Office of the Independent Blogger

A Hurricane is headed toward the Gulf Coast — and New Orleans — and has therefore disrupted the Republican National Convention, essentially canceling the first night of the event and likely canceling the second. I can’t imagine how much work is going on in the White House to prevent another fiasco from occurring. John Dickerson thinks this event is “good” for John McCain; I am just worried about a friend who lives there and has decided to stay because he doesn’t want to “abandon the city.” Brave man.

I love Governor Palin as a choice for McCain’s Vice President. It’s a shrewd, intelligent pick that has a certain riskiness that any gambler would appreciate. But I have a question about the Governor. About three weeks ago, I was reviewing McCain’s potential running-mates and nixed Palin for two reasons: she’s very inexperienced, and she recently had a child, who also has Down Syndrome. I figured she’d want to be home to take care of her child instead of running all around the continental United States on the campaign trail and that she would therefore decline the spot on the ticket even if it were given. (It would not have been the first time a person refused higher office for their family, or at least put it off for some time. And it’s easier to be a mom/dad as Governor than Veep or President with all the accompanying travel.) But she didn’t, and now she has a good chance to become the first female Vice President in history.

That said, I am not comfortable with her decision. I do not believe in nannies or hired hands to raise children, and especially not with a child who has special needs. Should Palin have stayed home to take care of her baby? At what age is it “okay” for a child to experience a parent’s prolonged absence? Why aren’t these issues being discussed?

As I noted earlier, I love Palin. She’s attractive, vibrant, athletic, beautiful and fiercely independent of conventionally political wisdom. But this is a question that ought to be discussed as a matter of familial philosophy and an insight into her character.

My first thoughts on Obama’s speech tonight: weak. John Dickerson wrote a great column with suggestions on how he can relive the 2004 masterpiece but he didn’t take it. His foreign policy rhetoric fell flat on me, and I do not see it having any resonance with very many Americans in coming weeks and months. And he mentioned Franklin Roosevelt and Jack Kennedy as foreign policy visionaries but not Harry Truman. So he loses my vote again for not having enough sense. His post-speech celebration, with the orchestral score and fireworks, is the height of hubris, and he isn’t making it any harder for Republicans to paint him as a free-spender.

John McCain has made his choice for Vice President of the United States and will announce it Friday. Here’s my unsolicited advice to McCain: announce it earlyish in the day, late-morning to early afternoon, and do it like a normal human being. No teasing it for hours on end, no nonsense about text messages or emails, just announce it, have him speak, speak for yourself and move forward with an aggressive campaign. Why would I recommend that? Because Barack Obama made it easier to paint him as a celebrity tonight by appearing early at the Democratic National Convention, by acting as if he were a lowly street-MC (”Hillary rocked the hoooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwse!”) and by announcing that he’d be speaking in front of Greek columns tomorrow. Biden gave a good speech, but not a great one, and the Vice President doesn’t matter much anyway. President Clinton was good but the same can be said for him. It’s up to Obama to deliver for himself tomorrow, and then he has to brace himself for a Republican National Convention that should hit him harder than he has ever been hit before. This is the beginning of the actual fall campaign.

David Gergen called Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight her “finest hour in politics” and I must say that I agree. It was a phenomenal speech that had me on the verge of tears at various points. And I felt a surge of emotion before she took the podium, too, as the DNC’s video tribute to her was incredibly moving.

This article speaks for itself.

Despite a campaign that attacked corporate and special interest lobbyists as evil and banned their money and participation, Sen. Barack Obama has done little, if anything, about their pervasive, free-spending presence at the Democratic convention in Denver, ethics watchdog groups say.

“I think he could have sent a signal to say I want this tamped down,” said Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, a political ethics watchdog group. “But he has not,” she said, “so it’s party time.”

A spokesman for the Obama campaign, Ben LaBolt, said the Senator could not “make changes to this year’s convention” because of the “very late end to the primary season.” As a result, lobbyists are once again spending millions of dollars here on gourmet food, top-shelf liquor and private lavish parties for Democratic elected officials who seem more than happy to play the role of world-class freeloaders.

David Patterson is not a good politician. “Barack Obama promises four more years of destruction while John McCain promises four more years of… promises four more… promises…” That is a rough translation of his gaffes late in the speech he just delivered to the Democratic faithful in Denver. Why am I listening to David Patterson?

John McCain has been endorsed by “Daddy Yankee.” The crowd goes wild while I consider whether or not this is the silliest story I’ve ever read.

Jacob Weisberg must have been feeling feisty when he wrote this article declaring that racism is the only thing that can prevent Barack Obama from defeating John McCain. Aside from the fact that this broad view of American citizens is terribly hurtful and offensive, and setting to the side his overwhelming affection for Senator Obama as illustrated throughout the article (”Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision”), it is too broad a claim to make when the converse shows us that McCain is a tough leader, which Americans appreciate, with a long record of working hard for the American public and the Arizonan republic while Obama is a socialite of sorts who has not achieved anything as an American Senator. There’s “one reason” that McCain can beat Obama and I’m sure I can think of more but “Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him” parodies itself.

Overall I appreciate Senator Obama’s choice of Senator Biden because the man is a great character and a good thinker with a great life story that ought to give everyone hope. This New York Times article about Biden demonstrates his ability to “bounce back” from hard times and this Newsweek blog is a good introduction to the good things he brings to the ticket while this is an overview of the bad things about Biden. Or the bad thing: he talks a lot, and he isn’t a genius. He has no hint of sexual scandal and very little to his name that will attract financial criticism. He’s a solid choice but I would have preferred Bayh. I can’t say I see this as a “game-changer” but it might be a very effective choice in Pennsylvania. At the least it locks up Delaware and all thirteen Biden primary voters.

This might be the most significant news story of the general election campaign to date.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators agreed to the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces by the end of 2011 and are nearing resolution of other issues, Iraqi officials said. Among the outstanding issues is whether U.S. military personnel would be subject to Iraqi law if accused of committing crimes, The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) reported Friday.

“We have a text,” Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit Thursday to Baghdad. Both governments must complete and approve the agreement before a U.N. mandate authorizing international military intervention in Iraq expires at the end this year.

It is a significant development for the American effort in Iraq and signifies that victory is at hand, but it also takes away Obama’s greatest weapon and wisdom (that Iraq was a mistake) and gives credence to John McCain’s greatest claim (that he knows foreign policy and was right to stand by the War in Iraq). This move effectively removes Iraq from the discussion except for McCain to say “I told you so!” and allows McCain to attack Obama’s flank on economic issues. “Tax Man,” as Laura Ingraham was saying on Fox News tonight.

I’m not buying the reports about Chet Edwards being Barack Obama’s running mate. We’ll just have to wait and see.

John McCain was asked how many homes he owns by a reporter and answered that he didn’t know and would have his staff respond to the question. (It must be nice to have an exceptionally-rich wife whose money allows you the luxury of never having to look at your bills.) But now it is the largest controversy since Janet Jackson’s breast. Aren’t pundits supposed to be intelligent people? Why are they talking about this nonsense?

Pakistan’s President, Perves Musharraf, resigned, and now there are “cracks appear[ing]” in the new government’s ruling coalition. Worse is this article about Pakistan’s intelligence agency and its “rogue behavior” in recent months.

Pakistan’s new government has failed to prevent the country’s intelligence agency from aiding terrorist attacks and supporting the Taliban, a senior US official has told the Financial Times. Speaking under condition of anonymity, the state department official added Pakistan needed to speed up efforts to control the ISI, the intelligence agency, after the resignation of Pervez Musharraf as president.

“The position of the ISI has always been ambiguous [but] they may have been more directly involved in actions in more recent months because of lack of supervision,” he said, referring to “a lot of allegations” that the agency was involved in the July 7 bombing of the Indian embassy in Afghanistan.

This article makes a compelling case that nuclear weapons will be unaffected by Musharraf’s fall, noting the intense security around the facilities, but this editorial calls Pakistan the West’s “worst nightmare.” I understand that the prospect of nuclear weapons being given to terrorists by Pakistan is a slim one but it is still possible and a potential nightmare, as is the general situation in that country. I hope they can stabilize soon.

What a strange international incident this was. Chinese baseball players managed by an American fighting Americans. At least we won 9-1, right?

I’ll be back with serious commentary soon.