And then in the comments we have:

"Obama supporters! Pucker up!"

"Hillary's career is over."

"I don't see why we need to support a candidate that nearly destroyed the Democratic party." (as if!)

Yeah, that's just on the first page I scanned. Something tells me the message was lost. Frankly, I've been very disappointed in how David Plouffe AND Terry McAuliffe ran their respective campaigns. I saw this coming months ago--it shouldn't have been a surprise.

What is a surprise is how many people can't see past their weird "Yankee / Redsox" fetish to understand the greater good. EITHER candidate would have been awesome for the country, and one of them had to lose. It's not criminal, and faulting the other side for how it played ball while ignoring the misdeeds of the side you backed is exactly what the GOP does.

So wake up.

I'm interested to see what the practical application of the SCOTUS ruling will be.

In the country we've come to get used to over the last 8 years, the Bush administration will find a way out of this, possibly by simply ignoring the ruling entirely and counting on the fact that Gitmo is hard to reach, and therefore hard to oversee.

In this debate I see real danger, because the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle masks the truth.

1. There are some dangerous prisoners being held at Gitmo. To the nutjobs out there who think that everyone held at Guantanamo is innocent, you're as insane as any GOP wingnut who thinks all Muslims are guilty until proven innocent. Get a grip. Yes, I know that most of them have never been formally charged, and there are quite a few cases (many of which have been highlighted here in Salon) of people being held for no good reason whatsoever. But there are also many cases of people who are vicious, violent, and sick, who will kill people if we let them out.

2. NONE OF THAT implies that anyone being held at Gitmo does not deserve a fair trial. And a fair SPEEDY trial. Bush has done things the way he has to keep his grip on power absolute. With fair trials, you run the risk of terrists going free. He'd rather imprison innocents than let any terrists go free. He's the decider! He's tough. He wears a cowboy hat sometimes. Etc.

The SCOTUS ruling is good. It's a start. As the article states, though, it's not going to free everyone at Gitmo. All it does is guarantee a habeas corpus hearing. That's definitely a step in the right direction.

It doesn't say anything about prisoners held on non-US-soil. The right of habeas corpus is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, so I don't really see how that's even relevant. And to Elephantboy's petulant "when did the Prez ever say he was above the law," uh, get your head out of the sand. See Harriet Meiers. See his ridiculous use of "executive privilege" to cover his ass.

That's just ONE way he's tried to hold himself above the law. Should you try to apply yourself even the tiniest bit, you'll find at least 8 or 10 other ways.

But you won't.

One thing this article doesn't take into account is the long-term view. That is, this campaign won't just be to get someone to win, but Obama must also pick a running mate that he can work with effectively as his VP.

There's been little credible reporting that I'm aware of in that regard. For all the animosity of their respective campaigns, both Obama and Clinton have kept at least a public facade of decency and even collaboration throughout the primary season. I for one would like to know if they'd make an effective team in the long run.

It's not just about how likely they are to win, after all. It's also about how much the two of them might be able to accomplish once in office. In this post-Cheney/Dubya political landscape, the office of VP holds considerably more power than pre-2000.

In the short term, that might be a benefit to the country at large should Hillary wind up as Obama's Vice President.

...how the Dems seem to find it so easy to become complicit in the most ill-considered sorts of legislation. I mean, there's gray areas, and then there's just plain right and wrong.

Why is it so patently obvious to the some people that warrantless wiretapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, the expansion of executive privilege, etc. (each one of those disturbing in its own right) all add up to paint a grim picture of the future of this country...but others just don't get it, even when confronted with the stark and glaring hypocrisies these policies produce?