rd.com Blogs

Team Players

Carl M. Cannon — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:47:00 GMT

The headline in today’s Denver Post, in World War III-sized type along with a gargantuan photograph of Hillary Clinton, said simply: THE TEAM PLAYER. That assessment was based on her speech Tuesday night, which may have been a tad too uncritical—but Senator Clinton certainly lived up to that headline today.

Earlier, Clinton had officially freed up her delegates to vote for Obama—and many did so. As the roll call vote for the Democratic presidential nomination went through its alphabetical list of states, Obama began piling up huge majorities. The 1,900 delegates that Clinton won in the primary season had shrunk to 341.5 when it was New York’s time to vote. Obama's tally stood at 1,549.5 votes. Democratic Party official Alice Germond called New York’s name. “New York, you have 282 delegates!” Then Clinton stole the show once again. She did more than free up her delegates. She did more than throw the weight of the huge New York delegation to Barack Obama. In an electric moment, she made a motion that the 2008 convention to adopt Senator Barack Obama of Illinois as the party’s nominee “by acclamation.”

This gambit gave Clinton yet another moment in the spotlight—and her husband had yet to speak to the convention—and it induced roars of approval from the floor. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairing the session and cued in ahead of time, played her part in the choreographed drama. Pelosi immediately called for a second to Mrs. Clinton’s motion, and thousands of delegates raised their hands and shouted their assent. Pelosi then called for the aye votes, and the roar was even louder. And then it was done.

The phrase “dancing in the aisles” is a cliché, but that’s what many Democrats did. Some cried, some laughed. Some laughed and cried. The Democratic Party, within the living memory of most of the delegates assembled in Denver, once clung to power on the bulwark of racial segregation. Today, it followed the lead of a female senator who ran a close second and unanimously named an African-American man as its nominee for president of the United States.

It was a watershed moment in American history, and those on the convention floor knew this—and knew also that they were privileged to be able to participate in it.

What's the Right Thing to Do?

Carol Kaufmann — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:05:00 GMT

College ethics professor, Charles Kammer, is an Ohio delegate at the Democratic National Convention this year. On Wednesday of the convention, he attended a morning health care forum with Democratic heavyweights—Tom Daschle, Gov. Deval Patrick, Gov. Ed Rendell, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Rep. John Dingell, health care rock star Hillary Rodham Clinton among them. Professor Kammer said health care in the United States is emerging as a fascinating ethical dilemma—something this blogger had never really considered. He was there, he said, to gather information for his classes. Is an individual in this country entitled to reasonable and effective health care? Apparently, some of his students are learning that their nation's answer is no.

"My students are shocked when they graduate and no longer qualify for their parents' health care plan," he told me. "They suddenly can't afford to go to a doctor because their jobs don't have health plans. Some can't get independent insurance because they have a pre-existing condition, like asthma or diabetes. This harsh reality really drives the whole health care debate home."

As a matter of ethics, is it incumbent upon a nation to take care of it's citizens? Or it is more ethical to enable them to take care of themselves?

Though these matters are certainly not clear-cut, I'd put Team Obama is in the first camp. Obama wants everyone in the country covered within three years of taking office. His administration would require that parents insure their children. As for Professor Kamer's students, they'd be allowed to stay on their parents' plan until they turned 25. Most employers would have to make a "meaningful" contribution to their employees health insurance whether it be by covering them or contributing to a public health plan. Individuals and business could purchase insurance through a national exchange. Applicants would be ensured coverage, despite any pre-existing condition. He'd pay for his program—an estimated $50-$60 billion—by allowing Bush's tax cuts for those making over $250,000 to expire.

Now, could this actually happen if Obama is elected?

Let's think: Health care is emerging as a First Hundred Days priority for the Dems—meaning, they'd try to get legislation passed during the Obama honeymoon period. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said she'd get it on the agenda and there's certainly those in the Senate (er, Hillary Rodham Clinton?) who would take up the cause. Now, if the Democrats still hold their majority in November's Congressional races, or if they increase it, health care will likely be a hot topic come January (barring a hideous development overseas or on Wall Street). Details of a plan would be hashed out by approximately 67,000 interested and affected parties (members of Congress, lobbyists representing doctors, hospitals, unions, insurance companies, on and on and on) and then subjected to all the legislators on the Hill who would probably want their own two-cents in the final wording.

Now, if Senator McCain is elected, the scenario changes completely. McCain's plan would provide tax incentives for people (a $2,500 tax credit for individuals/$5,000 for couples) to buy health insurance, with that tax credit paid for by the federal government. When purchasing insurance, people would have more options, like buying from out-of-state companies. If the selected policy was cheaper than their credit, the remaining money could go into a health savings account. Is there the political will in Congress to pass a Republican plan? Remember, the Republicans won't have the majority unless they gain seats in the House and Senate. That means one thing: Compromise. Big TIme. I wouldn't even try and predict what a final bill might look like. (Maybe this is a job for the Loose Cannon!)

So while the presidential campaign plays itself out, think about what Professor Kammer's students will be grappling with this semester. What ethical responsibilities does our government have for the nation's health care? Then, go a step further and ask yourself the best way to get it done.

For more details on each candidate's health plan, go to the extremely helpful National Journal website.

Keeping Hillary’s Dream Alive

Carl M. Cannon — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:31:00 GMT

Everybody in American journalism is offering their thoughts on how Hillary Rodham Clinton did in her big speech tonight, so why not Loose Cannon? I was there, on the floor as she spoke, and my impressions are as follows:

First, this was a political speech. That’s hardly a bad thing—this is a political convention. What I mean is that Senator Clinton, who, as every sentient being in the United States must know by now, wanted to be delivering a different kind of address on a different night, namely Thursday. When that didn’t happen, other things fell into place. Team Clinton insisted on a prime time slot for Hillary. She got that. Team Obama insisted on a speech in which she emphatically endorsed Barack. They got that.

The whispered speculation in Denver this week has been that Hillary (and Bill) really want Obama to lose in November so she can run again in 2012. That plan won’t work if the Clintons are blamed for an Obama loss, so they have to go through the motions—or so the chatter went. It seemed to me that Hillary met this standard tonight, surpassed it, really. Compare her performance to that of Edward Kennedy in 1980. Caught in a similar situation at the Democratic convention in New York that year, Kennedy barely mentioned the name of his rival, Jimmy Carter—he did so once, and did not ask people to vote for him—and Carter just so happened to be an incumbent Democratic president. So if Teddy reprised himself Monday night, Hillary reprised him, too, and was more gracious than Kennedy was those many years ago. Perhaps her dream is to become the kind of force in the Senate that Ted Kennedy has been—as he did Monday night, she stressed universal health care. In fact, she said she "couldn't wait to watch Barack Obama sign a health care plan into law..." Or perhaps she really does harbor ambitions to run again in four years. She’s certainly entitled to her private plans, and her hopes.

As tonight’s speech ended, and the crowd applauded deliriously, I noticed Harold Ickes, Hillary (and Bill’s) über-loyal aide gazing up at the podium. Ickes had watched the entire speech while standing in the middle of the hall. He had the air of a man who was sad for what might have been, but who was nonetheless secure in the knowledge that he himself had done everything humanly possible to achieve a different result.

“She met every expectation of her supporters,” Ickes told me. “She certainly met every expectation of Barack Obama’s supporters. She fulfilled her promise as a presidential candidate. That’s why she ran. It was a great speech.”

Believe me, most of the Democrats in the hall tonight would agree with that assessment. I do myself, up to a point. There was, as there has been since Obama clinched the nomination in May, a grudging manner about Senator Clinton when she talks about the young nominee from her home state of Illinois. She said tonight that John McCain was her “friend,” even as she excoriated his polities and his candidacy. She didn't talk this way about Obama. For one thing, she neglected to say that she thought he was qualified for the presidency. Hillary told the delegates it was important they work for Barack Obama’s election. She just never quite said that she liked him. Perhaps that is asking too much.

It IS Brain Surgery

Julie Bain — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:28:00 GMT

Ted Kennedy surprised the convention crowd Monday night by standing and delivering a vigorous speech despite battling a fast-growing form of brain tumor called a glioblastoma multiforme. He’ll always be remembered for his appearance there, and no doubt his courageous fight will increase awareness and the search for a cure for this deadly disease that’s diagnosed in about 9,000 people in the US each year.

A Bomb in the Brain

Last Wednesday, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Democrat from Ohio, died of a cerebral hemorrhage after an aneurysm in her brain ruptured while she was driving. Just three days later, Obama announced Joe Biden (below, right) as his running mate, and news reports reminded us that a decade ago, Biden was diagnosed with not one, but two, brain aneurysms. He underwent two surgeries to place a titanium clip on the weak bulging spots so they wouldn’t rupture. He was lucky; his aneurysms were identified before they could blow.

REUTERS/John Gress/Files (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)

Scary as they sound, brain aneurysms are surprisingly common. The Brain Aneurysm Foundation estimates that as many as 6 million people in the US have one, and most people never even know it. But about 25,000 of those rupture each year, and half of the victims die within minutes. Those who survive can have severe brain damage.

Who Gets Aneurysms?

No one knows for sure why some people develop aneurysms, says Philip M. Meyers, MD. He’s an interventional neuroradiologist (that means he does brain surgery, but from the inside) at Columbia University Medical Center in New York City, where he sees hundreds of cases a year. Women get them more than men, he says, and smokers have a higher risk. Some experts believe that high blood pressure may contribute, too, as well as certain disorders, such as polycystic kidney disease, neurofibromatosis, and a number of other relatively rare conditions. Anyone who’s had one aneurysm, like Biden, is at risk for another, so he should be followed by a doctor for this possibility, says Dr. Meyers.

There’s no cost-effective way to screen for aneurysms in the general population, though, as they rarely cause symptoms before they rupture and may be relatively quick to form. But if even a little blood does leak out of one, it will cause severe pain or pressure in the head, neck stiffness, and sensitivity to light. “The worst headache of your life,” is the way Dr. Meyers’ patients usually describe it.

Surgery from the Inside

Aneurysms can be treated with titanium clips like Biden has, or with a newer minimally invasive technique, which Dr. Meyers does, in which he inserts tiny platinum coils into the bulge in the artery from a microcatheter threaded from the leg all the way up into the brain. The coils seal off the aneurysm, allowing any remaining blood to clot and eventually become a scar. This effectively treats the aneurysm without conventional head-opening surgery and prevents rupturing. A study in The Lancet a few years ago found that patient survival at one year was significantly higher among those who’d had the coiling technique than with those who had the clipping surgery.

Dr. Meyers says there are potential risks with either procedure, and aneurysm patients should consult a specialist on which is best for them. For example, conventional surgery for clipping of an aneurysm in certain areas of the brain could result in minor brain damage, such as personality changes.

“Wow, then could that explain some of the dumb things Biden says?” I blurted out, thinking of the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy” gaffe, as well as the recent “Barack America” announcement.

Dr. Meyers replied, “I think that could explain it.” I’m not sure if he was serious. I mean, we all misspeak at times, or say things before we have time to filter them appropriately. What’s my excuse? Not brain surgery!

PS: Of course, Democrats aren't the only ones who've had to deal with brain problems recently. As we wrote in our article this month on the dangers of stopping your medications early, Cindy McCain suffered a stroke after she stopped taking her blood pressure pills four years ago. She's lucky, too, as she recovered, although she still has some short-term memory loss and some difficulty with her right hand.

Finding a Happy Medium

Carol Kaufmann — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:32:00 GMT

I'm beginning to sense an Us vs. Them vibe at the Democratic National Convention here in Denver. It's not between the Obama and Hillary camps. It's not between the Denver residents and tourists. It's not even between the overwhelming police presence and those of us trying to navigate the crowded Mile-High streets. No, this tension is mostly philosophical. It's between 'the Media'...the Old and the New.

A police unit patrols Denver's crowded streets.

Perhaps the tension is more apparent, visceral even, because we're all crammed into one city for a week. Since the last presidential election in 2004, newspapers and news agencies have eliminated staff or shut down. Network news bureaus and magazines have downsized or closed. At the same time, new technologies and those using them have never been more important in an election season. Think of how much has changed in the last four years: Founded in 2005, YouTube didn't exist in the last election. The pervasive site now broadcasts candidate's speeches and attack ads to millions—literally—of viewers. Facebook, My Space, and other social networking sites were hardly the force they are now. More than 70,000 blogs did not coat the Internet. MoveOn.org was not yet a true force for mobilizing voters.

Since Team Obama has been the first political campaign to successfully harness the energies—and probably the votes—of the Millennials using new media, I thought attending a session sponsored by the College Democrats on New Media might prove insightful. After all, I'm a solid Gen-Xer (folks 28-43), a relatively new blogger, and highly curious about what the "kids" are up to these days. It was in this panel I caught the whiff of stress. Well, more like waves.

While many Americans are scrambling to learn the operating procedures of Facebook and Digg, and find out what an RSS feed is, the Millennials have moved way past that. "We haven't had to modify our behavior to fit in online," says Frank Chi, the out-going Communications Director of the College Democrats who works in a political consulting firm in Washington, D.C and moderated the panel. "We've grown up with it."

One myth the group quickly dispelled is the short attention spans of the young. "The average time spent on Facebook is 21 minutes. That's an advertiser's dream," says Chi. Millennials also absorb information differently, often digesting pieces nearly simultaneously. "We're really consuming short chunks and determining what to use later," says Julie Germany, the Director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University.

The wind got stronger. Why doesn't the media recognize our legitimacy and speak our language? they seem to think. "It's frustrating how press secretaries give scoops to reporters they've known for a while. Why don't they give them to progressive media outlets?" says Tracy Russo, of Russo Strategies, an online media strategy firm. "If news broke in blogs, people would have to read blogs."

True, I thought, but scoops that break news are not an everyday occurance. They take a lot of work on the part of the scoop-ee. Not just a matter of eyeballs, it's also a matter of building trust with the people on whom you are reporting. And let's not forget traditional media--radio, television, newspapers--still command many more eyes and ears that few in the blogosphere can.

Is this Us. vs. Them mentality temporary? "The Old Media is shedding its skin and adopting the best tactics of the New," says Rob Anderson, Editor of Campus Progress. "One day, maybe the Old will be doing it better than the New." Danny Shea, the media editor for the Huffington Post: "But the New Media hasn't figured out the business model. People are throwing things on the wall and seeing what sticks." Frank Chi thinks many of the blogs posted today just won't stick. "Ultimately, it's going to be about quality and the people who really have something to say."

Hopefully, the best will stick. And maybe the Old Media will learn to take a few hints from their modern colleagues. This was a theme echoed in the Big Tent, a semi air-conditioned, two-story 8,000 foot nylon structure where credentialed bloggers work and Democratic luminaries come to speak. Arianna Huffington, Creator and Editor-in-Chief of The Huffington Post, threw out a challenge to the media establishment. "The Old Media considers their job to present all sides, not necessarily the truth. But sometimes the truth is clearly on one side." She cited the overwhelming evidence of global warming as a primary example. "Yet the media gives the few critics there are equal time. That's not journalism."

Former U.S. Rep. David Bonior, Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage and Huffington Post co-founder, Arianna Huffington speak under The Big Tent, central command for some 500 bloggers at the Democratic National Convention.

Ms. Huffington's comment raises a bigger question. Are all those writing prolifically in the Blogosphere even in pursuit of quality reporting and opinion? And will the blogs that lack authors willing to do the hard work of sythesizing all the voices speaking survive? Integrity in the written word shouldn't be considered Old School, but the minimal standard.

Like many of my GenXer counterparts, I straddle both Old and New, and not always successfully. With one foot rooted in journalistic practice and another in the Facebook era, I try to embrace what is our reality without losing the principles I wholeheartedly embrace. This isn't an easy job, I know, when time, family commitments, other work pressures, and basic inexperience with new technology threaten your creation. But hopefully, the best of us can learn to adopt pieces of the others' craft and begin to produce stories of a quality, and a reach, that have never been seen before.

Bruce Springsteen in Denver?

Carl M. Cannon — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:22:00 GMT

Emboldened by the fact that the rumors about Ted Kennedy appearing in Denver proved correct, Loose Cannon is going out on a limb this morning: I have a feeling that Bruce Springsteen will make a surprise appearance here at Invesco Field on Thursday night on Barack Obama’s big night.

I wrote that paragraph above last night, based on…well a gut feeling—and planned to post about it on this blog today. Well, I still am posting, but now I have company: This morning, the Rocky Mountain News, a good local daily newspaper here in the Mile High City, is reporting that its sources say Bruce and rocker Bon Jovi are both planning surprise Thursday gigs at Invesco to celebrate the Democratic nominee. The Washington Post says no way that’s happening. So let’s weigh the evidence—scant as it is.

First, a caveat: Loose Cannon doesn’t know from Bon Jovi, but I’m a pretty strong fan of Springsteen's music, and while not a bona fide Bruceologist, I follow what “the Boss” and his band are up to. So, I’m possibly not being objective here. And yes, a good journalist is supposed to be dispassionate, and to stick to facts, not feelings. But stay with me a minute. What do we know about Springsteen and Obama?

Let’s start with the most recent bit of tea leaf reading, er, evidence: When Joe Biden was trotted out on Saturday in Springfield, Illinois, the music that Camp Obama ginned up for the Delaware senator's appearance was The Rising, by Springsteen and his E Street band. Not dispositive in itself, no, but maybe Biden was secretly humming Bruce’s classic hit Born in the U.S.A. when he slipped up and called Obama “Barack America.”

In a more serious vein, Springsteen, who has long been a liberal Democrat, worked hard for John Kerry four years ago, speaking on his behalf and playing music at Kerry rallies. This time, in 2008, Bruce felt so strongly in favor of Obama that he formally endorsed him in the primaries, issuing a statement that simultaneously revealed a powerful and idealistic affinity for Obama—as well as revulsion at some of the tactics of the Clinton campaign.

Want something more concrete? Well, since mid-August, Springsteen and the E Street Band have been playing concerts every other day or so. They played in Richmond, Virginia. on Monday August 18. They played in Hershey, Pennsylvania. the night after that; Nashville, Tennessee on August 21, St. Louis on the 23^rd and Kansas City the following night the 24th as the convention was opening in Denver.

An old acquaintance from my days as a college student in Colorado went backstage at one of the Missouri concerts, and asked Bruce and the E Streeters straight up about coming to the convention. They insisted that Denver wasn’t happening. But Loose Cannon notes that the band is not scheduled to play again until Sunday night August 30 in Milwaukee. Plenty of time for a side trip to the city rising out of the plains at the foot of the Rocky Mountains and the coronation of a young Democrat who is beloved by Bruce and his gang. Or, perhaps, all wishful thinking on my part. But, as the man says in his songs, it ain't no sin to be glad you’re alive….

Michelle

Carol Kaufmann — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:13:00 GMT

Part of the reason I love writing a blog is that I get to step slightly outside my reporter's realm and talk directly to people. My political leanings will always be a secret, but I am an avid follow of poltical life—and political people, love 'em or hate 'em, are fascinating. Another has entered that sphere in a big way: Mrs. Michelle Obama, the Democratic candidate's greatest asset.

Preceded by a moving video tribute narrated by her mother that highlighted the family's hard-scrabble roots and her big brother's warm introduction, the elegant— beautiful even—Mrs. Obama in emerald, delivered a rousing, emotional send-up for her husband. The boisterous hall, full of delegates, press, and special guests who'd braved the hours-long lines to enter the building, all fell silent.

Here, it would be so simple to slip back into reporter-mode and analyze the appeal she made to working class voters the Democrats need to win, but I'll leave that to others. I'll just speak as a woman. It was clear to this mother that the heart of that woman's life is her children and the man who she is still ridiculously in love with. Her controlled, confident demeanor wavered slightly when she told a story of her husband driving her first-born, Malia, home from the hospital ten years ago and how he kept looking back every so often. Haven't many of us seen that same picture? My semi-controlled, sometimes-confident demeanor did more than waver and I wasn't even speaking. Michelle Obama then brought her adorable girls on stage to speak to their father via satellite from Kansas City accompanied by riffs of Stevie Wonder's "Isn't She Lovely" and 7-year-old Sasha Obama's smile that lacked a few teeth.

I can't remember the last time I was genuinely moved by a political speech (I didn't see Sen. Ted Kennedy's because of the aforementioned insufferable line) but Miss Michelle successfully summoned that common thread that connects so many of us—that seering love we have for our family that both mystifies and grounds us. I don't doubt for a minute Mrs. Obama's words were from the heart.

Family Night in Denver

Carl M. Cannon — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:43:00 GMT

The Democrats tugged on our heartstrings tonight. Even rock-ribbed Republicans might have felt lumps in their throats when Caroline Kennedy gave a warm tribute to her ailing uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. For his part, “Uncle Teddy” did more than make the cameo that Denver Democrats had been hoping for. He delivered, as is his quadrennial custom, a passionate convention speech, riffing off his famous 1980 “the dream will never die” speech with a new signature line.

In his seven minute address, Ted Kennedy invoked his brother’s challenge to send a man to the moon, although his own crusade is not so prosaic: He vowed tonight to return to the Senate in 2009 and see to completion the enactment of federal legislation guaranteeing universal health care for all Americans. “John Kennedy didn’t say it’s too far to get there, we shouldn’t even try,” Senator Kennedy said. “Our people answered his call and rose to the challenge, and today an American flag still marks the surface of the moon. Yes, we are Americans. We reach for the moon. I know it. I’ve seen it. I’ve lived it. And we can do it again.”

If this was Ted Kennedy’s last hurrah at a convention, he certainly went out in style, and amid a flood of emotion and goodwill. Maria Shriver, the first lady of California, wept as her uncle spoke; so did thousands of people in the convention hall.

Kennedy's words, which followed a video tribute by Ken Burns, prompted chants from the floor of “Teddy! Teddy!” The biggest applause, however, came near the end of the speech when he used JFK’s imagery about passing the torch of leadership. “This November, the torch will be passed again to a new generation of Americans,” said the 76-year-old senator. “And so with Barack Obama—for you and for me, for our country and for our cause—the work begins anew, the hope rises again, and the dream lives on!”

A little while later, emotion of another kind was on display. Michelle Obama spoke evocatively about her mother, father, and brother—and her husband, and two daughters. The energy in the hall wasn’t at the same fever pitch as when Kennedy spoke, but the delegates listened rapturously as a tall, poised, and striking African-American woman spoke matter-of-factly about her husband. Her message was that Barack,despite his unconventional upbringing and exotic-sounding name, possesses the same bedrock values that Americans have always cherished: He took her for ice cream on their first date. He stresses hard work. His word is his bond. He cares about those who are less fortunate. He's a great dad.

They were powerful and carefully chosen words. But it was the visual image of the Obama girls—Sasha and Malia—who joined their mom onstage and then conversed with their father via satellite, that truly put the true emotional touches on Michelle Obama’s speech. Barack, apparently watching the convention from the living room of a hospitable Midwestern family, seemed confused about whether he was in St. Louis or Kansas City. A minor verbal gaffe, to be sure, and not nearly as strange as Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden calling him “Barack America” the other day. What most of these Denver Democrats want to call Obama, of course, is "Mr. President."

Tonight's events did not hurt their cause.

Kennedy Nostalgia

Carl M. Cannon — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:44:00 GMT

As the sun began descending in the western sky here, anticipation was building over two events on tonight’s schedule: The first was Michelle Obama’s prime time speech. The second was a hoped-for cameo by Senator Edward Kennedy. A planned surprise appearance by Kennedy, who is gravely ill, was the poorest-kept secret in Denver today. And a few minutes ago, excerpts of Caroline Kennedy’s upcoming remarks were distributed by the Democrats’ press office. Here they are:

“I am here tonight to pay tribute to two men who have changed my life, and the life of this country – Barack Obama, and Edward M. Kennedy. Their stories are very different, but they share a commitment to the timeless American ideals of justice and fairness, service and sacrifice, faith and family. Leaders like them come along rarely. But once or twice in a lifetime, they come along just when we need them the most.

“I have never had someone inspire me the way people tell me my father inspired them – but I do now. And I know someone else who’s been inspired all over again by Senator Obama.

“In our family, he’ll always be known as Uncle Teddy. More than any senator of his generation, or perhaps any generation, Teddy has made life better for people in this country and around the world. For 46 years, he has been so much more than just a senator for the people of Massachusetts—he’s been a senator for all who believe in a dream that’s never died."

These delegates—Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters alike—know that Caroline’s early endorsement of Barack Obama was one turning point in the Democrats’ long nominating contest. (Ted Kennedy quickly joined her as well). Until then, John F. Kennedy’s daughter had eschewed partisan politics for the most part. But her conviction that Obama’s appeal was reminiscent of her father’s galvanized her into action.

Tonight, her “dream that’s never died” line was a poignant reminder both of “Uncle Teddy’s” mortality and his 1980 convention speech in Madison Square Garden, an address remembered by Kennedy loyalists as one of the highlights of his political life. That long career is winding down finally, and even as Democrats prepare to unite around a young nominee from another time and place, Kennedy nostalgia is running high in Denver.

Smarter Than An Eighth Grader?

Carol Kaufmann — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:13:00 GMT

It's a day after the education summit in Denver at the Democratic National Convention and I'm still thinking about what Roy Romer said.

The former Colorado governor, who now heads the non-partisan education organization Strong American Schools hammered home the point that, while American school children used to receive a superior education, they are now far, far behind schoolchildren in many countries. He said that compared to students in 30 other industrialized nations, American 15-year-olds ranked 25th in math and 21st in science. America's top math students rank 25th out of 30 when compared with top students around the world.

Really? Is this true? Will my kids not be able to compete with French, Chinese, and Indian kids who will surely be vying for the same jobs when they enter the job market in a few decades? Will being an American actually be a disadvantage?

While exploring their website and reading Mr. Romer's blog, I stumbled into an irresistable quiz "Are You Smarter than an Eighth Grader?" that illustrates his point perfectly. The quiz tests your knowledge of math and science againt kids in 46 other countries around the world. For a big reality check, take it. I dare you. Have your eighth (ninth, tenth,....) grader, co-worker, spouse, mother take it too. I'd be willing to bet you'll be surprised at the results.

For a broader challenge you can try the National Center for Educational Statistics' Kids' Zone site where you can select a subject (Civics, Geography, Economics, History, Math or Science), a grade (4th, 8th, 9th or 12th) and how many questions you want to see how you measure up against kids across the globe. I couldn't resist the challenge.

Such questions include: (Answers below)

Question 1: In the equation y = 4x, if the value of x is increased by 2, what is the effect on the value of y ?

a. It is 8 more than the original amount. b. It is 6 more than the original amount. c. It is 2 more than the original amount. d. It is 16 times the original amount.
e. It is 8 times the original amount.

QUESTION 2: Amanda wants to paint each face of a cube a different color. How many colors will she need? a. Three b. Four c. Six d. Eight

QUESTION 3: When the warm ocean current El Niño replaces the cooler Peruvian, or Humboldt, current along the coast of Peru, the supplies of anchovies on which sea birds feed decrease. As a result, the number of sea birds roosting on the coastal islands decreases. The passage describes the effect of El Niño on Peru's ...
a. wind currents b. weather c. ecosystem d. coastal erosion

QUESTION 4: Many people opposed ratification of the Constitution without a bill of rights because they

a. were afraid the states would be too powerful without a bill of rights b. thought that a bill of rights would strengthen the President's power c. did not want the national government to have an army d. feared that the new national government would deny people their rights

QUESTION 5: One major consequence of the Seven Years' War (French and Indian War) was that the
a. colonists’ decision to side with France led Britain to retaliate against them b. expense of fighting the war led Britain to tax the colonies directly for the first time c. loyalty of the colonists to the British side led Britain to grant them a high degree of self-government d. elimination of the French threat in North America led Britain to concentrate on conquering all of the remaining Spanish colonies

Whether you think the questions difficult or if you aced the quiz, it's revealing that kids in U.S. schools often can't figure out the answers while many, many school children in other countries can. Quizzes like these illustrate that many of us have work to do. (I admit doing an internet search for a couple of these.) After all, how can we teach our children if we don't the answers ourselves?

ANSWERS: A, C, C, D, B

Conventioneering a Mile High

Carl M. Cannon — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:40:00 GMT

When you get several thousand journalists together and try to spoon feed them the same story line, molehills quickly become mini-mountains, which is fitting enough here in the famous city at the foot of the Rockies. The media flutter in Denver this morning concerns (who else?) the Clintons.

Hillary Clinton, her camp has said, will release her pledged delegates to vote their conscience in Wednesday’s roll call. But what does that mean, really? Team Obama is in a tough spot: Steamrolling Hillary by orchestrating huge defections from her bloc of delegates might embarrass her and, in turn, make the Clinton loyalists angry. That's not the story line Obama wants coming out of here. On the other hand, a roll call vote that is too close risks making Barack Obama look weak at his own coronation. Oh, and Camp Clinton says that Obama must praise Bill Clinton to the skies when Obama speaks Thursday night. Sensing an opening, John McCain's campaign produced an ad aimed at Hillary's disaffected voters. Senator Clinton fired back quickly, essentially saying: This is an intramural fight, John, stay out of it.

Bill Clinton is also purportedly dissatisfied with his homework assignment. Specifically, he has been asked to focus his prime-time Wednesday speech on national security. But Bill, according to various mini-leaks, wants to talk about the economy. Alas, the theme that night is “Securing America’s Future.” Is that his strong suit? Clinton, as an ex-president, has repeatedly bristled when asked why his administration didn’t do more to confront al-Qaeda. Clinton himself has expressed remorse over his failure to intercede in Rwanda’s genocide. So yes, he’d rather talk about the 22 million jobs created by the U.S. economy under his watch, along with numerous other positive benchmarks in domestic policy. My bet is that he manages to work them into his speech regardless of the assigned topic.

Speaking of Democratic Party lions, the delegates on the floor—and those of you watching at home—will see a video tribute to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy tonight. Documentarian Ken Burns had a hand in the eight-minute film. Kennedy, diagnosed in May with an inoperable brain tumor, also pre-recorded some words of his own to show to the convention, although the hope always was that he could attend in person. That desire may be realized: Kennedy has been spotted in Denver, and many Democrats pray that he is healthy enough to appear tonight at what may be his last hurrah. I would like to see him there, too.

By the way, the featured orator tonight is Michelle Obama. Other speakers include Michelle’s brother, college basketball coach Craig Robinson; former president Jimmy Carter; Denver mayor and Democratic Party up-and-comer John W. Hickenlooper; and House speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose interview with Reader's Digest earlier this year, you can find here.

Education Overhaul?

Carol Kaufmann — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:24:00 GMT

August 24, 2008--Something is brewing here in Denver. A day before the Democratic National Convention officially begins, a collection of proven education reformers have come together in the Denver Art Museum for the purpose of outlining a strategy for the Obama campaign. Their mission: To submit a letter with concrete details that they believe will provide the best chance for drastic educational reform in the United States. What is inspiring about this group is that their words hold genuine hope.

Among them, are those who've taken on the educational establishment of urban public school systems. Here's Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of DC Public Schools who's shaken the long-failing school system across the river from me to the core. There's Joel Klein, the Chancellor of New York City Schools, and Michael Bennet, the Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, and Cory Booker, the Mayor of Newark--all places where schools have been turned upside down. Then, there are those with proven track records of turning around underperforming schools and producing students ready to compete in the world: Don Shalvey of Aspire Public Schools and John King of Uncommon Schools, lead charter school companies on each coast that are getting results.

People unafraid of ruffling feathers that have lain in place for years are beginning a dialogue. "Sometimes change involves breaking some china and making enemies," says Joe Williams of Democrats for Educational Reform. Are these the stirrings of a mass reform in education? Or at least bold language in the Democrat's platform?

The speakers talk about the pressure from the educational establishment not to change. They talk about the idea of comparing students from the United States to those of other countries—and how American students have steadily fallen behind in every category that would make them competitive with their international counterparts. They discuss rewarding teachers for boosting their students' achievements, not for length of tenure. Perhaps most importantly, they acknowledge that while action happens at the local level, they need bold leadership in Washington to support their actions. They need their president to make superior education standards in the United States a top priority. And, repeatedly, this group says, in various ways, that they could not have come together four years ago, that conditions weren't right for them to meet in such a way.

Are these the stirrings of real educational reform in this country? Education has been mysteriously underplayed on the campaign trail. This group of reformers is putting together a letter for the Obama campaign with specific details about what it would take for real reform in the U.S.

You have my attention. I'm listening.

A Vaccine Controversy Continues

Julie Bain — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:06:00 GMT

Between the relay races and table tennis triumphs last week, there was some news coverage about the HPV vaccine. A study came out last Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine that looked at the economic impact of vaccinating young girls and women from the types of HPV virus that can cause cervical cancer.

Newsweek ran an informative Q and A with one of the study authors about who should get the vaccine and when. The New York Times did a big story, too, which I thought displayed a bit of bias in the disapproving tone of its headline: Researchers Question Wide Use of HPV Vaccines.

I called Maura Gillison, MD, a researcher at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and one of the top experts on HPV, for her perspective. She said, “For those of us in the field, this study is not really new information. It is known that the HPV vaccine doesn’t have an impact on young women who have already been infected by the HPV types targeted by the vaccine (HPV6, 11, 16, and 18).”

While it was possible to measure a girl’s previous exposure to HPV in the study lab, it’s not possible in a medical clinic, she says. That’s why it’s not as cost-effective to give the vaccine to women who are already sexually active.

Still, she says, “only 4% of the 16- to 26-year-old women who were enrolled in the vaccine trials had evidence of exposure to all four HPV types targeted by the vaccine. So a young woman already infected by HPV6, for example, would still benefit from vaccination to prevent HPV infection by HPV 11, 16, and 18. But the older the woman, the higher the probability that she has been exposed to more of the virus types."

So the bottom line, according to Dr. Gillison: “You get more bang for your buck by targeting vaccination to younger girls, before the onset of sexual behavior. It makes more sense, in terms of the overall cost and the overall impact of the vaccine for cancer prevention, to spend the health-care dollars to vaccinate a higher proportion of young women, than to extend vaccination to older women.”

The vaccine needs further study before researchers will know for sure how long immunity lasts and whether a booster shot may be needed, and when. The big question of the study was: Is the cost of vaccinating millions of girls worth the number of lives saved? Economic policy is one thing, but all any individual can answer is, “If it’s my daughter whose life is saved, the answer is yes.” By the way, Dr. Gillison has two very young daughters, and she says she plans to have them vaccinated.

But What About the Boys?

Some 20 million Americans are infected with the virus, including a high percentage of teenagers. And we know that the virus is easily spread through any kind of sexual contact, including oral sex. I’ve asked it before and I’ll ask it again: Why are we only talking about girls here?

Cervical cancer is not the only life-threatening hazard of the HPV virus. Oral cancer from the virus is on the rise, as we wrote about in A Father’s Brave Battle with Throat Cancer in the August issue.

"We don't know yet if the vaccine protects against genital infection in boys or against oral infection in boys or girls," Dr. Gillison says. "I'm doing all I can to see that such studies are done." In the absence of such studies, she says, we'll only know if the vaccine helps to prevent oral infection 20 to 30 years from now, if the rapid rise in HPV-related oral cancers switches directions and starts to decline.

I don’t want to see anyone suffer the way I saw Steve Reynolds, the subject of our story, suffer during and after his treatment. Last Wednesday, the day the vaccine study came out, Steve was in the hospital having a PET scan to see if any cancer cells have returned in the year since he completed his radiation and chemo. Then he and his wife and their 4-year-old son headed to Cape Cod for their annual vacation. He won’t have the results until he returns. Waiting and worrying means more suffering for him and his family. We need to find a way to prevent this cancer, too—in all people.

Joe Biden, Mr. Inside

Carl M. Cannon — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:24:00 GMT

Barack Obama, freshman senator from Illinois, is a Washington outsider, if for no other reason because he hasn’t been here very long. Joe Biden, thus, makes sense as Obama’s vice presidential nominee. Loose Cannon believed Evan Bayh was a good choice, and made (I thought) a persuasive case for him. Alas, Barack must not read this blog. I will try and change that. In the meantime, a word or two about the senior senator from Delaware.

Joseph R. Biden Jr. is a windbag. He’s known for giving Fidel Castro-length speeches at the drop of a hat, in public and in private. At a small lunch a year ago with yours truly and a handful of others, Biden gave a 30-minute answer to the first question as his food was served, and then cooled in front of him without seeming to take a breath, let alone a bite of his meal. We were awed, actually. But in that torrent of verbiage that accompanies Biden wherever he goes are some words that are, well, something less than pearls of wisdom. These less-than-pearls includes the oddly out-of-fashion ethnic stereotype. It's almost refreshing—almost.

Joe Biden is also a charming man, who will look you in the eye, grab your shoulder while he talks to you; all energy and passion and humor, and old-fashioned patriotism. He’s indefatigable and hard-working, and manages to come across in person as being cerebral and emotional at the same time. In other words, his heart and his head don’t always agree—and neither ever seems to get the best of the other. He also has a political attack-dog side to him that I imagine Camp Obama will want to unleash, so as to keep The One above the fray. This is a well-traveled path for Veep candidates, so we shouldn’t act too shocked when Biden starts barking at the Republicans.

In 1988, the first Biden presidential campaign was derailed when it was revealed that his autobiographical stump speech had been appropriated, in some sections, word-for-word, from the main speech of Neil Kinnock, a Welsh politician in Britain’s Labour Party. This led to a media feeding frenzy showing that Biden had done the same thing with other politicians; and he was even accused of plagiarism while in law school. Biden dropped out of that race, but stayed in the Senate, and ran again, 20 years later. This time around, he ran a sober and thoughtful campaign, but in 2008 none of the rest of the Democratic field—a pretty solid bunch—had much of a chance against the dynamic duo of Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yet Biden established himself in the many primary season debates as a serious thinker on foreign policy, which is historically a vulnerable zone for Democrats.

His famous mouth got him in trouble only once, ironically concerning Obama himself: “You got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said in an interview. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” This comment induced a mini-furor from those who considered Biden’s choice of words racially insensitive. This was an unfair criticism, and to Obama’s credit, he didn’t jump on the scrum to bury Biden.

In hindsight, what Obama did say in response to Biden’s minor gaffe was instructive: “I didn’t take Senator Biden’s comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate,” said the O-man. “African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate.”

Obama didn’t feign offense for cheap political gain. But he did defend black presidential candidates who had preceded him. Then he selected Biden as his running mate, Mr. Outside and Mr. Inside. All in all, a pretty impressive ticket. Now it’s your turn, Senator McCain.

Which Books To Bring on Vacation? A Personal Dilemma (and Final List of the Summer)

Maureen Mackey — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:17:00 GMT

All right, now this is tough. I have to make some hard decisions here.

I have to get serious.

There is only so much room in the bags I'm packing for the books I want to bring on vacation. What do I do?

I'm not used to these restrictions. I'm used to slinging 20 bookbags over my shoulders, lugging them all to the car (chipping a bone or two on the way), dumping everything out at home, poring through it all, and then lugging the whole stash back to the office the next day, where there's somehow a brand new batch waiting to be read.

But restrictions are restrictions, and this is vacation, after all.

1. So do I bring Billie Jean King's new memoir about her "battle of the sexes" against Bobbie Riggs all those years ago, and everything she was up against as she fought for the rights of women athletes? I've started her book, Pressure is a Privilege; I'm intrigued. I like her voice. I think she's an amazing individual. I'd like to know more. I have a good feeling I will like the rest of what's here. (I rowed women's crew in college, at least for a little while, so I'm aware of, and I'm grateful for, how Billie Jean impacted the scholarships, coaches, equipment and facilities we had then and now.)

2. Or do I bring Sue Miller's latest novel, The Senator's Wife, with me? I love Sue Miller's writing. A person can get lost in the nuance of her language, in her langurous description of people and places and the personal dilemmas that consume them. I've started the book. It's wonderful. It needs time, lots of time—time on a breezy deck or a gorgeous patch of grass, with the lazy sounds of summer all around. (I may have that. And again, I may not. You've been on family vacations?)

3. Or here's an idea. I can lug A Splintered History of Wood by Spike Carlsen with me. I've dipped in, and what I've read suggests beautiful, lively writing. It's oddly compelling to me that someone "has been immersed in the world of wood and woodworking for more than 30 years," and that this author is going to explain to a non-woodworking individual like me just how baseball bats, golf tees, kites and whatnot are made, and by whom, and where. I'm sure I will like the book. I'm sure my sons will. It will be a great book for us to share together -- a great book to have read.

4. Or, I will take Dry Storeroom No. 1: The Secret Life of the Natural History Museum by Richard Fortey with me. I adore museums. I want to know more. When I lived and worked in London I visited most of the great museums there (when I wasn't spending my last dollar at the theater), so this book will take me back intimately. I am sure of it.

5. Or, I can hunt and peck my way through Why Don't Woodpeckers Get Headaches? by Mike O'Connor. It presents cool bird factoids in a light, fun way, with oddball anecdotes and a Q&A format. I will finally learn more about not only woodpeckers but all the vireos, hummingbirds, cardinals and chickadees that attack the feeders on our deck every morning. (But I am not a birder.)

6. Or, I can bring Annie Proulx's new collection of stories along, Fine Just the Way It Is. She is a fine, fine writer. This would be fine.

I also have some incredibly tempting manuscripts sitting here that could be easily carted along: Ted Turner's big new book (coming out this fall); Lee Woodruff's next book (publishing in spring 2009); Lynn Goldberg's new book (early 2009); and several tantalizing others.

So it's truly a tough call. Space is limited. Time is short. And summer is nearly gone.

I know I'll bring something. That much is for sure.

I just won't know until the car pulls away and I see how much room we have. (Or how the mood strikes.)

In the meantime, happy reading!

(I'll let you know how it goes.)

Loose Cannon Talks Back

Carl M. Cannon — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:31:00 GMT

Fans of this blog know a couple of three things:

(a) Blogging is a fairly recent undertaking for Reader’s Digest, so some days it feels as though we are still getting this big dirigible off the ground.

(b) My fixation is to be fair to all—just as when I’m wearing my “old media” hat.

(c) We’re striving for a civil conversation, even if we’re in the near-anonymous blogosphere where good manners aren’t always the currency.

I think we’re off to a good start, although I haven’t kept up my end of the bargain completely: Some of you have been commenting, but I haven’t been responding. I’ll do that today, in this post, and try to keep the discussion moving better in the future—starting Sunday in Denver at the Democratic National Convention.

To OLD JOE, who posts his comments in capital letters: I don’t know how old you actually are, but you’re my most faithful commenter, so keep ’em coming. And Truman: welcome to the Loose Cannon blog. Truman, who lives in Westchester County, N.Y., is only 9 years old, folks, and won't be able to vote in the 2016 election unless the voting age is lowered to 17—yet he's following the 2008 campaign closely. That young dude gives me hope for the future.

“Fuzzyboy” wrote recently that the Russian troops in Georgia remind him of why seasoned Senator Joe Biden makes a logical running mate for Senator Obama. I agree, but… Jim Webb, Sam Nunn, and my pick Evan Bayh all have foreign policy experience, too. So do Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. And Hillary Clinton. As for Fuzzy’s question (on the Republican side) about whether anti-Mormon bias on the part of conservative evangelicals will doom Mitt Romney’s candidacy, here’s my answer: I doubt it. John McCain doesn’t strike me as a person who would use the doctrinal tenets of a politician’s religious denomination against him. In fact, the only ones who have raised objections to Romney’s religion in my presence are secular liberals, often fellow journalists.

“EIC Peggy” noted the stark difference in Obama's and McCain’s answer to Pastor Rick Warren’s question about dealing with evil in the world. At Saddleback Church, those in attendance found McCain’s rousing reply more inspiring, as did many commentators, but I would also say that Obama’s more calibrated answer plays to his appeal as well—as a thoughtful leader who won’t rush into war. Which reminds me: “Ronnk” accused me of being “just another…Obamanaut.” This comment prompted “sdiego” to come to my defense, but I took ronnk’s critique seriously enough to re-read my post from Saddleback. Having done so, my reaction is that, in a campaign year in which so much of the mainstream media have often come across as blatantly partisan in favor of Obama, I’m a little surprised to be singled out in this way. Yet, as ronnk points out, tone is important, and I don’t mind having mine scrutinized. So I’ll say this to ronnk, and to everyone else: Thanks for reading the blog, and keep posting your comments.

Finding Answers—and Common Ground—at the Political Conventions

Carol Kaufmann — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:15:00 GMT

For the next two weeks I'll be in Denver to observe the Democrats official coronation of Barack Obama and in St. Paul while the Republicans anoint John McCain. The political conventions are a dream for a reporter with my beat, National Affairs. Decision-makers and policy experts from all over the country converge in one place. Part of their raison d'etre is to get their agenda in the party's platform. They'd also like to get some face time with the vice-presidential candidate since the announcement will be hot off the presses when they arrive. But they also come because they're political animals--and this event, which happens only every four years, is their Olympics.

With their adrenaline running high--and talking points in full gear--they'll also be chatting up people like me. So...I have a mission.

I want to what how an Obama administration and a McCain administration would do—really do—about education in the United States. I want to know if either has a real plan to make sure all Americans have reasonable and affordable health insurance. I also want to know how each party would take care of the earth and all that lives on it so it will be in fairly good condition for my kids, who are very small.

I don't necessarily want to hear their overall philosophies—those are outlined perfectly well on their websites. Rather, I want to know how their ideas transfer into policy. Real and realistic policy. Whoever wins this election—and it's truly a toss-up at this point—one of them will have to govern and work with many who voted for the other guy. The one very practical question on my mind as I roam the convention centers these next two weeks: Where is the common ground?

As I'm sure any parent knows, the world looks different and more than frightening when your mind is consumed with the well-being of little dependent people. So on behalf of all the kids who can't ask the questions, I'm going to find out what Camps Obama and McCain want the next four years to look like.

I'm also curious about what you'd like to know. If you send me your questions, I'll try and find out!

Clinton, Biden, Bayh—Oh My

Carl M. Cannon — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:22:00 GMT

With Barack Obama poised to choose his running mate by Saturday, the buzz in Washington political circles has settled on Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. I’m not sure why this is so, but Biden does seem to have a spring in his step, according to the media types trailing him out. A two-time presidential candidate himself, Biden is supposedly one of three finalists. They are not all wearing the pressure equally.

The three under consideration, says Washington’s dreaded (and often wrong) Conventional Wisdom are Biden, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh seems a bit nervous: Yesterday, one of his son's lacrosse equipment bags was hanging halfway out of Bayh's car, and was dragged about a block. Bayh, riding in the passenger's seat, opened the car door to free the bag—and then drove off without it. It was returned to him by the journalists following him. (Good thing it was helmets and pads in there instead of national security plans.) If you’ve been reading this blog, you know that Bayh is Loose Cannon’s own choice, not that Barack has deigned to consult me, and I’m sticking with him. By the way, here is an interesting link: It's a May 2 interview of Evan Bayh done by Linda Douglass of National Journal. Bayh, then still a Hillary Clinton supporter, touts his candidate, while Douglass probes him about Obama's controversial pastor and other issues. Today, Douglass, who left the news business soon thereafter, works on the Obama campaign as a senior communications official—while Bayh is under consideration as his running mate. "Strange bedfellows" is the adage that comes to mind.

For his part, Governor Kaine, according to the crack political team at MSNBC, is acting as though he considers himself lucky to be on the list at all. I agree with that assessment; in fact, I have trouble believing Kaine really is being considered. For my money, he makes less sense than another Virginian, Vietnam combat veteran and freshman Senator Jim Webb, and only marginally more sense than former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who is running for Senate this year. But it's difficult to discern the nominee's thinking when it comes to veep picks, especially when the staff is so intent on keeping a secret, and not offending huge swaths of supporters. Hillary Clinton’s, for instance. The Clintonistas certainly believe their heroine is a better fit as an Obama running mate than the three men supposedly under consideration—and is vastly more qualified than the other woman supposedly being vetted, Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

But you never know. In 1988, when George H.W. Bush chose youthful Indiana Senator Dan Quayle as his number two, he was picking the lesser qualified Republican senator from Quayle’s own state. Richard Lugar would have been a more logical choice for Bush that year. But who knows what lurks in the hearts of nominees? Guess we’ll find out today or tomorrow—Saturday at the latest.

Some Bad News About Vitamins

Julie Bain — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:26:00 GMT

I’m a skeptic and a curmudgeon when it comes to the benefits of taking vitamins and other supplements. If there’s good, solid evidence for it, I’ll tout it (as with vitamin D: see my recent blog about it; and I take fish oil every day). But there’s scant evidence for many vitamins that Americans spend millions on. We swallow far more than any other country—yet we’re not the healthiest folks by far, nor do we live the longest. We wrote about some of this in our cover story “The Vitamin Myth” in the November 2007 issue.

No Help for Your Heart

There’s more bad news for vitamins this week: Turns out that taking folic acid and vitamin B12 supplements doesn’t prevent heart attacks or death, according to a major new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It was hoped they would, since the vitamins do reduce levels of homocysteine, an amino acid that is higher in the blood of people who have a higher risk of heart disease. In fact, homocysteine was reduced 30 percent after one year of treatment in the participants who took both vitamins. But in the following three years, just as many vitamin takers died or had cardiac events as those who didn’t take the vitamins. Even worse, the study was stopped early because another similar study suggested that there may be an increased risk of cancer from taking B vitamins.

Sigh. We all want a magic pill that will help us live longer and stronger, don’t we? In my naïve youth, I thought if some vitamins were good, more must be better. And if they came from a health-food store and cost a lot, they must be really natural and healthy! I learned my lesson the hard way.

Bad for the Brain, Too?

I had been taking a health-food store monster multivitamin for months. Coincidentally, I had been experiencing some strange numbness in my legs that was starting to scare me. I remember sitting in a long meeting with my ankles crossed, and when I tried to stand up I crumpled on the floor and hit my chin on the glass coffee table because my leg had gone completely numb and worthless. As I sat there and shook my leg, I got that “pins and needles” feeling and soon was OK. But it scared me enough to make an appointment with a neurologist, who suggested an MRI to rule out multiple sclerosis, stroke, or a brain tumor. Oh, great. Waiting for the results was agonizing. (My heart goes out to anyone, anywhere, waiting for medical test results!) About a week later, I got an all clear.

I didn’t even think about the vitamins, or mention them to my doctor, till later, when I read that megadoses of B vitamins can cause neurological side effects. Sure enough, the label showed I was taking something like 6,000 times the recommended daily dose! Yikes. I stopped taking the vitamins immediately, and the numbness never returned.

While I'll never know for sure if the vitamins caused my problem, many, many studies have reminded us that pill forms of vitamins and minerals don’t provide the same benefit as getting them from food. There’s a lot we don’t know about how the human body works. Until we know more, I’m getting most of my vitamins from the farmer’s market.

McCain's Number Two

Carl M. Cannon — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:01:00 GMT

Today this blog will deliver on its previous promise to pick John McCain’s running mate this week. Or, to be precise, the promise to explain who makes the most sense as McCain’s vice presidential nominee, as I did a few days ago with Barack Obama. Envelope, please. And the winner is…

Mitt Romney…and Tim Pawlenty. Uh-oh. It’s a tie. How did this happen? Well, the two “winners” meet different criteria, and they make sense for different reasons. First, let’s ask ourselves: What does John McCain need? Or, rather, who helps him the most? McCain wouldn’t seem to have the gaps in his résumé that the Democratic nominee has to deal with, but has one obvious deficiency—and it’s a biggie: McCain lacks executive experience.

The GOP nominee was a mid-level naval officer, then a House member, later a Senator. Never served as a governor, never ran a big company, never was placed at the top of the management pyramid to run a big complicated organization, like say, the Olympics. Mitt Romney has done all that. Add to the mix that Romney is a legendary family man (he didn’t fool around on his wife before they were married), that he enjoys high name identification, and that he looks like the candidate from central casting. Most political experts believe Romney ran a poor primary campaign in 2008, and I agree. But it’s hard to run for that office successfully the first time. McCain himself couldn’t pull it off eight years ago. Which reminds me: Because McCain would be as old in his first term as Ronald Reagan was in his second, voters are going to look at whether his Number Two could step into the job if needed.

Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, helps McCain in a different way. Although not well known nationally, he enjoys a solid reputation among good-government types as chief executive of "The State that Works." Pawlenty would also enjoy broad and deep support from the Republican base because he fits the conservative litmus test on abortion and other social issues, unlike some of the names the McCain camp has floated in recent days. Pawlenty, who enjoys playing pick-up hockey, is vigorous and young—he turns 48 years old three weeks after the election—a fresh face in a political party that seems a bit tired. Not to Loose Cannon, mind you, but to the voters, only 27 percent of whom now self-identify as Republicans. Pawlenty, who grew up in working-class St. Paul, and is the first member of his family to go to college, could burnish the Republican brand and expand it's appeal.

So there you have it: Barack Obama and Evan Bayh vs. John McCain and Romney/Pawlenty. Now it’s up to the two nominees to ratify their wisdom by agreeing with the most courteous, bi-partisan, and insightful blog in cyberspace.