David Corn

I hope Barack picks someone from outside the beltway, someone that shares some of his vision for the future.

Kaine is a pretty good pick.

There are some hard negatives too. Kaine could still be asset.

I remember Quayle - Kaine is no Dan Quayle . . .

Thanks!

Add: I wonder if McCain is waiting for the test results from the skin that was removed? If it is cancerous the whole GOP landscape is going to change.

Capt,

Pathology notwithstanding, while a basil-cell carcinoma might be the "excuse" the DMW party needs to park the "straight talk express" in the barn, in most cases it SHOULDN't put a person out of the running, especially if diagnosed and treated at such an early stage. (they've been watching for recurrence for a while)

His VP pick would certainly be a factor, had I any inclination to even consider a vote in that direction, given his advanced age, his physical health history, escalating stress, obvious PTSD, etc, etc.

Kaine would be a solid, albeit unexciting pick for BHO and would certainly "do no harm", the FIRST rule of VP selection.

Evan Byah would also be harmless, but considered rather youthful, besides, two senators on the same ticket is kinda far-fetched, considering America's aversion to elevating even one of that "hallowed" body to the top excecutive job.

-T

McCain is short of having a clean bill of health on the melanoma - if that has relapsed . . .

The melanoma removed in 2000 was Stage IIa on a standard classification that makes Stage IV the most serious. For Stage IIa melanoma, the survival rate 10 years after diagnosis is about 65 percent. But the outlook is much better for patients like Mr. McCain, who have already survived more than seven years.

For patients with a melanoma like Mr. McCain’s who remained free of the disease for the first five years after diagnosis, the probability of recurrence during the next five years was 14 percent and death 9 percent, a study published in 1992 found.

http://tinyurl.com/65shu4

Not even 100% in 2010?

Picking a VP with the same zero national security credentials as his own would not be a very good idea. Obama desperately needs someone in his campaign who can speak coherently on military matters.

I dream of someone who can both acknowledge the surge's significant success in Iraq, and then also explain how similiar tactics (or more troops) won't work in Afghanistan (i.e. radically different battlefield and political landscape).

Again, I'm talking substance not political atmospherics, so perhaps this isn't the right venue for these remarks.

And this certainly doesn't seem to be a place to discuss the most troubling current development in the race: Obama's steadily sliding poll numbers.

The Republican party's numbers are deep, deep in the dump. But McCain personally has maintained not only a postive favorability rating, but also holds a solid advantage on national security and commander-in-chief questions, particularly among independents. If Obama can't plug that leak soon, this race is soon going to be a toss up. The VP pick...choosing a strong eloquent spokesman on military matters with solid credentials and experience to shore up the national security flank would be an obviously smart move...

The overseas trip was certainly a great galvanizer for people who already loved him, but its effect on those who haven't yet been hypnotized was non-existent by all available evidence...possibly even a slight negative.

(Okay, you can go back to melanoma now).

Surviving Skin Cancer

[...]

Melanoma is the least common form of skin cancer but the most lethal. It has few treatments. It causes about 60,000 new cases of skin cancer each year, just 4 percent of all skin-cancer cases diagnosed. But it is responsible for more than half of all skin-cancer deaths annually--about 8,000. And while survival rates have steadily increased for melonomas detected early, it is an extremely challenging disease to treat in late stages. If the cancer spreads to distant sites in the body, like the liver, lungs and brains, the chance of survival becomes drastically worse. "In that situation, there's a high likelihood the patient would die from the melanoma," says Martin Weinstock, chairman of the American Cancer Society's skin-cancer advisory group and a dermatology professor at Brown University. Unlike many other common cancers, melanoma strikes at any age, occurring in younger as well as older patients. While rates do increase with aging, melanoma is still one of the most common cancers in adolescents and young adults.

Most of the risk factors for melanoma are unavoidable. Weinstock says the biggest three are family history, having many irregular moles and prior occurrences of melanoma. So McCain's two prior incidents of melanoma put him at increased risk of having a third. Exposure to sun, however, is the one important risk factor that patients can do a lot about. "The standard recommendation for anyone who has had a prior melanoma is to protect themselves from exposure to ultraviolet rays because it's the most important, avoidable risk factor we know about," says Weinstock. "It's not the only one, but [it] is the most important one that is avoidable."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/113705

WASHINGTON - It's too early to say with certainty, but the Gallup daily tracking polls are suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., benefited from his nine-day trip to Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe as much as sympathetic pundits suggested he would.

Obama's numbers were within the margin of error as recently as the July 21-23 tracking, 45-43 percent, but since then have widened.

The latest poll, conducted Friday-Sunday among 2,674 registered voters with a 2-point error margin, has Obama with 48 percent to Sen. John McCain's 40 percent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25917762/

Per RCP

Obama 322
McCain 216

270 is all it takes and the EV's are the only thing that matters. National polls mean as much as the HRC "popular" vote. Popular with people that have no understanding of how the electoral college works.

The DNC today announced a joint effort with the Obama campaign to dump an unprecedented $20 million into Latino outreach, communication, registration, and GOTV efforts.

For comparison, the entire amount spent by all parties (Dem and GOP) and third-party groups like NDN in 2004 was $8.7 million. It is a nationwide effort.

(kos)

Best choice for Veep: Joe Biden. A tough talker who would take apart any GOP VP or McCain himself. Has lots of international experience, balancing the perception many people have of Obama---though you don't have to be a politician to see that our international relations are abysmal.

I'm not very impressed with Tim Kaine, having spent most of his first two years in office living in the DC area. His appeal seems mostly on paper, he hasn't accomplished much, and he doesn't inspire in any way.
I wanted WEBB!!!!!!!!!! Why not Janet Napolitano, guv of AZ? She at least has a completely different demo appeal. She even puts McLame's home state in play

Hmm. I just checked again. RCP shows 238 to 163, and 137 tossup. You're counting the tossups where he has 1% leads perhaps? Plus NM too?

And the RCP average head-to-head nationwide popular vote tally is Obama +2.5. Again, all in the margin of error. The Republicans are so deep in the muck this year. Why so close?

The world doesn't actually end on Nov. 5. That's where the story will actually begin. A squeaker victory with no substantial platform (like the substance-free speech in Berlin)... Where 48.5% think he's just another politician, and don't trust him on national security, doesn't augur well for any actual "change" worth mentioning.

Again, the Presidency isn't Captain Kirk's chair on the Enterprise. It doesn't magically make you all-powerful. The only power you have is the power you bring with you. A mandate for ambigous "change"

We need a major victory by candidate who will clearly and forthrightly repudiate everything the Republicans stand for...

Who is a clear "anti-Republican"...

Who will exploit the current Republican weakness and drive a stake through the "Reagan Revolution."

Our botched military hegemony over Persian Gulf oil is actually a direct outcome and realization of Reagan's policy when he took office in '81. Rejecting Carter's move toward energy conservation and independence, the Reaganites explicity believed that US military power could secure our access to the oil there.

The last thing we need is someone who wants to play nice, "split the difference" with the R's and won't ever say anything bad about the precious Saint Ronald.

A column or two back, Mr. Corn fantasized about Obama taking a strong populist stand on economics... Don't hold your breath...

I like his liberal voting record, but there's nothing, and I repeat NOTHING in his record that says he's a fire-in-the-belly progressive fighter (like a Sanders or Feingold).

And until he can speak coherently on Iraq, Afghanistan, the "surge," or anything else on the national security front, he's got a very exposed Achilles heel.

Good radio discussion on McCain, Obama, Iraq, Afghanistan.

http://tinyurl.com/6qz4zz

Arianna Huffington: Obama's Trip Bounce:

The Media's Obsession with Polls Leads to a Bad Case of Premature Pontification

Isn't it strange that, according to the Washington Post, Barack Obama didn't get a bounce from his wildly well-received overseas trip? Oh wait, according to the Chicago Trib, maybe he did. But, hey, the LA Times says it was just a small bounce. Or was it more of a bump? Perhaps a bouncelet? A ricochet? A swelling? Or was it a rash? In which case, if it lasts more than two weeks, should he see an electoral professional, or just declare victory? Of course, almost all of this analysis is based on polls taken before the end of Obama's trip -- a serious case of premature pontification. But that didn't stop many in the media from weighing in, building edifices of soaring opinion on the shakiest of data.

(huffpo)

Kaine could be a head-fake or a leak check?

I do think Barack could make a better choice. There are a few that would be better but are also inside the beltway types. That has advantages and disadvantages.

I don't expect Barack to pick someone I approve of 100% but I don't approve of any politicians much more than about 50% - 50% of the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgF39TRCPPE

The cadre of McCain allies who aren't part of the campaign are very worried. They believe that McCain's current crop of advisers are playing to his worse instincts, particularly his pride and his ego. When McCain is privately content, he comes across publicly as happy-go-lucky and magnanimous; satisfied; when he is combative, he comes off as combative and reactive. They worry that he is obsessed with Obama's character and willing to attribute motives to Obama that are simply unbelievable outside of an echo chamber filled with those who are predisposed to believe Obama's a phony.

(The Atlantic via kos)

"""Kaine's weaknesses: He has ....no national security experience"""

from whom exactly does this nation need to be secured?
watch out for the al qaeda boogie man du jour!

"...from whom exactly does this nation need to be secured?..."

Excellent point. I couldn't agree more. If only Mr. O would make that point explicitly. But he won't.

You're making a big mistake if you think the national security/commander-in-chief issue isn't going to matter.

Tom Friedman:

http://tinyurl.com/6opq54

Kaine is anti choice. With Obama hedging on his support for Roe v. Wade, it would be fatal to put Kaine on the ticket. I know Obama really does not care about the Clinton supporters or women's issue in general but women do make up a majority of the electorate. Putting Kaine on the ticket will do more to repudiate the women's vote than not picking Clinton.

How about some thinking outside of the Biden-Kaine-Bayh-Sebelius-Clinton box?

Wesley Clark, for instance. Yeah, i know he got slammed for questioning MCCain's military experience as being applicable to being Commander-in-Chief, but that to me, in the fact that he questioned it, attacking McCain on his strongest point, is a positive, not a handicap.

White? Check. Southern? Check. Military experience? Double check. Outside the beltway? Check. Progressive? Check. Ethically above reproach? Check. Successful in the private sector? Check. Qulaified to be President? Check.

What's not to like?

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:

Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Wes would be a good choice in many ways.

At least he doesn't bring the over 50% negatives that Clinton has as baggage.

He is more honest than most.

Open letter from the Nation magazine to Candidate Obama
(check out the signatures)

http://tinyurl.com/5erjz7

Nice to know I'm not the only one who's worried.

No national security credentials AND he's anti- choice?

It won't be Wesley Clark...or Biden... or Richardson...or anyone else who couldn't get more than six votes when they tried themselves to run for President. The VP-pick subject's so tired now (Will it be Hillary or not?) that all he can do is hope his ultimate choice doesn't turn out to be a negative.

Picking Hillary immediately after locking up the nomination would have been the smart, keep-up-the-momentum move. (After all she got 49.95% of the votes he did...and was therefore rightfully first-in-line to be second-in-line). Keep the fire going for 18 million motivated supporters? Or kick them in the teeth?

Yes, he's so "brilliant."

Very intriguing article about Obama in the NYTimes. Don't miss it.

http://tinyurl.com/5ugbbh

no really - who exactly does this nation need to be protected from?
is it some ineffectual extremist outsiders or maybe some invisible extremists here in this *nation*?

or is it perhaps the very people that are supposed to be looking out for this *nation* but seem to only be looking out for their own interests?

thomas friedman...ha ha!

Our ridiculous and utterly corrupt pork barrel military-industrial complex consumes vast resources, pumps a gazillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, and defends us against mostly imaginary enemies. You're absolutely right.

I, of course, don't intend any disrespect to our men and women in uniform, particularly all our working class volunteers who have made, and continue to make, tremendous sacrifices.

And I think it's important to recognize the extraordinary accomplishment of the US Army in Iraq in recent years... After being thrust into a completely nonsensical mission in Iraq, after being openly despised by Donald Rumsfeld, they have nevertheless managed to learn, adapt and have now figured out how to actually make a positive contribution in Iraq. The role that young officers in Iraq and Afghanistan perform today is nothing short of near super human....

Not only leading their very young soldiers in combat against an absolutely ruthless and fanatical enemy, but also learning and executing the extraordinarily complex challenge of "counter-insurgency"... Working, improvising, learning-on-the-fly, to be diplomats, lawyers, civil engineers, social workers.... There is no job on the planet today more difficult and dangerous. I never cease to be amazed when I read reports of our twenty-something captains in the field

...with absolutely no help from above (I mean above Petraeus) ...

And because mere mention of a "draft" is political suicide for all politicians, those soldeirs have to go back and back and back again....

Some say our military is "stretched thin"... to the "breaking point".... That we just would not have any troops available should a crisis arise anywhere else in the world...

And it's true... Except that there will be no crisis that actually requires American troops.

The only "crises" we're bogged down in now are of our own choosing and of our own making. Completely unnecessary.

Without our political class' desperate need to justify and keep the military gravy train flowing... our actually military requirements would probably be a quarter of what they are now.

We spend more on the military than the entire rest of the planet combined. Several times more than ALL our conceivable potential adversaries combined. It's a ridiculous pork-barrel jobs program and, of course, a source for VAST "private sector" contract profiteering ("no-bid, cost-plus") ....

....with the US taxpayer as the only paying customer.

If only we had someone to vote for who had the guts to take that on... Who had the courage to make that part of their platform...

Political suicide for sure though, I guess....

I can't remember the author.... Someone wrote an interesting book on this...

About how militarism has become an essential cornerstone...perhaps the most important cornerstone.... of American "patriotism".... The ultimate "third rail" of American politics... to doubt the necessity of the trillion-dollar military monster.... (so corrupt that literally billions and billions can't be accounted for every year...)

If you imagine current trends into the future.... China's economic growth eclipsing us as a world power.... Our continued piling up of indentured servitude to them... (Because we punish anyone who says "raise taxes" instead of "cut taxes")...

We may well end up China's mercenaries....

*

Re: Tom Friedman

I think he raises some smart questions about Obama's promise to escalate in Afghanistan and Pakistan.... I think they deserve more than "ha ha!"

"ruthless and fanatical enemy"

right. if invaders were destroying my country i would be a "ruthless and fanatical enemy" as well.

BUSHCO '08!
now specializing in:
strategic tower removals
depleted uranium dispersal
budget and pension appropriations
BUSHCO '08!
we're your go-to guys!

The surge's reputed success is a chimera. Anyone who imagines that real progress has occured in Iraq will be rudely surprised someday in the near fruture.

The Sunni still feel they are the real power in Iraq and that the shia will be put back in their place someday soon.

If invaders were destroying your country you would behead any fellow countrymen who you believed were collaborators? You would set off bombs in crowds of your fellow countrymen? You would institute extreme-religious rule-by-terror in areas you "liberate?"

Remember in Apocalypse now when Col. Kurtz admires the will of the Viet Cong who come into a village where Americans have innoculated children and chop off all the little innoculated arms and stack them in a pile?

Did you happen to notice that the vast majority of the Iraqi population (incl. the Sunni) virulently turned against the terrorist fanatics and have been fighting as our allies for the last 12 months?

And the same goes for the vast majority of Shiites who've turned against the gangsters and thugs and extortionists of the Mahdi Army?

It's time to wake up.

I can't stand Bush either. I marched in anti-war demonstrations and agreed with Barack in 2002 when he stood up to oppose the nonsensical invasion.... which (along with the first Gulf War and sanctions) have in fact devastated the country of Iraq.... It's absolutely unconsciounable what our Presidents Bush have wrought...

But that's not a reason to shut off your brain and fail to recognize what's actually been happening on the ground and in the society of Iraq in the last year. Thanks largely to Petraeus and the US Army. (And ... shudder .... to President GWB who, after the election of 2006, was forced to push aside Rumsfeld, Cheney and the neo-con "high-tech, go light" crowd and finally listen to saner and more intelligent voices within the military...)

Will there yet be another round of Sunni-Shia-Kurd civil war? I don't know, but I know that what we're doing now is, in fact, the best policy to prevent it. Gradual, careful withdrawal of US forces over the next several years will be US policy no matter who is elected. And I also don't think Obama would actually disagree with anything I've written above.

cutting off the heads of collaborators!
who told you that, was it perhaps the very same media that told you there were WMD in iraq?

hey i know, maybe bushco has spent a trillion dollars and killed over a million iraqis in order to save them from themselves!

""not a reason to shut off your brain and fail to recognize what's actually been happening on the ground and in the society of Iraq in the last year. ""

ya right. do they have hospitals yet? they had plenty of hospitals under saddam. do they have electricity yet? they had plenty of electricity under saddam. and food and clean water etc.
women could walk around unmolested under saddam's rule - they could even hold positions of authority - can women do that now?

if you think that the U.S. military is doing a good deed over there then maybe you should encourage any children to enlist!

I know this is a subtle distinction. Perhaps too subtle for you to understand, but the devastation wrought by US war policy vs. Iraq since 1991, the misguided invasion of 2003... the untold suffering and destruction wrought throughout those periods...all at the behest of our elected civilian leadership (Bush, Clinton, Bush) stands in stark contrast to the 180-degree turn our policy in Iraq has taken since the 2006 election (a great Democratic, anti-Bush and anti-war victory). Rumsfeld despised the Army...since the elevation of Petraeus, the "surge," and "counter-insurgency," the Army is front and center and has accomplished an amazing transformation.

Of course Iraq has a long, long way to go.... It will be at least a generation before they regain the standard of living they had in the '70s and '80s.... I would never dispute that. But you're way missing the reality to not recognize the change on the ground, in US policy, since early 2007. Obama is actually trying hard to somehow parse this reality into the requirements of super-dumbed-down campaign speak.

You're not helping by refusing to recognize what the real situation is now.

(And are you denying that our insurgent opponents routinely slaughtered innocents...including by public beheadings and mass murder by bombs... Are you saying you think that was all diabolical US propaganda?)

Rumsfeld's invasion killed and ruined the lives of many thousands and thousands of innocents in his first years of invasion/occupation. Pure fact..... But by the second and third year, most Iraqis clearly began to realize that their biggest threat was the rule-by-terror of fanatical jihadists and Mahdi Army gangsters.... It's a complex reality, but you're not doing your cause any good by refusing to recognize reality.

i am missing the reality?
two words:: depleted uranium

Depleted uranium is used in armor-piercing shells I believe... Used massively against Saddam's tanks in 1992. What's your data on how much depleted uranium has been used in Iraq in RECENT years? Insurgents, deadly as they are, don't generally use armored vehicles.

armor-piercing rounds - of course they would never dream of making regular bullets out of D.U., right?

i will not hold my breath waiting for govt data on the amount of depleted uranium that has been spread around but here are some results of it:

http://www.rense.com/general70/deathmde.htm

of course that is afghanistan but why should iraq be any different?
oh surely this must just be propaganda from those who hate us for our freedoms!
remember the original "gulf war syndrome"?
probably that was just all in the vet's heads - simply their imagination.

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

anyway, i like your choice of words:
""the misguided invasion of 2003.""

"misguided" - too funny!
perhaps "malevolent" is more fitting.

"misguided" is good actually. None of our recent wars (Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq) would have happened had there not been massive popular support. That Obama is running on the promise of an Afghanistan "surge" shows the phenomenon still in full effect.

Militarism is, unfortunately, a cornerstone of American patriotism. And what we need is courageous anti-militarist leadership.

By the way, here's a 6 min. interview with Petraeus on NPR.

The headline notes his Rumsfeld quote, but Petraeus also quotes Obama in there too if you listen for it...

http://tinyurl.com/6r423g

P. S. I don't dispute you're depleted uranium info. Like I said, we never should have waged any of those wars in my judgement. They've all caused far more suffering, death and destruction than any "good" they could possibly achieve...

Didn't Obama say something like we should get out a lot more carefully, cautiously and competently than we went in? (Sorry for mangling the quote)

The "nuance" is that he is actually endorsing US policy since the 2006 election. The "surge" in fact represents a strategic and tactical and ideological about-face on the part of the neo-con administration. They suddenly had to elevate people they'd been dissing for years (Petraeus and the Army- and -labor-intesive "counter-insurgency" clique), and they shoved aside their favorites.... (Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz & Co.).

Robert Gates as SecDef was nowhere near their top choice....