Y’know I was definitely getting caught up in my own hype that Obama had snagged ol’ Bayh as his veep. But, via Talking Points Memo, the New York Times just smacked him down as a good running made over what basically became the chasm between Hillary and Obama: Iraq.

Mr. Bayh’s support of authorizing force in Iraq stands in sharp contrast to Mr. Obama’s oft-stated view that he showed the good judgment to oppose the conflict from the start. After his vote, Mr. Bayh in early 2003 joined Mr. McCain as an honorary co-chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which made regime change in Iraq its central cause.

“He was not only wrong, he was aggressively wrong,” said Tom Andrews, national director of the Win Without War coalition, referring to Mr. Bayh. “In my view, he would contradict if not undermine the Obama message of change, turning a new page on foreign policy and national security.”

One of the biggest feathers in Obama’s cap is that, to phrase it crudely, he was against the war in Iraq before it was cool to be against the war in Iraq. He hammered Hillary over her refusal to apologize for authorizing Bush to use force in the gulf. To pick a guy that was not only for the war, but he joined McCain as an honorary co-chairman? Ouch. Political poison.

Okay, moving along. Who’s left? I’d love to see someone extra principled like Russ Feingold, but he already licked McCain’s nethers, so he’s gone as well. Wesley Clark? Maybe once Democrats like Kerry stop throwing him under the bus. Who’s left?

By the way, I’m definitely abusing my TPM Election Central. Enjoy it, there’s great stuff there.