Mike Lupica writes:

There was a time, because this is still a country of running and jumping, when the Olympics didn't really start until track and field did. . . . There was a time when the men's 100 was the glamour event of the Summer Olympics the way the men's downhill is the glamour men's event in winter. But that all changed 20 years ago when we all came to the stadium the first weekend in Seoul, the place crawling with security, lousy with security, as many guards awatching the stands that year as there were watching the track, where Carl Lewis would go up against Ben Johnson of Canada.

Lupica argues that the Ghost of Ben Johnson hangs over the phenomenal freak of nature Usain Bolt, who won the 100 meter dash in Beijing in otherworldly fashion. I hope not. I have no idea if "Lightning" Bolt is juiced but I have never seen an athlete I would suspect less. More . . .

Tom Ridge, in an interview today, was asked whether the Republican Party would accept a vice president who is pro-choice (like, for instance, Tom Ridge):

Question: Given its long pro-life history, do you really think that the Republican Party would accept a pro-choice running mate?

RIDGE: My friend of 25 years is passionately pro-life. He is also passionately a believer that the Republican Party must have a big tent. And I think, frankly, what he was just saying to the rest of the world is that we need to accept both points of view. He's not judgmental about me or my belief. He just disagrees with me. ...

WALLACE: And to answer my question specifically, do you think the Republican Party would accept a pro-choice running mate?

RIDGE: Well, I think that would be up to — first of all, to John to decide whether he wants a pro-choice running mate, and then we would have to see how the Republican Party would rally around it. At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever John makes.

Really? Is the shrinking Republican tent likely to grow if McCain selects a pro-choice running mate, or will the tent collapse altogether?

At daily kos, the very fine writer Devil's Tower makes the same type of error that the Far Right does when discussing foreign policy, human rights and free markets. Except in reverse. DT writes:

[S]omewhere along the line, we had made a mental connection between capitalism and freedom. Anything good for one was seen as good for the other. We viewed liberty and greed as soul mates. Often enough, we couldn't tell one from the other, and in that confusion we ignored the other half of the struggle -- the one being waged by that still wet behind the ears idea, democracy. In short, we bought our own press.

Fair enough. The silly notion that capitalism and "trade" will necessarily translate into freedom is pernicious. But we can and should recognize this as propaganda while still understanding that both freedom and liberalization of markets will be, in the long run, beneficial to US interests. BTW, it is ALSO propaganda when we discuss it in terms of traditional pet Left causes like lifting the embargo in Cuba (NOTE: I favor lifting the Cuba embargo, but not because it promises freedom for Cuba but because it is an ineffective foreign policy). But we must ALSO understand that a policy for human rights must be tempered by the realities of the national interests of the United States. After all, no one can deny that Iraq is more free today after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. But it also can not be denied that the US is much worse off because of the toppling of Saddam Hussein by the US. More . . .

Our earlier thread on this is full. Here's a news article with a recap of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain's answers at tonight's faith forum.

TChris has an open thread going for the Rick Warner faith forum. Here's one for the Olympics and all other topics.

My apologies for forgetting an Olympics thread last night. I was watching Legally Blond and forgot.

Pastor Rick Warren* is interviewing Barack Obama and John McCain this evening, asking each candidate roughly the same set of questions for an hour each. Obama first. One of Warren's questions asked about the contrast between the investment America makes in its educational system and the investment it makes in its "we're number one!" prison system. Disappointingly, Obama gave a fine (to me) answer on education while ignoring the "prison nation" aspect of the question entirely. I expect John McCain to do the same (although McCain's take on education may be less reasonable).

Here's a place to weigh in for those of you who have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than to watch the candidates chat with Rick Warren. Follow the rules please, particularly with regard to insults.

Update: McCain, when asked the same question, praised "choice and competition," home schooling, and charter schools. Like Obama, McCain ducked the part of the question that quietly damned the American imprisonment rate. McCain channeled his answers to well rehearsed excerpts from stump speeches, complete with frequent insertions of "my friends" into his answers. He played well to the crowd. Obama held his own, I think, but McCain's performance was the crowd favorite, my friends. [more ...]

Joe Biden left for Georgia today to meet with its President.

Either Obama is not naming his VP candidate Monday or on a more hopeful note, it's not Biden.

I'm wondering if Bill Richardson could be back in the running, even though he has a speaker slot at the convention. Obama will be in New Mexico Monday, and New Mexico is one of those states (with its five electoral votes) Obama is trying hard to win but he faces a lot of resistance among Hispanic voters in the southern half of the state.

The New York Times reports that Sen. Barack Obama has no campaign offices in Arkansas and hasn't visited the state since 2006. Even though,

Arkansas has a Democratic governor, an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature, two Democratic United States senators and three Democratic Congressional representatives out of four.

The Democratic presidential primary here drew 80,000 more voters than the Republican one. And though the state voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, the two previous elections went handily to its native son, Bill Clinton.

What's up with this? Is it a sign that other than the southern states with large African American populations like North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia, he's not even going to try to win southern rural voters? [More...]

Steve Clemons at the Washington Note reports that Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has told Gen. Wesley Clark his services aren't needed at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Clemons adds in an update:

I have reconfirmed with General Wesley Clark's office that he has not been asked to play a role at the Democratic National Convention. His staff have told me that while his schedule remains tight, he would rearrange his schedule to help play any constructive role on any days of the convention if asked.

If true, I guess that means Clark will not be the Veep candidate. Too bad. He would have been a great choice and brought a lot to the ticket in November.

So say the Rocky Mountain News poll:

Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are neck-and-neck in Colorado, solidifying the state as a key, swing area that will be pivotal in deciding who becomes the next president of the U.S., according to a Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 News poll released Friday. "It's a heck of a horse race in Colorado," said pollster Lori Weigel. "We're officially a purple state now."

. . . Overall, Coloradans favored McCain 44 percent to 41 percent, but the gap was within the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4.38 percentage points. McCain also had a slightly higher approval rating, 55 percent to 53 percent, also within the margin of error.

This is the first time I have seen a non Rasmussen poll with McCain leading in Colorado. Yes, it makes me worry. Colorado is pivotal to an Obama electoral map strategy. I thought he would win it easily.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Let's hear it for those who stepped up to help the women and children left behind in Postville, Iowa after a raid resulted in the arrests of about 400 undocumented workers, many of whom were imprisoned after cursory proceedings.

The raid left 43 women, wives of the men who were taken away, and their 150 children without status or a means of support. The women cannot leave the town, and to make sure they do not they have been outfitted with leg monitoring bracelets.

Postville has turned into an open air prison for the women and children who, for "humanitarian" reasons, haven't been detained behind bars. The women have been left to fend for themselves, but are prohibited from working to earn money. [more ...]

The New Republic has a good article about the South Ossetian conflict from a Georgia supporter. It is a pretty honest assessment, unlike much of what we have seen from others arguing for Georgia. Ronald Asmus writes:

I know that this is a war that the Georgian government never wanted. To be sure, the Georgian government and President Saakashvili himself is responsible for launching its military move on August 7--albeit in response to provocations and heavy shelling by South Ossetian separatists. That move gave Moscow the pretext to invade. Today, Western observers understandably ask why Tbilisi allowed itself to be goaded into what was clearly a Russian trap. President Saakashvili will have to answer that question himself. But I suspect I have a pretty good idea of what he will say.

More...