The New York Times begins its profile of Evan Bayh today with the Indiana senator's support of the Iraq War in 2002:

As the Senate debate on the use of force against Iraq neared its climax in October 2002, Senator John McCain turned on the floor to Senator Evan Bayh to ask what had led him to take such "a visible, as well as important" role in seeking Congressional consent for military action.

Which of course leads reporter Carl Hulse to noting that Bayh's initial support for the war hurts him with the party's anti-war base:

"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."

The suggestion that Bayh is unacceptable to the party because of his war vote is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the idea that somehow Andrews and the rest of them won't vote for Obama if he picks Bayh.