notably Richard III. My favourite aspects are the short solliloques, and frequent glances to camera given by Urquhart that reveal his true intent and the brief shots of rats that increasingly appear at times throughout the show.
January 31, 2008
So Florida went as expected, but big things have happened since! Firstly Guiliani dropped out. Thats fairly sensible on his behalf – he had no chance of winning from this point. Secondly McCain having won Florida, took the backing of both Rudy and Also Arnie, which lead to some obvious and hilarious headlines . Schwarzenegger for president is all I have to say. Which gives Mitt the Mormon (whilst writing this article I actually mistyped Moron) a problem, possible unsurmountable, of how to make a comeback. He has less backing, less momentum, and lower national polling numbers.
Finally Edwards has now also dropped out – leaving a straight Clinton vs Obama showdown. In some ways I’m surprised Edwards left it this long, since his wife’s cancer problems had resurfaced a while ago. I suspect that his campaign didn’t have much money left to run on at this point as well. One of the interesting things is that Edwards hasn’t yet endorsed anyone. If he leaves it till after super-tuesday its unlikely to have any significant impact. The only real motivation I can see here is that it leaves the door open for him being a vice presidential nomination for either candidate.
Which brings me onto another interesting question that a lot of people keep on asking – who could be a vice presidential nominee. I won’t bother covering Edwards, since I’m sure everyone reading this blog was alive in 2004, but I’ll offer a few of options either way.
Popular new mexico governor, with hispanic background. Has strong experience as energy minister and foreign affairs minion under Bill Clinton. Also has plenty of hair. Would offer more to Obama than Clinton by adding experience to his idealism and strong backing amongst the hispanic community thats crucial in swing states like new mexico, and especially florida.
Former governor of Indiana, and current senator from Indiana, Bayh nearly made a presidential run of his own this year – forming a committee and raising $10 million but decided not to enter the race due to strong competition from other candidates. Considered to be a fiscally conservative democrat Bayh has served as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council (the same position Bill Clinton held before his Presidential run). He also serves on the committee for Armed Forces, which might offer something to counter McCain. Additionally has been considered as a running mate for both Al Gore and John Kerry, and Bill Clinton has suggested that he would make a good President. In my opinion more likely for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama.
As to republicans, Guiliani could make a viable running mate for possible candidate, as would popular former florida governer Jeb Bush. Bush would have strong fundraising potential, and also help the swing state of Florida remain republican.
If Michael Bloomber decides that he won’t run, he would make an ideal running mate for anyone out of McCain, Clinton or Obama. Currently New York Major, practically limitless fundraising abilities (he’s worth $11 billion), fiscally conservative but socially pseudo-liberal. Success in business is often seen as a good administrative indicator in politicians. Been a member of both parties in the past, and is often seen as advocating better cooperation and less partisan politics. I wouldn’t be too surprised if there was a tussel for him as a running mate.