Today, the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, where firearm use is consistent with traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense or hunting). The question now is to what extent Heller, and gun ownership in general, will become an issue in the presidential election.

Peace to the family and friends of Tim Russert.

Once polls close in South Dakota and Montana, will the presumptive Democratic nominee become the actual nominee?  If not, will Clinton take her case to Denver?

Yesterday, Bob Hebert opined that Delaware Senator Joe Biden demonstrated “decency and class” when Biden declared on a morning talk show that “[t]his administration is the worst administration in American foreign policy in modern history—maybe ever.” Biden continued, “Every single thing they’ve touched has been a near-disaster.”

With decency and class like that, who needs insults?

The administration has been justifiably criticized for its prosecution of the war in Iraq. However, it is preposterous to accuse it of having the worst American foreign policy in history, modern or otherwise. Given the war on terror, and given the complexities of alliance building with a morally ambivalent Europe, this administration should be lauded for having strengthened U.S. ties with Saudi Arabia, Israel, India, Britain, Spain, France, Columbia and others. This administration has also worked tirelessly with Poland and the Czech Republic to build a weapons shield in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, NATO membership has grown (and will continue to grow in 2009 when Albania and Croatia join) on the president’s watch.

Have diplomatic ties with Russia and other states suffered? Of course, but that is due in large measure to Putin’s power struggle with the West, not to mention that other petulant leaders undermine—with the assistance of a sympathetic press—American foreign policy every chance they get. (See Iran, Venezuela and North Korea.) These points are lost on both Biden and Hebert because to them, the president is to blame for everything that goes wrong with the world. To them, anti-Americanism begins with President Bush and ends with their man, the junior senator from Illinois, a man who has no significant legislative achievement to speak of, no executive experience, no foreign policy experience, and the man who earned high marks from a top Hamas political adviser. To them, it’s just easier to point the finger at President Bush—while keeping it classy.

Bob Herbert should close his opinion columns by paraphrasing Ron Burgundy: “Stay classy, Joe Biden.” In the meantime, however, the rest of us will dispense with the pejorative and examine the record. That's how you keep things classy.

Today, Russia and China denounced the United States’ new European missile defense shield. In their view, the New York Times reports, the missile shield constitutes a “setback to international trust.”

Seinfeld fans may recall the episode where George chides Jerry for having given up on using a wallet. Jerry hilariously responded, stating that the very fact that George opposed going wallet-less made Jerry feel like he was on to something (paraphrasing). In this same way, the very fact that that Russia and China oppose the missile shield makes me think the U.S. is on to something. 

But even more to the point, the missile shield serves legitimate interests of the United States and its allies. Specifically, it will help guard against attacks made by the Irans of the world. If China and Russia are serious about international trust, they would join the U.S. in characterizing Iran, and others, as terror-sponsor states. But then again, international trust has never been the objective of Russia or China.

Democrats accuse President Bush of “cowboy diplomacy.” So, do Obama’s recent reiterations that he will meet, without precondition, the leaders of rogue nations like Iran and Venezuela constitute a shift to “let’s make a deal diplomacy?” Senator Obama appears to think that by—in the parlance of HBO’s Entourage—“hugging it out” with despots, the United States will be viewed by rogue states (and the world) as a kindler, gentler superpower, which will somehow serve American interests. Before Senator Obama speaks further on this very important issue, he is advised to do his homework on both Kennedy’s meeting with Khrushchev and Nixon’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart.

At this writing, Kentucky goes to Clinton and Obama is expected to win Oregon.  The candidates will jockey for the remaining states (and Puerto Rico) over the next 13 days, and the Democratic Party will decide what to do with Michigan and Florida.  Specifically, the Dems will decide whether every vote should count in elections other than ones held in 2000.  Meanwhile, talk has turned to a proverbial "super ticket," that is, a ticket containing both Obama and Hillary.  It has been said that Obama (and/or his wife) does not want Hillary on the ticket, but given that Clinton has consistently beat up on Barack in the swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky,  speculation about such a ticket will grow.  Republicans can't stop the Dems from putting forth such a ticket, but McCain could help himself--and his party--by choosing the running mate that can deliver him the election.  Gov. Crist, are you listening?

At his recent appearance at a metro Detroit auto plant, a female reporter asked Senator Obama what he would do help the American autoworkers. Obama’s response? “Hold on one second, sweetie, we’ll do a press avail.” Obama never made himself available to the press, but, to his credit, he did call the reporter’s cell phone and apologized for his admittedly “bad habit” whereby he calls women he does not know “sweetie.”

The following day, a colleague of mine, a respected attorney and published author, and I were discussing the incident. He saw nothing wrong with Obama’s “sweetie” comment. (That’s fine, but I think Obama’s comment was, at best, patronizing, and at worse, chauvinistic.) Obama’s comment aside, my colleague continued, “Whatever you think of his politics, Obama is just so cool.” This statement surprised me for two reasons.

My first instinct was, “Really? Is he cool? He doesn’t seem that cool to me, and as has been oft-reported, he’s bookish and seemingly awkward (or uncomfortable) around the swing state voters who have kept Hillary’s candidacy afloat. While neither of these characteristics are inherently “bad,” they don’t evince the coolness my colleague and those like him see in Obama. Besides, a presidential candidate calling a reporter “sweetie” does not—I hope—make one “cool.”

My second thought was less superficial; why would anyone want the POTUS to be considered “cool” anyway? When we think of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Reagan, “cool” is not the first word that comes to mind—and why should it? Ideally, a head of state should be described as honorable, dignified and the like, but not cool. Cool is for senior class presidents, not those seeking the highest elected office in this land.