What exactly is wrong with Menino using his relationships in the legislature and with the Boston Business Community for the greater good of a city the man clearly loves?

Aside from his lack of eloquence for which he is much ridiculed and derided, he's been an effective mayor of Boston. Do I believe he should serve forever? No, but given the choices in this race, I'm very happy with the prospect of another Menino term.

To be truthful, I'm not very impressed with either Flaherty or Yoon. Not enough to cast aside a Mayor that I am satisified with.

I understand Mr. Trippi's need to use incendiary language about a candidate of his party in a city he does not live in, in order to create a compelling narrative for a candidate he's receiving a "small retainer" from to "help". Luckily, I can take comfort in looking at his track record, particularly in the 2008 presidential contest, and know that Mayor Menino can look eagerly toward his 5th term.

Also, I don't think she really wants to run in the primary. She's making noise with the hope that a better (and younger) alternative will emerge. If that doesn't happen, she's at the ready.

The problem is that she is only an alternative if you share her position on gun control. Looking at the broader host of issues, her positions are pretty comparable to Gillibrand's. If given the choice between a slightly right of center Democrat who has a breadth of knowledge and interest in many of the key issues facing the country (the economy, Iraq, greater ethical transparency) or a slightly more "progressive" alternative who is guaranteed to focus like a laser beam on one issue that, while important, is not among the most pressing the country faces today, I'd go with the former.

I'm not here to bash Carolyn...I know her and I like her and I support her, but if people are looking to support McCarthy because she's more progressive generally, you're going to be badly disappointed.

That's not my intention either. I've seen a lot of "Go Carolyn! We need a real progressive!" sentiment in the blogosphere today and its not justified when you look at the record.

Carolyn McCarthy is an admirable advocate for gun control and has created much good out of a family tragedy that would have immoblized most others in the same position.

A progressive though? Not so much. . .

She ran on the Democratic line in 1996 but only after the New York GOP rebuffed her when she announced her intentions to challenge then-Rep. Dan Frisa in a primary. The Democrats wisely recruited her and she flipped the seat in the 1996 election. That didn't stop her from having conversations with the GOP about returning to her roots in 1998. Furthermore, though she was caucusing with the Democrats in Congress, she didn't officially change her voter registration from "R" to "D" until 2002. Six years after she was elected.

The fact that she waited until 2002 is somewhat ironic considering she was one of 82 House Democrats to support the 2002 Iraq War resolution. Now many luminaries in the party, along with some committed progressives like John Kerry, made that mistake, so I'd be open to cutting her some slack.

Then I found this piece titled "Breaking ranks on Iraq", Newsday, dated June 17, 2006, written by J. Jhoni Palmer:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ nation/ny-ushous174785265jun17,0,4181826 .story

The first paragraph reads:

"Breaking ranks with the bulk of her party, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy was one of only two New York Democrats to vote in favor of a contentious Iraq war resolution that passed the House Friday on a mostly party-line decision."

The resolution, H.Res 861, was supported by noted progressives like Dan Lipinski (IL), Gene Taylor (MS), Jim Marshall (GA) and Charlie Melancon (LA), 36 other Democrats (mostly of the Blue Dog variety), and all but three members of the House Republican caucus.

McCarthy told at Newsday at the time, "While the Republicans' cynical attempt to boost their approval ratings is transparent, there is nothing in this resolution that is objectionable. . .I decided to ignore the Republicans' efforts to politicize this important issue and vote in favor of the legislation".

Um. . .weren't we trying to wrest Congress from the clutches of Republican cynicism during that time?

2/3 of the members of the House Democratic caucus were certainly trying to and most of the 42 who voted in favor of the Republican scare resolution represented pro-war districts.

Maybe that's it. Perhaps she was in a Kirsten Gillibrand type situation where she was representing a district where anti-war views would be unacceptable. With her gun control activism, she may have to make a few concessions, right? Let's go back to Jhoni Miller's fine reporting from Newsday, 6/17/2006:

"Most of the Democrats voting yes hail from swing districts, are freshmen, represent military facilities or tend to lean conservative. But McCarthy, an economically moderate and socially liberal Democrat who represents a district that voted overwhelmingly against President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, doesn't fall into any of those categories.

McCarthy acknowledged that her vote might cause her political headaches back home, but said she felt it was the right thing to do."

Look, I understand this is a personal crusade for Rep. McCarthy. She said as much on MSNBC this evening. That said, it would be folly for her (and for us) to cast herself as some sort of progressive heroine. The record certainly says otherwise.

We need to be very careful and take a holistic approach in examining these candidates' records before we declare one or the other the victor or villain of the cause.

There have been more than a few occasions in the political life of Carolyn McCarthy where she has played the latter role.

Politically, it would be a master stroke. It would give McCain the opportunity to be presidential, to show compassion and allow him to reclaim his identity as a "different kind of Republican", and as Todd said, the anti-Bush.

That said, it would set terrible precedent for our country and its governance. While John McCain and Barack Obama are candidates for president, needing to appear strong and in command, neither of them are the President. George W. Bush is. Regardless of our feelings about him and his leadership, he is the sole occupant of the Oval Office and will be until January 20th. Aside from the relevant state and federal authorities, the President is the only elected federal official who should be making any sort of offficial statement from a disaster area.

While I concede the political upside to a McCain address from the Gulf Coast, his doing so would firm my belief that he is the wrong person to be commander-in-chief. What little respect I have for him would totally evaporate. The same would hold true if Barack Obama (or any other Democratic candidate) did the same.

I pray for the people of the Gulf Coast and hope that the effects of this storm are far less severe than currently anticipated.

Actually, you can argue that this Zogby poll is further evidence of an Obama bounce, albeit a somewhat truncated one.

The most recent Reuters/Zogby poll from August 20th had McCain with a five point lead, 46-41, over Obama.

This new poll, conducted completely following the Palin media onslaught, has Obama/Biden making a net gain of 3 points, which is holding with the latest Rasmussen track that came out this morning showing Obama/Biden with a three point lead.

It'll be interesting to see how the Gallup track looks when released later this afternoon.

I am an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter, traveled to multiple states for her during the campaign, and, like Anne Price-Mills, I am still disappointed that she is not our nominee.

Above all, I love my God and my country, and after what I've seen these last two days, I love the Democratic Party.

Electing John McCain will be an unmitigated disaster for this country. He does not understand economic policy, is committed to continuing the havoc wreaked by the Bush-Cheney administration, and is far too quick to use military force before diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. He does not have the judgment, the temperment, and dare I say, he does not have the experience to be president of the United States. Who does really? I doubt there is anything that can truly prepare a person to be president.

I never bought the change versus experience argument in the Democratic primaries. I supported Hillary because I found her to be the most substantive candidate in my lifetime. She spoke with clarity on the important domestic and foreign policy issues facing our country. I trusted that she could lead our country with purpose and resolve and continue to believe that.

In the months since the primary campaign, Barack Obama has demonstrated that he understands the challenges facing American families and that he has the commitment to do what is necessary to improve their economic fortunes, keep us safe, and end the Iraq war in a responsible fashion. He will be a strong and decisive commander-in-chief and I will sleep soundly knowing that he will answer that 3am call. I am proud to support him and cast my vote for him in the November election.

To my fellow Hillary supporters who are still angry about what transpired in these past months, it is time for us to move forward. Senator Clinton was right, it is wrong to make the campaign about her. We are Democrats because we believe in increasing the minimum wage, ensuring equal pay for women, forging ahead with a renewable energy policy, improving our broken education system, and pursuing a foreign policy that is the best American tradition of working constructively with our allies and aggressively challenging our adversaries in the pursuit of global peace and freedom.

I implore you, look in your heart. Do you really believe that four years of a McCain presidency will do anything to achieve those objectives? Eight years ago, I supported a "new kind" of Republican who promoted bipartisanship and moderate, "maverick" approach. Now, in 2008, I look at John McCain with immense sadness. The Bush-Cheney agenda is his agenda. No more maverick. Now its all "drill, drill, drill", "keep the tax cuts permanent", "the economy is fundamentally sound". Give me a break, Senator. You subjugated your principles to win the approval of a party that will always distrust you and that has betrayed the American trust through its callous disregard of working class people and those brave men and women who have been put in harm's way, and in far too many cases, sacrificed their lives in order to perpetuate their foreign policy blunders. In my opinion such a wholesale sellout of one's deeply held principles are the truest signs of weakness, vacilliation, and most significantly, a complete and total inability to lead. The Republican Party platform of 2008 is John McCain's platform. He is no leader and their platform is one that will continue eight years of disaster and disarray. We must soundly reject both.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will revitalize this economy, end this war, and will truly restore America's promise. Hillary Clinton did a fantastic job in setting the tone for this convention and I enthusiastically sound her battle cry:

"No way, no how, no McCain!!!"

As a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, I was never convinced that she was the right choice for this ticket electoral calculations aside. After eight years of the Bush-Cheney debacle, we need a strong, cohesive, competent administration that can govern effectively and right the ship of state. Ultimately, Barack Obama needs to choose a running mate that complements him, that he's comfortable with, and can be trusted to form a partnership that will serve the nation well. I believe Joe Biden fits this bill better than Senator Clinton, and I am very pleased with this choice if it comes to be. I love the guy.

That said, if the reports are to be believed, I am not at all pleased with how the Obama campaign (and the Senator himself) handled this situation. A person who receives 18,000,000 votes and a significant plurality of the delegates deserves better than getting the thumbs down through "private channels" to the Obama campaign. Hillary Clinton has served our country and our party with grace and an admirable (and needed) tenacity. She deserves better than what she's getting.

Also, if Obama was going to choose a Republican running mate, I think he would have had to drop that at least a week ago in order to smooth over relations with delegates angry that he did not choose from within the party. Announcing a GOPer four days before the convention doesn't give them enough to time to quash a floor fight over the VP pick.

But hey, there's not much more to talk about right now and this is intriguing. Why not have at it? Its no more baseless than any of the other speculation we've engaged in. ;)

While not necessarily a "game changer", Dick Gephardt certainly fulfills the "well known and ready to go" criteria. He's popular with seniors and working class voters, was under constant media scrunity for nearly two decades as a presidential candidate and congressional leader, is from a bellwether state, and has some key allies in the Obama inner circle (Plouffe and Burton). While he wouldn't be the most exciting choice, he'd bring the Biden/Kerry style gravitas without the gaffe potential.

I think its worth discussing the small Chet Edwards boomlet that's been occuring throughout the day today. Newsweek is reporting tonight that the much vaunted "short list" is actually more fluid than suspected and includes Bill Richardson and Rep. Edwards along with the usual suspects (Kaine, Bayh, Biden, Sebelius, even Hillary, though her chances are downplayed).

From what little I've read of Chet Edwards, he'd been an interesting pick. Moderate Southerner, good national security cred, popular with veterans' groups, George W.'s congressman when he's in Crawford.

My primary qualm with him is not that he's a relative unknown (I agree with Josh that the Obama camp would view that as a net positive) but that he's being aggressively pushed by Speaker Pelosi. Congress is not popular and her negatives are high. If Rep. Edwards is the pick, I fear that the narrative would be that Obama went with "Pelosi's Choice". Not helpful, in my opinion.

A random thought on this one, but there's been some speculation that Obama may pick from "the field", i.e. someone not receiving major (if any) play on Intrade, Rasmussen Markets, etc.

With this news, I think its worth mentioning that former Indiana Congressman and 9/11 Commission Member Tim Roemer is a South Bend native and received his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame.

Roemer, who has solid national security credentials along with a pro-life voting record, is a strong Obama backer and had been mentioned as a dark horse VP possibility.

Does anyone else think that this is just an elaborate smokescreen designed to increase the impact of Obama's actual choice when it happens?

Gov. Kaine has been an Obama loyalist from the beginning. He's very close to the candidate and I believe he'd allow himself to be used in this fashion.

So who is the next Democratic vice presidential nominee? We've seen a lot of Claire McCaskill on television lately and she's proving to be Sen. Obama's most effective surrogate. She'll also be with him throughout the Missouri swing today.

Personally, I like her chances.

Maybe so, but on paper he seems like a logical, reasonable choice. The same can be said for Gov. Richardson (who, in my opinion, would be a dreadful choice for numerous reasons including his inability to come across well on television) and Sen. Nunn (the GLBT community would go nuts).

I think he's an interesting candidate that Senator Obama should have a serious look at.