He may not be the perfect choice, but pretty good overall, I think. A few thoughts. First, one reason I saw against picking Biden is that it could be spun as an admission that Obama needed shoring up on foreign policy. This selection could be cast as Cheney-esque, in the sense of "Don't panic! A grown-up will be present to chaperone!" Picking Biden shows some humility on Obama's part, some recognition that he isn't the leading expert on everything, or appealing to all voters. The only people who could have done more to send that message were Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, and Obama's not that humble.

Second, how long until the media (and Obamaphiles) start comparing this ticket to another pairing of sitting senators, one fresher and one a fixer? Biden won't deliver Texas, but I don't think the Democrats will shy away from people bringing up JFK and LBJ.

Third, picking Biden makes McCain more likely to go "outside the box." Had Obama chosen a relatively ordinary, less-well known person like Bayh or Kaine, McCain could have taken the safe route with Tim Pawlenty. Now he has to choose someone to match the stature of Joe Biden. Mitt Romney is the most obvious choice, but he brings some risks. However, I think the Biden choice makes McCain at least marginally more likely to pick a stunner like Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge. My wildest dreams (and Feddie's worst nightmares) include a McCain-Lieberman ticket, so I won't say any more on that, lest I jinx it.

Finally, the McCain camp is already hitting back with lots of quotes from Biden regarding Obama's inexperience and unpreparedness to be president. (It's still not as jarring a flip in support of a former rival as Johnson's of Kennedy or Bush's for Reagan or McCain's for Bush, I'd suggest.) When he is inevitably asked about this, wouldn't the best answer -- the most Biden-esque answer -- be something like, "If he can out-debate me, he's qualified to be president!"

I think Prof. Berman has found a new champion in his quest to see the courts recognize robust Second Amendment rights in the context of federal criminal firearms laws.

A judge in Atlanta has imposed a temporary restraining order on basketball megastar Shaquille O'Neal. A 23-year-old woman alleged that she and (the married) O'Neal had an intimate relationship, but when she ended it, Shaq stalked her by sending threatening emails and making harassing phone calls. The woman says O'Neal sent an email stating "I dnt no who the [expletive] u think u dealin wit u will neva be heard from one phone call is I gotta make now try me. Sho me." More coverage from Deadspin here and AOL's Fanhouse here.

It should be noted at the outset that these are only allegations. The restraining order was granted ex parte and O'Neal has not even been served with it yet, let alone had a chance to appear and contest it. (A hearing is scheduled for September 4.) But after the hearing, the judge could make the restraining order permanent. I confess my ignorance on the law regarding restraining orders, but I would presume a permanent order requires some kind of showing that the allegations are credible and that O'Neal poses a danger to the woman.

But if Shaquille O'Neal finds himself subject to a restraining order, he has some problems (aside from whatever punishment the NBA might impose). O'Neal is famous for having something of a cop fetish, on par with that of Elvis Presley's. O'Neal has been made an honorary officer of several law enforcement agencies (including the U.S. Marshals), has made arrests as a Miami "reserve officer," and participated in the service of a search warrant (albeit on the wrong house) on a suspect in a pornography case. Shaq has made it clear on many occasions that he wants to be a full-time police officer when he retires from basketball.

And therein lies the rub. It almost goes without saying that no wise law enforcement agency would hire a high-profile deputy subject to a restraining order for stalking and threatening a former companion. Indeed, many of Shaq's police pals disassociated themselves from O'Neal after he was caught on video saying some bad words about former teammate Kobe Bryant. If something that innocuous makes police offices leery, imagine how they would react to a restraining order.

But the even more serious consequence for O'Neal would be the impact of federal criminal firearms laws. Tucked away in the federal code is Section 922(g)(8) of Title 18. That provision makes it illegal for anyone under a restraining order to possess a firearm. The order has to be entered after notice and a hearing, so Shaq's wouldn't qualify yet, but if the judge makes it permanent after the upcoming hearing, I think it would fall within section 922(g)(8).

Obviously, O'Neal couldn't be a police officer if he were legally prohibited from possessing firearms. More importantly, it would be a federal crime for him to possess firearms, at any time, ever, for life. (I don't know for sure if Shaq even has a gun now, but I can't say it would shock me if a "reserve officer" who participated in SWAT raids happened to own a gun.)

Now, we may decide that the provision makes sense, and courts might uphold it against a Second Amendment challenge. Notably, however, the Supreme Court's dicta in Heller suggesting the continuing validity of firearm-possession bans on felons and the mentally ill does not include persons subject to restraining orders.

Prof. Berman has questioned several times whether (non-violent) felons like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby should be permanently stripped of their rights to self-defense in their homes. Shaquille O'Neal could make a similar argument, and he wouldn't even have to be convicted of anything. Yes, he could hire an entourage of bodyguards, but they would be unlikely to sleep in his bedroom, where he might desire a measure of lethal protection. (Ask Sean Taylor.)

I realize there are strong arguments that stalkers and those who threaten violence are exactly the type of people out of whose hands we would want to keep firearms. But if O'Neal were subject to serious penalties for violating the restraining order or contacting the woman, is it also necessary to prohibit him, on pain of federal prison, from possessing a gun even when he's far away from her, and even if he needs it for self-defense in his home?

Even if the answer is "yes," I think it's a worthy debate to have, and O'Neal might be the perfect protagonist. He certainly has a higher favorable rating than your average person under a restraining order. (And, I wouldn't be shocked if his apologists start spreading the notion, regardless of the facts, that this case is about a psycho ex-girlfriend overreacting and denying Shaq his dream of taking down perps.)

Anyway, I will be interested to see how all this plays out. If Shaq still wants to be a police officer, I expect him to fight this pretty hard.

Greater Blogistan is buzzing today over John McCain's Kinsley gaffe in an interview with Politico. When asked how many houses he (and his heiress wife) own, McCain replied, "I think -- I'll have my staff get to you." It appears he has seven homes.

All the political blogs, and a nice chunk of the mainstream press, is covering this, but I've especially enjoyed the alternative takes from NRO's The Corner (see here and here for example) and The New Republic's Plank and Stump blogs.

The conservatives are defending McCain mainly by pointing out that Barack Obama is wealthy and that there was some shadowy business involved in the purchase of Obama's home. It's hypocritical, they say, for Democrats to chide McCain for being elitist when their ranks include the likes of Ted Kennedy. Moreover, they assert, the Democrats will get no traction out of such populist class warfare. But this is a spectacular case of missing the point. NRO's Jonah Goldberg, particularly, has been way wrong about this (see here and here and here for starters).

Goldberg's defense is here, and it makes me worry that a lot of liberals (at least the ones who read The Corner) are missing the point, too. Jonah says that the liberals' have written him, and their argument actually is that McCain's multiple homes make him "out of touch" with the working man. Goldberg concedes that they may gain some ground with this one, akin to the first President Bush's famous experience with the grocery store checkout scanner. Goldberg's basic defense is that the ones who are really out of touch are the cultural elite, predominantly liberal, as opposed to the economically elite, including the McCains.

(Oh, and the McCain's campaign's response is pricelessly lame. After noting that Obama lives in "a frickin' mansion," as if the McCains' home swere hovels, his spokesman said, "This is a guy who lived in one house for five-and-a-half years -- in prison." Yes, and then he lived in one house for seven or eight years before dumping his wife to marry the heiress and buy more houses.)

But all this caused enough forehead-slapping, "arrggh"-venting frustration that I felt compelled to have to spell out what the point really is. It's not that McCain has a lot of houses. The point is that McCain doesn't even know how many houses he owns! That's bad for McCain even if the answer is a Unabomber shack and an outhouse. How are the Cornerites and their ilk missing this? The Obama campaign press release notes more than a dozen times that the campaign surrogates will discuss at various events "McCain losing track of how many homes he owns."

This post from Eve Fairbanks at TNR's Stump notes that this adds fuel to the McCain-is-old-and-confused meme. That's true, and that's probably where the late night jokes are going to go, with the wealth aspect tossed in. ("McCain also said he couldn't remember whether his toilets are gold or platinum! And then he said he always forgets which yacht is his at the marina!") The point here -- and the part of all this that will resonate -- is that it's one thing to be rich; it's another thing to be so rich (and addled) that you forget how many houses you own.

I just have a feeling this will stick to McCain. The only thing that would make it worse is if there had been video showing his confusion. After the zeitgeist gels around the rich+confused notion, how will McCain respond? There are lots of defenses (as if there is anything necessarily blameworthy) to being wealthy and owning lots of property. That's what McCain and his supporters are trotting out now. But what defense is there to not even knowing how many homes you own? After admitting to Politico that he didn't know the number, McCain said, "It's condominiums where -- I'll have them [his staff] get to you." Without tracking down his real estate holdings, I wonder if McCain is suggesting that a condo is leased or held by a trust or in some way not owned outright in fee simple by the McCains. Would Mr. Straight Talk McCain really argue that it all depends on what the meaning of the word "own" is?

Prediction: This may not cost McCain the election, and next year we may be joking that he forgets how many White Houses there are. But this will have legs. It's just too easy a target, too rich for lampooning, and too difficult to defend. And also, even if this story dies down a little this weekend, after Obama picks his running mate, it will re-gain some traction next week, when I'm sure it will be mentioned a hundred times during the Democratic convention, and more importantly, when Jay Leno returns to the air after the Olympics end. Leno's probably already written twenty solid minutes on this. And he can have my yacht joke for free.

UPDATE: A few new links. I think Prof. Althouse misses the point. Marc Ambinder gets it. Matthew Yglesias does the legwork to actually count the McCains' houses (it's complicated because some appear to be rental property).

And, here is the audio of the statement during the Politico interview. McCain can't pinpoint it, but he doesn't sound befuddled or anything. Video probably would have helped him, actually. Still, I stand by my analysis. I don't think his defense will be very compelling if it amounts to "I'm not as confused as my words make me sound!"

Well, the veepstakes are heating up, and everyone with an electoral college map and a congressional directory is making predictions. (Mine, from November, are comically wrong, but I'll save the laughs for those willing to put in the effort to find that post.) The buzz this week on the Democratic vice-presidential nominee seems to be focused on Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, just as it was centered on Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh last week, and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine the week before that.

As a native of Virginia, I took a little interest in the Kaine boomlet. I think there are decent arguments on his behalf, and decent arguments against him. And, ultimately, I don't think he'll be the choice. But I did want to comment on one argument against Kaine that I think shouldn't be a major consideration: the fact that picking him will turn the Virginia governorship over to a Republican.

Virginia does not elect a ticket; its Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General all run separately. In 2005, when Kaine was elected, the GOP took the other two spots. Bill Bolling was elected Lt. Gov., and Bob McDonnell won the A.G. spot. So, if Kaine did leave office, Bolling would indeed take over. But there are a couple of noteworthy quirks to all this.

First, Virginia's governors cannot run for re-election. They are limited to one (consecutive) term. So Kaine's tenure would be up in 2009 anyway. The other offices are not term-limited. The consensus seems to be that the GOP will coalesce around McDonnell as the 2009 gubernatorial nominee, with Bolling running for another term as Lt. Gov. (and probably setting himself up for nomination in 2013).

The other big quirk is that Virginia attorneys general have, for decades, followed a tradition of resigning when they run for another office, to minimize claims of partisanship in the AG's office. I don't think that's usually necessary (or, if it is necessary, probably not sufficient), but that's neither here nor there. It is what it is.

But what this could mean is that, if Kaine leaves office, Virginians could see the strange circumstance of the incumbent Governor (Bolling) running for the lesser office of Lt. Governor, and the Lt. Gov. and AG spots vacant, one because of elevation and the other because of resignation. (Technically, some placeholder would be named AG, but that person is usually an unknown without a statewide constituency. I think the Lt. Gov. position stays open, or is effectively filled by a Senate President Pro Tem or something, but I'm not sure. The point is, the officeholders won't look anything like the ones voters elected in 2005.)

It might be amusing to see Barack Obama pick Kaine, just to see how all this would effect Virginia politics. Plus, Kaine may decide the ship is sinking and it's time to bail out. But given Kaine's closeness to Obama, and the fact that he won't have another job come November 2009, I fully expect to see Kaine take some kind of position in an Obama administration, should Obama win this fall.

The natural fit for Kaine, a former urban mayor and housing lawyer, would be H.U.D. Secretary. Assuming Kaine has higher political aspirations, though, he might want some foreign policy experience. (This is the biggest knock against Kaine as a vice-presidential hopeful.) So, I'll throw out another suggestion: Ambassador to Mexico. Kaine is fluent in Spanish and once served as a Catholic missionary in Central America. Kaine could take a role in formulating and implementing Obama's immigration policies. Maybe a few years in Mexico City, then a move to a U.N. post or something. Something like a Bill Richardson path. Or, stick with the domestic experience at H.U.D. and be a Jack Kemp to a future presidential candidate with more foreign policy expertise.

Anyway, the point of all this is that I don't think Virginia's gubernatorial succession provisions should prevent Obama from choosing Kaine, although, as I said, I think there are other arguments against Kaine (or, to put it another way, stronger arguments in favor of other candidates). In any event, I still have a feeling that if Obama wins, he'll end up picking Kaine for another post at some point, so they'll probably have to go through those succession procedures before the scheduled transition anyway.