Wake up call

Though he continued on for more than 70 pages in his stinging majority opinion on the Guantanamo Bay matter, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy pretty much said it all when he wrote decisively that “the laws and Constitution are designed to survive and remain in force in extraordinary times.”

The court’s 5-4 ruling to restore the writ of habeas corpus for the 300 or so “enemy combatants” being held at Gitmo was just the latest in a series of decisions that have repudiated the Bush administration’s war on the Constitution.

Yes, it happened by the slimmest of margins, but our system of checks and balances, in its infinite beauty, worked once again as it was designed.

Still, the closer-than-close 5-4 margin should be cause for alarm, particularly in light of the forcefulness of the two dissenting opinions, each of which was signed by all four dissenters (Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito --- all, not surprisingly, appointed to the bench by Republicans).

Particularly disturbing was this, from the reliably crazy Scalia, doing his best Rush Limbaugh impersonation:

"America is at war with radical Islamists. … The nation will live to regret what the court has done today. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

To read that, you’d think the decision was to throw open the gates of Gitmo and set everyone there free. All we’re talking about here is giving people the chance to be heard in court. With some of the best legal minds known to man working as AUSAs and with, in most cases, more than a half-decade to establish evidence against them, anyone who’s being legitimately held will undoubtedly be kept there until the day they die.

John McCain, predictably, warned Thursday that “we should pay attention” to the dissent calling the ruling:

"One of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

With John Paul Steven now 88 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg turning 76 in August, let that be a reminder of what’s at stake to every “disenfranchised” Hillary voter who’s considering throwing a tantrum and voting for McCain this fall.

"Do you have a mental problem?"

I haven't really been following the R. Kelly trial at all but I saw this tidbit today and was pretty amused:

An R. Kelly juror was nearly dismissed this morning after throwing a temper tantrum at the sequestration hotel Thursday evening.

The man, a white male in his 40s, apparently became agitated when his food and drink failed to arrive promptly during dinner.

"I've been waiting for a [expletive] half hour for a drink," a deputy quoted him as saying. "All I want is a couple of beers and a hamburger."

Cook County jurors typically are allowed to order any menu item under $10 and to have two alcoholic drinks at taxpayers' expense while sequestered.

Deputies said the man's fellow jurors told him there was no need for foul language, but he continued to rant. He was then removed from the dining area and taken outside, where he allegedly made some unflattering comments about the law-enforcement officials.

"You guys have been monitoring me all day," he was quoted as saying. "You know I'm not drunk."

The man was given his own room at the hotel following the disruption, deputies said.

Cook County Judge Vincent Gaughan called the man into the courtroom and asked if he was trying to intimidate his fellow jurors. The man giggled and told the judge he was just feeling claustrophobic.

"Why are you laughing?" the judge asked. "You're grinning at me. Do you have a mental problem?"

The man told the judge that he was fine. The juror has grinned through much of the trial—even when the sex tape was played.

Gaughan let the other 11 jurors decide whether to keep him or restart deliberations with an alternate. The jury sent back a note saying it would continue discussing the case with the man on the panel.

Obama on the Nile

Thomas Friedman writes today about the potential global ramifications of an Obama presidency, particularly within the Muslim world:

I have had a chance to observe several U.S. elections from abroad, but it has been unusually revealing to be in Egypt as Barack Hussein Obama became the Democrats' nominee for president of the United States.

While Obama, who was raised a Christian, is constantly assuring Americans that he is not a Muslim, Egyptians are amazed, excited and agog that America might elect a black man whose father's family was of Muslim heritage.

If America — despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 — were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name "Hussein," it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations.

[An Obama presidency would do more] to improve America's image abroad — an image dented by the Iraq war, President Bush's invocation of a post-9/11 "crusade," Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the xenophobic opposition to Dubai Ports World managing U.S. harbors — than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years.

For me, perhaps the greatest appeal of Obama's candidacy is its potential to restore America's reputation abroad, or, at the very least, to help us win back a little of the good will that we've lost over the past seven years.

My question for Friedman is this: If Obama's Muslim heritage does indeed end up being twisted into a wedge "issue" that leads to a McCain victory on Election Day, how will that be perceived by the Muslim world?

Will it surpass Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and all the rest as the greatest American "f-you" yet to Muslim people around the world?

It only makes sense that a candidacy that has raised so many hopes around the globe would result in an equally vociferous negative response should it fail.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Stop it already

US Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the former Democratic presidential contender, said Monday that he wants the House to consider a resolution to impeach President Bush.

Kucinich, D-Ohio, read his proposed impeachment language in a 290-minute-long floor speech. He contended Bush deceived the nation and violated his oath of office in leading the country into the Iraq war.

I'm with you, man. I get it.

But we are trying to win back the White House from a party in shambles!

Giving them something to unite around isn't exactly in anyone's best interest right now.

C'mon now. Listen to Pelosi and stick a sock in it before she opens up a can of crazy-Italian-woman whoop-ass on you.

Trust me when I say you don't want to find out what that's like. I speak from experience, man.

Hurricane Carter

It's no secret that if the Democrats are successful over the next six months in hammering home the idea that a McCain presidency equals a third Bush term, Obama is going to do very, very well on November 5th. After all, we're talking about a president (Bush) with a 30 percent approval rating. Do the math.

I think the Republicans undertand this too. If they're going to fight it, though, they're going to need a better comeback than this:

"Senator Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third term," John McCain said. "It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second."

Is that really the best you can up with, dude?

I know that your core constituancy in the metamucil-drinking, Murder-She-Wrote-watching, Oldsmobile-driving crowd remembers well the misgivings of the Carter administration, but what about anyone younger than, say, 50?

What's next? "He's running for Herbert Hoover's second term"?

Saturday in the Park

I don't know what it is, but there's something very un-presidential about this. The powder blue jeans? The belt? The black socks and gym shoes? THE HELMET!!?? Something about it just unsettles me.

Incidentally, upon closer inspection, he has the exact same bike as me. Exactly ... right down to the color. I suppose there's probably something un-presidential about that too.

Olympic fever ... catch it

By dumb luck, I had the chance on Friday to watch in person this surprise appearance by BHO at a rally in Chicago's Daley Plaza supporting the city's bid for the 2016 Olympics.

I still haven't decided what I think about the whole idea. (More on this some other day.)

The one thing I know for sure, though, is that if Chicago does end up beating out Tokyo, Madrid and Rio to land the games eight years from now, it will only be because of the worldwide infatuation with the man in the video above.

Isn't it nice to imagine an America, circa 2016, with a restored world image, rejuvenated economy, etc, plying host to the world in one of its greatest cities?

Easyyyyyyy

From U.S. Rep Jesse Jackson Jr (D-Chicago)

"I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years. What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance."

Mars attacks!

McCain wants to put a man on Mars:

Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a "better set of priorities" for NASA that would better engage the public.

McCain said one of his favorite books as a child had been Ray Bradbury's 1950 novel "The Martian Chronicles," about humans colonizing the Red Planet.

"I am intrigued by a man on Mars and I think that it would excite the imagination of the American people if we can say, 'Hey, here's what it looks like.' "

Remarkably, this was not from The Onion.

I love how his entire concept of the solar system beyond earth comes from Ray freaking Bradbury novels. He might as well have said that he was inspired while watching a rerun of The Jetsons.

Future headlines we can expect to see:

"McCain: Robots should be doing kids homework by 2015"

"McCain wonders why the hell we don't have flying cars"

"McCain backs 100-year cyborg occupation of Iraq"

The times they are a changin'

From The Times of London, another celebrity endorsement for BHO, this time from The Great Bob Dylan:

"Right now America is in a state of upheaval. Poverty is demoralising. You can't expect people to have the virtue of purity when they are poor.

But we've got this guy out there now who is redefining the nature of politics from the ground up ... Barack Obama.

He's redefining what a politician is, so we'll have to see how things play out. Am I hopeful? Yes, I'm hopeful that things might change. Some things are going to have to.

You should always take the best from the past, leave the worst back there and go forward into the future."

The Veepstakes

Five months, two pastors, and countless Bill YouTube meltdowns later, it is my profound honor to pronounce that the most shameful, graceless, selfishly drawn-out nominating primary in modern political history has come to a merciful close.

Barack Obama, my guy and yours, is the Democratic nominee for president of United States.

It is too soon to assess the ultimate damage that the Clintons' narcisistic, Roveian effort to smear their party's long-obvious nominee through the politics of fear, outright lies, fudging the numbers, race-baiting, gender baiting, xenophobia, evoking the threat of assasination, demonizing the Black American church, etc., will do. Undoubtedly, though, Obama will have a tough hill to climb, particularly when it comes to the blue-haired old ladies, coal miners, factory workers and Latino immigrants who the Clintons have successfully convinced that Obama doesn't share their values. Hope you're proud Bill 'n Hil.

Even more maddening is Hillary's newest meme: that Obama is obliged to ask her to be his runningmate by virtue of her classless, ill-gotten second-place finish. Turns out Father Pfleger had it right after all ... to a point, that is. Those tears we saw in New Hampshire were indeed brought on by her life-long sense of entitlement ... not because she's white, though ... because she's Hillary "I'm in it to win it" Clinton. It has been, and always will be, about her.

Enough with all that, though. We have a nominee and that nominee needs a runningmate who will compliment his own political/rhetorical style and practical experience while strengthening his geographic and demographic appeal --- particularly in the wake of the aforementioned Clinton wedge politics debacle.

With a promise not to follow in the footsteps of one Dick Cheney (who was charged with assembling a short-list of GW Bush runningmates only to famously conclude that he, Cheney, was in fact the best choice), here are some folks (ranked in order of the actual likelihood of their being asked) who I think would be a net-positive as the lesser half an Obama-led ticket:

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Virginia) --- The most talked-about potential choice at this point has spent the last few weeks on the talk show circuit promoting his eighth (!) book, fueling speculation that he's angling for the job. No doubt, the guy has an interesting and truly all-American biography: ex-Marine, Vietnam combat vet, Reagan-era Dept. of Defense bureaucrat and one-time Secretary of the Navy. Surely, his addition would help ease concerns about Obama's military/defense experience. His strident opposition to the war (inspired in part by a son currently serving abroad) is also appealing. As a Virginian, he would put a traditionally republican state in play. His aggressive rhetorical style could be effectively employed on the trail by designating him as Obama's attack dog and allowing Obama to stay above the fray. He isn't without skeletons in his closet though: he's twice divorced, is known for his short temper and once authored a paper, "Women Can't Fight," that has led to his demonization by the GOP as a misogynist. Some of his books are kind of racy too, and Republicans have tried to make an issue out of that in the past with mixed results. He's also pro-gun, which is a road that Obama might not be willing/able to go down given his "cling to guns and religion" episode.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Deleware) --- Biden's 35 years in the Senate make him one of the elder statesmen in that chamber, particularly in terms of those with bona fide foreign relations credibility. Indeed, he is currently the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he has earned a reputation as a sensible centrist. He is a Catholic, which could help in Pennsylvania and parts of Ohio and Michigan. On the downside, he's from a small solidly blue state with little electoral significance and did poorly enough in the early part of the primaries to render himself insignificant. Like Webb, his demeanor would also make him an effective foil to the easy-going Obama. He doesn't mince words when it comes to his criticism of Bush and the GOP.

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) --- It's hard to tell whether Richardson's status as the country's most prominent Hispanic political figure hurts or helps the ticket. Would the prospect of a black AND a Latino running the country actually turn off even more of the folks that Hillary infamously called "Hardworking Americans, white Americans"? The loss on that end, ostensibly, would be offset by the support of Latino voters, although I've always wondered how many Latinos in South Central LA, Miami, Denver, etc., even know that a guy named Richardson is of Mexican descent. Richardson is affable, likable and, to borrow a phrase from 2000 and 2004, a guy you'd like to have a beer with. His resume (seven-term Congressman, Energy Secretary, UN Secretary, Governor) adds cache He all but guarantees swing state New Mexico for the Dems, though they'll probably get it without him anyway. As a diplomat, it's unclear whether he has the stomach for the kind of partisan war that the general election is sure to bring. If he does get the nod, though, the beard HAS TO GO.

Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pennsylvania) --- At age 64, this old-school Pennsylvania pol would add a grandfatherly appeal to the Democratic ticket … think (dare I say) a jolly, non-evil version of Dick Cheney. More importantly, he is also one of Hillary's most well-known surrogates and his nomination as runningmate could extend the olive branch to disaffected Clinton voters. He has a big everyman appeal and is very popular among working class Pennsylvanians and would put that state in the blue column for sure. He's also a Jew and that could help blunt the argument that McCain and Co. have been making that Obama is "anti-Israel." Assuming that the Dems are going to compete in Florida, the Jewish vote will be huge. (Although Joe Lieberman didn't much help John Kerry there four years ago.) He adds nothing in the foreign relations realm, which could be a problem. This would be a solely geographic/demographic choice, which could backfire. At least they'd win Pennsylvania, though.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) --- Another big Clinton supporter, Bayh is a handsome young (he's 51) Democrat in the Kennedy mold. Beyond that, his biggest draw is that he puts a longtime red state – Indiana -- in play. On the downside, he voted for the war (like his girl Hillary) and has no noteworthy foreign relations experience. He's also been passed over already by Gore and Kerry so he might not be the most inspired choice. He would look nice next to Obama on stage, though. The again, so would …

Frmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-North Carolina) --- Another obvious choice. Still, you can't deny what a visually pleasing pair that these two would make. When he endorsed Obama, they were very comfortable together on stage, had a nice body language and just looked like a formidable team. Plus, his populist message does resonate with the working class and he could help keep Obama focused on that demographic. The downsides are plentiful: he's tried and failed already, couldn't carry NC for Kerry, still catches flack for his $500 haircut, etc. Plus, who knows if he even would want it. Plus, I don't think his wife likes Obama and that could make for an embarrassing media sideshow.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kansas) --- There is going to be a lot of pressure for Obama to choose a woman (especially if McCain goes out on a limb and picks someone like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin or former eBay CEO Meg Whitman). Sebelius might be his best choice. As a mother of two, she could play well in the suburbs, especially with her pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-education reputation. She might be a little dull and a little too obscure. She's catholic, which is good, and she has strong ties to Ohio and Michigan, too, which could help there. I'm not quite sure what else she brings to the table though.

Chris Matthews (D-MSNBC) --- OK, this isn't for real but it's fun to dream. Maybe he'll run for the Senate in two years, though.

Some others that have been mentioned but who I can't take seriously:

Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-Arizona) --- they'll never win Arizona anyway and it's pretty clear that she's probably a lesbian.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) --- Yes, I get it. He's anti-war and his nomination would be evidence that Obama is a uniter, etc. Frankly, I think it's all bullshit and would end up being seen for the stunt that it is.

Frmr. Vice President Al Gore (D-Tennessee) --- Not. Gonna. Happen.

Frmr. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) --- Too old school. South Dakota doesn't matter, either. Or will it?

Gov. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) --- Who?

Sen. Claire McCaskil (D-Missouri) --- A handsome woman, but one first-term senator is enough for this ticket.

Thoughts???