“While the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to win over Bernie Sanders voters have pushed the Biden campaign to embrace a more ambitious domestic agenda, little evidence indicates that the presumptive Democratic nominee is doing anything comparable on international affairs. That’s a pity, because America’s relationship with the world needs dramatic rethinking too…

“[The pandemic] offers Biden the chance to break out of the parameters established by his predecessors. As the national-security analysts Joseph Cirincione and William Hartung recently noted in The National Interest, the U.S. spends $740 billion a year on the military and $11 billion on global public health. Hospitals teeter on the edge of bankruptcy while the Pentagon spends about $500 million a year on marching bands. Biden could use these ghastly discrepancies to challenge the view that military spending can only be trimmed at the edges.”
Peter Beinart, The Atlantic

Regarding the Trump campaign's efforts to paint Biden as weak on China, it's worth noting that “Mr. Trump [initially] downplayed the risk of the coronavirus and heaped praise on President Xi Jinping. Fifteen times in January and February, Mr. Trump lauded Mr. Xi’s leadership on Covid-19…

“On strategic imperatives, Mr. Trump allowed China to ease pressure on North Korea and failed to counter China’s cyberaggression and expansionism in the South China Sea. Yet, he saved the Chinese pariah telecom firm ZTE because American sanctions might cause ‘too many jobs in China’ to be lost. Mr. Trump also eagerly enlisted China to serve his personal interests, most notably by pleading for China’s help in the coming election and allowing his daughter Ivanka to pocket plenty of Chinese trademarks. Given such a self-serving and shameful legacy, it will take some truly Trumpian Houdini tactics to tar Joe Biden with being weak on China. In reality, the opposite is true.”
Susan E. Rice, New York Times

Regarding Biden’s choice for VP, “It’s true that Abrams has been honest about her ambition to be in the White House. But really, what choice does any woman have but to make the case for herself, especially if that woman was, like Abrams, born outside the natural network of wealthy friends and influential relatives who could be doing her bidding for her?…

“Some men picked to be vice president, such as Al Gore and George H.W. Bush, had senator fathers with powerful associates, pushing them along their roads to success the whole of their careers. Nebraska-born Dick Cheney didn’t have that kind of network, but he literally picked himself for the job of vice president after the presumptive Republican nominee, George W. Bush, asked him to run his vetting process… Stacey Abrams likely won't be the next vice president, nor should she be. But she has changed the face of female ambition forever.”
Patricia Murphy, USA Today

“[Biden’s] choice may boil down to [Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar] and California Senator Kamala Harris… Despite the regional and racial differences, the two women have much in common. They both ran credible presidential campaigns and positioned themselves as moderates, which makes them ideological soulmates for Biden. Both women have won the political triple crown and served in elective office at the local, state and federal level…

“A Midwesterner like Klobuchar could help Biden win the battleground states in America’s industrial heartland. But there is more than one recipe for a victory meal in the Midwest. Biden also might help himself with an African American running mate like Harris who night gin up black turnout in Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee. A higher urban turnout would make a big difference in states that Trump barely won in 2016.”
Brad Bannon, The Hill