challenge to Obama to make a Sex Speech

Obama seems to be at his best when he's passionate about the subject.  Though I'm sure this would be an interesting talking point, I just don't know if he'd have the same kind of... feeling behind a speech like this -- unless he connected it to all the American Underdogs.

Reagan did a beautiful think in Justice Kennedy.  At the time, a lot of Democrats thought that O'Conner would be the best they could hope for from Reagan in the way of Supreme Court appointments.  Years later, I think it was really Anthony Kennedy.

If memory serves Kennedy was picked after Robert Bork was rejected by the senate.

*Edited because of a faulty memory and lack of sleep. 

Obama does his George W. Bush impression...OK, not really, but it's not one of his 'smooth' speeches...and raises a fair question about what kind of coverage the news media would give to any other candidate who got this sidetracked:

http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/uninformed-obama-stu tters-hesitates-media-turns-other-way/

challenge to Obama to make a Sex Speech

I agree with Tom as a woman I would appreciate the subject being address, but I would think, "Unless you are a woman you really have no idea what it is like to be one." The only way he could pull it off is come with the "hey as a man I know we have messed up sometimes"  I just don't want to hear that.

I think what worked in his race speech, he did it in a non threatening "you stupid white people" way. I think white people would be more willing to talk about race, if they didn't feel like they had to make up for the sins or their ancestors.

Reagan and the Bushs were smart in picking Supreme Court justices.  They picked 'em young.  Clinton's appointees are spectacularly bright and keen legal minds but they were old when he was Governor of Arkansas.

No way is McCain picking Jindal for VP. You can't call Obama inexperienced and then pick a 36 year old to be your VP.

Sure you can.  There is a gigantic difference between inexperience becoming VP vs. President.

I would have had no problem at all with Obama, experience wise, if he were the VP on the ticket.

My all-time favorite Bush sound bite also occurred after his landslide re-election in 2004: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.  It is my style."

I get this image of Rove throwing up his hands in the White House basement.  "Fuck it, just teach him to say it phonetically; I give up."

I get this image of Rove throwing up his hands in the White House basement.  "Fuck it, just teach him to say it phonetically; I give up."

I've got a feeling Bush 41 said the same thing many many times.

In 5-4 Decision the Supreme Court rules that prisioners held in Guantamo can appeal to United States Civilian Courts.  “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” wrote Justice Kennedy in the Majority Decision.

Ugh.  Hate this decision.  The Constitution only applies to US citizens.  Not saying Guantamo is the correct way to do things or right, just saying that the Constitution is the wrong argument.

The Constitution only applies to US citizens. 

That is not even remotely true, Scott.  What do you base this statement on?

Scott:

If you don't agree with the Court's decision (but agree with the dissenters) that I understand.  But at issue in the decision is not the applicability of the US Constitution to non citizens.  Its whether an enemy combatant is entitled to file a writ of Habeas Corpus.

"The Constitution only applies to US citizens."

No. The constitution asserts judicial power over foreigners within US borders. All laws that apply to US citizens therefore also apply to foreigners, with the exception of those rights specifically reserved for citizens (voting etc.) or those laws specifically adressed to foreigners.

This means rights as well as obligations (the obligation not to break the laws, that is), as well as the methods of addressing the judiciary (such as through appeal.)

When the US government denies non-citizens their civil rights, they - by extension, exercise a power that would let them deny civil rights to citizens. US citizens are just more likely to object if citizens are affected than when it affects non-citizens.