During the Democratic National Convention, Focus on the Family's Stuart Shepard released a video asking supporters to "pray for rain" during Barack Obama's acceptance speech. A CQ colleague reminded me of this earlier, and I tracked down the video. In the text, Shepard says:

"Would it be wrong if we asked people to pray for rain? Oh, not just rain; abundant rain. Urban and small stream flood advisory rain." He does later add, "Not flood people out of their houses rain, just good ol' swamp the intersections rain." As lame as the video was to being with, it looks especially dumb now. If you're religious, I guess this shows the risk of asking your chosen diety for an I.O.U.




Of course, it's not just conservatives who look bad when it comes to flooding and divine intervention. Daily Kos diarist Scout Finch also remembered the Shephard video and says:

While the residents of the Gulf coast are in our own hearts and prayers as they weather this storm, there does seem to be a sense of justice that New Orleans and memories of Katrina would come back to haunt this Republican convention. The memories of Katrina should rightly haunt them for the rest of their years.

 


What an incredibly shallow thing to say as people are facing the possibility of death and destruction. Any honest broker knows that while President Bush's handling of Katrina was a disaster in its own right, former Democratic Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco dropped the ball as well. Disaster response efforts are about competence and compassion, not ideology.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Dan Fowler was secretly videotaped laughing about Gustav hitting New Orleans as the RNC was about to start, saying, "Obviously, it shows God is on our side ... Everything's cool." Michael Moore made similar comments to Keith Olbermann.

As I rode in the CQ bus over to the Republican National Convention site today, I saw a group of protesters walking down Market St. carrying a flag-draped coffin. My first question was, "Where is the 'protest cage' that was in use at the Dem convention?" After getting checked into my workspace, I headed back out to see where the protesters were at.

A group of police officers pointed me toward 7th Street, where I could find the "protest triangle." When I got to 7th, the police officers on the scene pointed me back to where I'd come from saying there was no protest triangle/cage/area. Back near the main convention security checkpoint I was told by yet another officer, "We got sued over that [protest cage]. It's my job to protect their First Amendment Rights, so if they want to run around and yell, I'm going to make sure they get to do that."

It's pretty ironic that the Republicans are allowing for more freedom of dissent then their Democratic counterparts. The cage in Denver was a sad sight to behold. Don't expect Republicans to get much credit for it, but kudos to them if they are in fact taking a more freedom-oriented approach to their own critics. Counter-programming at its best.

UPDATE: Click to the 1:50 mark to see the Dems' protest cage. I find most protesters annoying, so it's got to be pretty bad if I'm feeling sorry for them:

If there's any lingering doubt about the initial wave of enthusiasm following Sarah Palin's additional to the Republican vice presidential ticket, check out this post from Patrick Ruffini over at The Next Right:

A source inside the McCain campaign confirms a massive online fundraising haul since Sarah Palin was named as the VP -- $4.5 million in the first 24 hours, part of a $7 million overall fundraising burst.

There's other good post-Palin news for McCain as well. I don't put much stock in Zogby polls anymore, but today's shows McCain taking a two-point lead over Obama. the much more reliable Gallup daily tracking poll on our Poll Tracker site shows Obama with a six point edge.

Sarah Palin's surprising selection as John McCain's running mate has not been lost on the Facebook crowd. Prior to the selection, there was a "Draft Sarah Palin" page, which has just under 1,000 members. As expected, the reaction there today has been enthusiastic, with comments such as "We made it!" and "Sweet Success!" The group also offers helpful links to recent news interviews with Palin and information about her personal biography and career.

Since the news of her selection became official, at least 11 "Sarah Palin for Vice President" Groups have been created. The most popular has just under two hundred members. There are also a few groups popping up focusing on Palin's looks, and at least one group formed by women opposed to her candidacy. That group only has six members so far, and interestingly, focuses on her short time in government as the main reason to oppose her candidacy. Her support for oil drilling and pro-life views are also cited.

There are also five Sarah Palin Twitter accounts, although those appear very recent and none have posted more than a few tweets. The most popular Palin Twitter account has a little more than 100 followers.

Here are a few snapshots I took from the stands during tonight's event at Invesco:

Here at Invesco Field, the reaction to Barack Obama's presidential nomination acceptance speech was positive but not overwhelming. "Too stumpy," was the reaction from several in attendance, including supporters and the media. The "stumpy" tag is a reference to Obama's stump speech that he gives at regular campaign stops.

However, several moments generated not just loud applause but visible emotional reactions from those around me in the stands. The moments that stood out: Obama's line about McCain being willing to chase Osama bin Laden "to the gates of hell," but being unwilling to "chase him to the cave," where he hides. The crowd also took particular fondness near the end of Obama's speech when he made a direct challenge to McCain to debate the issues.

Overall, I thought it was a very good speech, though not his best rhetorically. But that's the trade off, because Obama clearly chose to aim more for substance than lofty words in his address. It's also a great barometer of just how high the expectations are now for when Obama speaks. His speech was better than any at the convention, with the exception of maybe Bill Clinton's. But when Obama is now considered the best speaker in American politics, anything less than sublime perfection will be seen as simply adequate. But for those who haven't heard him speak much, I'm guessing the speech will have a deep resonance.

I'm headed over to Invesco Field to watch Barack Obama's acceptance speech. There is no guarantee of an internet connection, unfortunately. Will post regularly if there is, if not, please check out my Twitter feed here, which will be updated throughout the evening.

A new poll over at Daily Kos shows that their readers are watching C-SPAN more than any other television network for their coverage of the Democratic convention. The increasingly liberally focused MSNBC comes in a close second. I'd take that to mean progressive bloggers are going to C-SPAN to be informed and MSNBC to be entertained. Not a bad combination.

West Wing creator Aaron Sorkin is now turning his attention to writing a feature film about the founders of Facebook:

Sorkin, one of the town's biggest writers and show creators, is in negotiations to write an untitled film project about the founders of the popular social networking site that Scott Rudin will produce for Columbia. Sorkin broke the news on Facebook when he opened up his own account.

The Facebook story would make a serviceable documentary film, but a dramatic one? Someone needs to "poke" Sorkin and tell him this is probably not the best use of his time. Trying to imagine the storyboards for this one: dramatic shots of Harvard students writing html code, culminating in a dance-off with MySpace. Riveting.

I think the shelf life on the term "traditional media" is about to expire. When newspaper and television reporters blog and bloggers are going on TV and writing newspaper columns, I think it's more accurate to simply make a distinction between the "professional" and the "independent" media. There might be better terms of distinction, but the point remains the same.

To that end, here's a link to my article for CQ Politics on how bloggers have gone from being fringe to actually having more access than their traditional media counterparts at the Democratic National Convention.

Earlier today at the "Big Tent" outside the DNC perimeter, MyBarackObama administrator and former Facebook employee Chris Hughes held a chat with online activists about the role of social networking in the Obama campaign.

Hughes said the top priority of the Obama campaign's online operation is to provide the tools to help online supporters translate their political passion into real world results.  "It was clear the campaign was going to value empowering grassroots activists," he said of his decision to leave Facebook for the Obama campaign back in February, 2007. "I don't think I would have left work for any other candidate."

And there's strong evidence to support his lofty goals. So far, more than 1.3 million users are connected to Obama Facebook page, with hundreds of local groups from across the country. "20 people at a small school can be a lot," he said of convincing small groups of people to get involved in the process.

Hughes was asked to compare the Obama online operation to that of the McCain campaign. Rather than go with the conventional wisdom that McCain and Republicans simply "don't get" the Internet, he said, "It's much more about how we value grassroots support.. It's not that our tools are that much slicker or better. Sure, the tech has to be good, but it has to work."

Looking forward, Hughes said more than 10,000 campaign-organized house parties are scheduled for tomorrow night's nomination acceptance speech. As part of the ongoing effort to familiarize Americans with Obama, Hughes said every house party have been mailed an Obama biography DVD.

Over the following weekend the campaign will help coordinate grassroots efforts, including voter registration and showing supporters how to sign up for absentee ballots.

And there will be additional incentives for those who organize and raise money online for the Obama campaign. Hughes said that those who establish and meet online fundraising goals get to participate in a conference call with Obama.

Vermont Sen. Pat Leahy joined the ranks of Democrats and pundits who are trying to frame John McCain's age as a liability, implying that he is either suffering from mental decline, or simply out of touch. While others, myself included, have challenged some of those assertions, I have yet to see one fairly obvious point made: The majority of those casting votes in each election are "older" voters. If they hear too many snide remarks about McCain's age, doesn't that run the strong risk of actually making McCain more endearing towards them?

Leahy's remarks:

"It was the same way with Ronald Reagan in the last few years he was president," Leahy said, referring to the belief that Reagan experienced early signs of Alzheimer's disease late in his presidency.

The press "let Ronald Regan get away with" slips, Leahy said, though he denied he was suggesting that McCain was experiencing mental decline.

"No, I'm just saying he gets a free ride," Leahy said.

Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads. Mark Warner gave a keynote speech that was vintage Warner: competent, moderate and tech savvy. He spent a good part of his speech arguing that this presidential election is about a candidate of the future vs. one of the past. But as Warner exited the stage, he was serenaded to an orchestral version of Huey Lewis' "Back in Time," from the Back to the Future soundtrack. One of the best movies ever, it is, of course, about going thirty years into the past.



The lyrics:

Tell me, doctor, where are we going this time
Is this the 50's, or 1999
All I wanted to do - was play my guitar and sing

So take me away, I don't mind
But you'd better promise me, I'll be back in time
Gotta get back in time

Don't bet your future, on one roll of the dice
Better remember, lightning never strikes twice
Please don't drive eighty eight, don't wanna be late again

So take me away, I don't mind
But you better promise me, I'll be back in time
Gotta get back in time
Gotta get back in time
Get me back in time

Gotta get back in time
Gotta get back in time
Get back, get back

Get back Marty

Gotta get back in time
Gotta get back in time
Get back, get back

DNC Chairman Howard Dean held a barbecue lunch for the more than 120 bloggers who are credentialed for this year's Democratic National Convention. He began his remarks by telling the bloggers, "I know this will break your heart, but you have better credentials than the mainstream media does."

And that's very true. Most reporters have a "perimeter pass," which grants them entry to the convention area, but not to the Pepsi Center convention hall itself. A select few have hall and floor passes, granting them greater access. But all credentialed bloggers have at least a hall pass and very few restrictions on their activities. Dean also noted that there twice as many bloggers here in Denver then there were in Boston back in 2004.

After his remarks, Dean grabbed some BBQ and sat down, asking any interested bloggers to join the "scrum." Several did, chatting with Dean for about an hour before he jumped into his hybrid SUV and returned to the Pepsi Center for another event.



HorsesAss scribe David Goldstein of Seattle told me, "In 2004, the state party wouldn't even return my calls. ... They've shown us a lot of faith and innovation to be letting us do what we're doing."

Square State's Aaron Silverstein (who blogs from Colorado) added: [blogging] Widens the participation. It lowers the barrier to entry so we don't have to worry about one person's bias serving as a gatekeeper."

Despite that tough 2004 caucus loss, Howard Dean obviously still loves corn. Here he is today at a blogger bbq luncheon, with two pieces! And he made a reference to his '04 "scream" moment, telling attendees in a deadpan voice:

"We're going to win in South Carolina and Michigan. We're going to take this all the way to Washington DC. Woo."

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial today countering the shallow articles by Slate's Jacob Weisberg and New York Magazine's John Heilemann claiming that if Barack Obama is not elected president it's because America is racist.

A few rather obvious things I would add: If white voters not supporting a black candidate is racist, then aren't African-Americans supporting Barack Obama largely because he is black an example of racial prejudice? It may be done out of pride, but it's still placing one's racial identity over other considerations.

Second question for Weisberg/Heilemann: Very few Democrats voted for Michael Steele in his successful run for Maryland Lt. Governor, and his subsequent unsuccessful bid for governor. Are those voters racist? Or, does that only count if you're not white, but are a Democrat?

All this is not to say that race won't be a factor in the election. But to assume that it will be the only, or main, factor for Obama not winning is a straw man argument. I can think of a few, non-racist, reasons people might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee: They are Republicans, they support the war in Iraq, they favor limited government, they are disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, they don't think Obama is ready to be president, they are veterans/former POWs who want to support a fellow vet, they are voting for a third party candidate, they do not vote, they support gun rights, they oppose abortion, etc.

What Obama's political ascension really says about America is almost entirely positive. Democrats declined to vote for the most famous family in their party in favor of an African-American neophyte, and Republicans so far have made race far less of a factor than Democrats did in the primaries, countering stereotypes about how Republicans think/vote.

And remind me again how many black politicians have been elected to office by our enlightened, European pals?

Tonight, the Republican National Committee hosted its "Happy Hour for Hillary" at the Paramount Cafe in downtown Denver. The joke amongst fellow journalists today was that it would be 50 of us standing around the one Hillary supporter who showed up to consider voting for John McCain.

Instead, I was surprised to find the actual ratio to be quite different. Though the party was largely filled with McCain supporters, there were several undecided Democrats in attendance. Here are a few snapshots from the scene. A Clinton supporter being interviewed by CNN's ace reporter Ed Hornick:


Some McCain volunteers doing their best to sway the undecided Democrats:

It was a full house over at the Huffington Post Oasis today. No more so than in the blogger space. Though as Markos Moulitsas noted today:

If I were a writer for the Daily Show, I'm sure I could uncover the subtle comedic message of their correspondents standing underneath this one way sign:

Ted Kennedy just finished speaking at the convention. It may not have been the best or most impassioned speech of his career, but it provided the perfect launch to a week focused on Barack Obama, who has promised to move the nation beyond the current climate of partisanship.

While many conservatives have fairly opposed Kennedy's policies and personal behavior over the years, only the most shallow will find humor or reason for personal criticism tonight. Those voices are indeed out there tonight, but they do not merit linkage. Kennedy's actual words may have focused on universal healthcare and the other issues he cares deeply about, but the underlying message is that personal conviction overrides ideology and that message was clear on the faces of those in attendance tonight. In many ways, Ted Kennedy is to the Democrats what Ronald Reagan is to Republicans. His appearance went a long ways towards insuring a legacy of dignity and respect that should outshine whatever bumps in the road he passed along the way.

CQ Politics is thrilled to announce that acclaimed blogger/journalist Ana Marie Cox will be joining our team as a special correspondent this week at the Democratic National Convention. Her first dispatch can be found here.

The Nation's Ari Melber has a response from Hillary Clinton to the news I posted earlier that the Republican National Committee is hosting a "happy hour for Hillary" in Denver tonight, in an attempt to woo moderate Democrats over to John McCain. Protestors aside, it's a bit of a stretch to think that anyone putting forth all the effort to attend the DNC could be swayed to support the other side for a few free drinks. From the statement:

"This party won't exactly make it onto the list of recommended events for Hillary Clinton's supporters," Mo Elleithee told The Nation on Monday afternoon. "Senator Clinton supports Senator Obama and is urging all of her supporters to do the same," she added.

Yeah, no joke. The Republican National Committee is here in Denver, site of the Democratic National Convention. And as part of their ongoing effort to court Hillary Clinton supporters, they will be throwing a happy hour this evening in her honor. From the press release:

***MEDIA ADVISORY***
RNC HOSTS HAPPY HOUR FOR HILLARY IN DENVER


DENVER - As the Democratic National Convention kicks off in Denver, Colo., the Republican National Committee (RNC) will host a Happy Hour for Hillary today. From Republicans to independents to open-minded Democrats, John McCain is gathering support from voters nationwide who believe that he is the most qualified candidate to lead our country as Commander in Chief.

Wandering around the Pepsi Center, I found some memorabilia stands that are not yet open to the public. There were various bumper stickers, "Democrats are hot! Have you ever heard of a hot piece of elephant?" But most conspicuous were the various campaign buttons for sale. There were a few Barack Obama buttons and one Michelle Obama button, but the rest all made use of Hillary Clinton's image. Also absent, any buttons or memorabilia featuring Joe Biden:

The state delegations at this year's Democratic National Convention are participating in something called the "Green Delegate Challenge." From the DNC website, we find this explainer:

As part of the challenge, delegations with the highest percentage of members offsetting their carbon will be recognized in their seating section on the floor of the Pepsi Center during the Convention. Each delegate, alternate and super delegate from that state will also receive a limited edition "green" prize. Any delegate who offsets their travel will receive a unique wearable "green item" for Convention week, available only to these delegates, and be recognized individually on DemConvention.com.

The website claims that all 50 states and the six extra delegations (DC, Guam, American Somoa, Virgin Islands, Democrats Abroad and Puerto Rico) are participating in some form. So, I did a head count inside the convention center, where the respective delegation flag poles have a green button atop them if they are participating. By my count, 29 of the 56 flags have green buttons:

And here's a photo of one delegation pole without a button, Washington DC:

The very busy looking stage for the Democratic National Convention is mostly empty now. But curious journalists and activists have been wandering through the stage area all day. Here are a few pictures of the action:

John McCain's campaign released a new add "Passed Over" at 3am. The significance? The ad is another clear pitch for Hillary Clinton supporters who have still not crossed over to support Barack Obama.

"She won millions of votes. But isn't on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth," says the ad's female voiceover. The ad uses footage of several interviews with Clinton in which she questions Obama's specifics on policy proposals and says his campaign "has become increasingly negative."

The ad ends with this zinger, "The truth hurt, and Obama didn't like it." The ad already has over 100,000 views:

In addition to reporting the important stuff, I'll be passing along various scenes from the Democratic Convention this week. First, a big deal has been made over the prominence of healthy food choices available this year. But as some Republicans are arguing on the trail, change is often merely rhetoric. The biggest food draw so far: the corn dog stand, which when I passed through was serving patrons from big media, big politics and big waistlines alike:


 

John McCain stayed above the fray in his comments about Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate. But conservatives aren't wasting any time taking shots at Biden's record and what he brings to the ticket.

What's interesting is watching the attempts to frame Biden as a traditional liberal who does not bring the foreign policy gravitas that Democrats hope he will. As previously mentioned, I think Biden was the best choice of the VP finalists but not necessarily the best option available overall. However, his liabilities seem relatively small at this point. It's more a question of what positives he actually brings to the ticket, specifically whether he boosts Obama's standing with white, middle-class voters and the majority of voters who see McCain as more trustworthy on foreign policy issues.

Powerline's Scott Johnson says:

I find that at best Biden adds nothing to the Democratic ticket. Rather than adding to Obama's attractions or neutralizing Obama's liabilities, if he does anything, Biden subtracts from Obama's strengths and contributes to his liabilities.

American Power blogs that Biden brings "disastrous foreign policy liabilities" to the ticket.

Please check back with Ground Game over the weekend and throughout next week. I am flying out to Denver to cover the convention for CQ Politics. See you there!

As part of my ongoing obsession with Oliver Stone's upcoming Bush biopic "W," here is four minutes of actor Josh Brolin working on scenes at the president. Perhaps the most interesting component of chatter about this film is whether it will be played as a straight drama, or a mixture of historical fact and comedy. This clip leaves much of the ambiguity intact.

A couple of interesting new things I noticed about C-SPAN's convention hubs: Any bloggers who will be twittering the conventions can simply add the #DNC08 and/or #RNC08 tags to their tweets and they will appear in the C-SPAN hub's Twitter feed. That's a great way for grassroots bloggers and institutional voices alike to take part in the overall discussion.

Second, although the C-SPAN video archives to not appear quite ready for embedding, they are accessible. You wan watch one of my favorite all-time Washington Journal episodes, featuring Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan in 2002 discussing their appreciation for George Orwell here. Pretty cool toys for the tech geek set. 

Liberal blogs are worked up this morning over a Politico item claiming that John McCain doesn't know how many homes his family owns. The offending quote reads as follows:

"I think -- I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you."

So, does that mean McCain is an out-of-touch, senile, aristocratic pol unfit for the presidency? That's been the general response from the lefty sphere today. But there are some deficiencies in their assumptions. First, look no further than the next graph in the Politico story:

The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia, according to his staff. Newsweek estimated this summer that the couple owns at least seven properties.

Actually, I believe that means the "correct answer" is that Politico and Newsweek don't know how many homes the McCains own either. Where McCain appeared confused was whether a merged pair of condos he and his wife own count as one or two properties. Matthew Yglesias has been mocking McCain over the story, but his own findings actually add credibility to the point that determining the number of properties McCain "owns" may in fact be a complicated answer. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis also piles on, accusing McCain of being "cognitively impaired" with "an inconsistent mental state," saying it's "just scary" that he couldn't answer the question off the top of his head.

Well, Mr. Aravosis, what then do you make of this Las Vegas Review-Journal story about  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in which he confuses Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman. In addition, reporter Molly Ball writes:

During the hourlong colloquy, Reid also forgot the name of former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a Democratic Senate candidate, and the Title IX legislation giving women access to school sports programs.

By Aravosis' own standards, shouldn't that qualify Democrat Harry Reid as being "cognitively impaired" and unfit to lead the U.S. Senate?

Daily Kos diarist Kagro X is saying what many informed liberals are thinking, but have been slow to acknowledge: Republicans have essentially "won" the debate over offshore drilling. For Democrats, environmentalists and alternative energy proponents, the real fight is over which version of a comprehensive energy plan becomes law. Kagro X highlights the recent policy shifts by Nancy Pelosi and Mark Udall (thought no mention of Obama's own pivot) and declares:

The floodgates will open because they have to open. There's no way on God's green earth to find veto-proof majorities to re-up that ban, and no bill George W. Bush won't veto to stop it. ... So it's either flip now and do what you can to save face, or stick it out to the bitter end and lose.

Still, there's a potential upside for Democrats: Embrace a truly comprehensive plan and then call the Republicans' bluff. Rather than meekly acknowledging that drilling is one component of energy independence, embrace drilling as as a necessary evil to pry us from the skyrocketing energy costs brought on by two wars and an administration that has so far refused to embrace an all-encompassing plan. Although the realist in me thinks it's far more likely that both sides will continue their respective turf wars. Drilling has been a rare popular issue for Republicans in the current political environment, and Democrats don't want to risk alienating the enviro lobby, or the sincere reservations of many in their own caucus.

UPDATE: The DNC is now sending journalists McCain stress balls shaped like oil drums.

I still think Andrew Sullivan is one of the best political bloggers out there. But I've become more critical of Sullivan recently for engaging in low brow attacks against John McCain, while crying foul when similar low brow attacks are made against Obama.

Nonetheless, I've wondered recently if I was being too hard on Sullivan. Because, on the whole, he's still one of the very best voices in the blogosphere. But when Sullivan's own Atlantic colleague Ross Douthat compares Sullivan to largely discredited conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, there's really something there:

Look, if Andrew thinks the possible "cross in the dirt" fabrication represents a fruitful line of anti-McCain inquiry, he has every right to pursue it. But given my colleague's steady appeals for a more high-minded approach to political argument, I think he should ponder whether this sort of thing might, just possibly, be part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

In recent months, Sullivan's been fairly criticized/teased for his unfailing support of Barack Obama. On the whole, that's ok in my book, because we haven't seen Sullivan contradict his core principles of favoring restrained government and the importance of self-doubt in conservative, intellectual circles. It makes Sullivan all the more interesting as someone who thinks of himself as conservative, but in reality is a social liberal who wants a government with a limited cultural/economic footprint. But here's hoping he doesn't completely cash in the years of credibility he's built across the political divide on an effort to discredit John McCain.

Does John McCain risk losing the conservative base if he picks Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman to be his vice presidential running mate? Rich Lowry thinks the Ridge trial balloon last week may have been more than coincidence:

NR has learned that the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country the last couple of days and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick.

While others have speculated that McCain would benefit with independent and women voters by choosing a pro-choice running mate. John Hawkins says Lieberman is too liberal, but Ridge might make sense if it appears he could put Pennsylvania into play.

I do think the dire warnings of a pro-choice VP selection are somewhat off. While there would almost certainly be backlash from conservative figures over a Ridge selection, those same figures didn't have much of an impact opposing McCain in the Republican primaries. What will matter more to evangelical voters is what sort of abortion policies McCain would have as president, and he forcefully addressed those questions over the weekend. Also, you'd have to assume Ridge would make a point of noting that his job as VP is to implement the policies of the president, not oppose them. And even though it's already been stated before, I do not think you can underestimate the value of Ridge as someone McCain has a personal connection to, and how important that is to maintaining McCain's authenticity on the stump.

I'll go on the record now as saying Joe Biden seems like the best VP choice for Obama at this point. He's seasoned on foreign affairs and brings a moderating personality and record.

In related news, influential blogger Steve Clemons won't reveal his sources within the Obama camp, but he does whittle down the list of perspective vice presidential nominees, confidently excluding Evan Bayh, Tom Daschle and Wesley Clark:

I just received word that it is not Senator Jack Reed either, though Obama thought very highly of him. In my estimation, that leaves Joseph Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Sibelius. I don't think that Tim Kaine would be the nominee given the elevation of Mark Warner as the keynote speaker at the Dem convention.

CNN adds that the "VP buzz is squarely on Biden." Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers promised to not "freak out" if it's Biden, but does add this warning:

Biden is not a reinforcing choice, as he has served in the Senate for 36 years and supported the war back in 2002-2003. In two key ways--Iraq judgment and "change" election--that is very much the opposite of Barack Obama, and could muddle his message. Still, when it comes to ideological leanings and campaign ability, Biden is a preferable choice to Bayh and Kaine.

Josh Marshall is also not thrilled about the Biden possibilities, but acknowledges it could in fact be a very smart pick:

Most senators grasp of foreign policy is fairly thin -- and it tends to be heavily influenced by whatever lobbyists or power players are in their orbit. But Biden has a pretty deep knowledge of pretty much every big foreign policy question. And his ideas and judgment strike me as fundamentally sane.

For the best of CQ Politics' reporting on the Veepstakes, be sure to read Jonathan Allen's VP Watch Blog.

There's a lot of good information to take from the God-o-Meter's interview with Saddleback pastor Rick Warren. Specifically, Warren gave his thoughts on how John McCain and Barack Obama performed in this weekend's Compassion Forum.

On whether Obama can win over evangelicals and if abortion is a "make or break issue" for religious voters:

It all depends on the hierarchy of their worldview of what matters most to them. My gut reaction when it was over was that Obama will pick up probably some younger votes and McCain will probably pick up some older votes and it might come down to which group winds up showing up that the polls.

On whether Obama's "above my paygrade" response was "acceptable ambivalence," in Warren's view:

No. I think he needed to be more specific on that. I happen to disagree with Barack on that.

And finally, on whether McCain was tipped off in advance to Warren's questions:

They're dead wrong. That's just sour grapes. They both did fantastically well.

There's a lot more to the interview, all worth a read.

It seems that expectations are so low for John McCain that his above-average showing at this weekend's Compassion Forum with pastor Rick Warren has set off conspiracy theories speculating that McCain knew the questions in advance.

McCain was presumed to have been in a "cone of silence" while Obama appeared before him. That way, even know McCain was being asked mostly the same questions, he wouldn't have the advantage of knowing what those questions were in advance. As it turns out, McCain was traveling to the event in his campaign motorcade while Obama was speaking. Warren himself told CNN last night that McCain did not violate the embargo:

Warren said, "I trust the integrity of both" candidates, and said he "knew they would abide by the rules." He joked McCain may not have been in the cone of silence, but "he was in the cone of a Secret Service motorcade".

AMERICAblog author John Aravosis calls Warren a "liar," and declares that McCain cheated:

That means that McCain and his staff were listening to Obama in order to prepare. McCain denies it. Well, then McCain really has lost his senses if he thinks that any politician running for office, if given the chance, wouldn't tune into the other guy answering the same questions he's about to get.

This sort of conspiracy mongering from the self-described "reality based community" reminds me of similar speculation in 2004 that President Bush had answers to debate answers fed to him through a mysterious "bulge" in the back of his suit.

Right now, there are two Drudge report links about how Obama "blinked" by allowing Hillary Clinton's name to be put up for the nomination along Obama's in Denver. Michael Goodwin writes:

Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination.

 And sure enough, an email from Clinton just arrived in the inboxes of her supporters. Are the conspiracy theories about Clinton wanting to "steal" the nomination correct? The 394 word message talks about uniting behind Obama and his acceptance of the nomination on Thursday of convention week. It also mentions Clinton's own Tuesday speech and includes a fundraising pitch to have dinner with Hillary at the convention. But what it doesn't contain is a single reference to Clinton's name being on the nomination ballot. 

The ads on CNN for this weekend's Compassion Forum with both John McCain and Barack Obama get you thinking about their upcoming debates, but it's more likely that character issues and leadership questions will be the theme when each candidate has their appearance with the pastor. Warren himself has already said:

I'm going to deal with their personal life - because character matters. Their personal life does matter as a leader. God says so.

Warren also recently commented on the John Edwards affair, saying he'd have difficulty voting for a candidate who has committed adultery. Those comments have lead some progressive bloggers to believe that Warren was making a subtle reference to McCain's affair with-then-girlfriend Cindy. AMERICAblog's John Aravosis says Warren's comments were "clearly aimed" at McCain and asks:

[W]ill the corporate media again choose to ignore McCain's adultery, even now that a top evangelical leader has said he'd have a problem voting for someone like McCain, i.e., an adulterer?

We don't know if Warren was talking about McCain, because he gave his answer to a question about John Edwards. But for the sake of argument, let's say he was talking about McCain. In his answer, Warren talks about the differences between "forgiveness" and "trust," with the latter taking greater time to be earned. In other words, even if he did hold McCain's earlier adultery against him, it would seem the more than two decades of marriage would go some ways towards the "trust," column, versus the very current status of the Edwards adultery story.

John McCain has earned some points in the media and conservative circles this week for his strong and timely response to the crisis in Georgia. But now, Georgia's president Mikheil Saakashvili has called on McCain to move his rhetoric from "words to deeds." Of course, there's very little McCain can actually do, unless you believe President Bush would make a major foreign policy decision to benefit his party's presumptive nominee.

Jane Hamsher argues McCain is unfairly being treated more favorably than Democratic lawmakers like Nancy Pelosi, who have previously made efforts and statements on international affairs. Josh Marshall also wonders why McCain is acting like he's president when he's only a candidate, and says McCain's statements may actually be making the problem worse:

It seems like John McCain's foreign policy freelancing may be further complicating the situation in Georgia.

Matthew Yglesias agrees, adding:

The McCain campaign put something out yesterday about crowds cheering in Tblisi when President Shakashvili quoted McCain's statement. I can't read their minds, but it seems very plausible to me that they were cheering because they read this as a call for the United States to take practical steps to help Georgia not as a piece of hollow political sloganeering.