If I were Henry Louis Gates Jr. or James Crowley, I would hold out for Danish brewer Carlsberg's Jacobsen Vintage No. 1. At $350 a bottle, it's reportedly one of the most expensive beers in the world.

It was announced Wednesday that President Barack Obama will drink a Bud Light, Crowley a Blue Moon and Gates a Red Stripe.

Perhaps relatively cheap beers — given the improving but still sluggish economy — are the right way to go for the much-touted suds summit at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. this evening.

I actually had a better idea, a flashback brainstorm from my inner-city legally drinking young-adulthood days.

I would have all three men head over to a bodega in D.C., buy a 40-ounce bottle of Colt .45 malt liquor, then share swigs while sitting on the White House stoop instead of at a picnic table. And I would highly recommend they keep the bottle hidden in a large brown paper bag, just in case the po-po or the Secret Service are out and about. Hold it. One of them is a po-po. Never mind.

Humor aside, I can't think of a more positive or constructive way to spin this unfortunate and well-publicized incident that once again ignited a national debate on race relations and policing in America.

But let's cut to the chase. This confrontation between a black Harvard University professor and a white Cambridge, Mass., cop who was responding to a report of a suspected break-in at Gates' home was not solely about race or class. It was, at its roots, a

clash between homeowner-citizen indignation and contempt of cop.

On that day, contempt of cop was the trump card, judging by the photo of the 58-year-old Gates exiting his home in manacles for a ride downtown. In other words, only one person in this confrontation had the ultimate power, the authority — and most important — the discretion to arrest and incarcerate.

Obama was half-right when he uttered the "stupidly" comment. If he needed to "re-calibrate" his remarks, it should have been that both men acted stupidly. One acted like a jerk, even if he was in his home, and accused the other of being a racist, ignoring why the cop was there in the first place.

The other chose to subjectively execute a law that is broadly worded and vague, but one easily abused by the law enforcement community.

It is not a crime to mouth off at a cop, even after it has been ascertained that you rightly live in the place of the suspected break-in.

It is wise? No. Colin Powell was partly right on this one. It's uncivil and disrespectful and beneath someone of Gates' academic reputation and stature. Cooperation is the better approach.

BEWARE OF 'CONTEMPT OF COP'

I repeat: It is not a crime to be obnoxious or rude or, in some cases, to rightly challenge an officer's attitude or subjective orders after the situation that brought the cop to the scene has been resolved.

That's not what happened. Crowley, by all accounts a solid cop, went from acting professionally to taking things personally. Any constitutional-law expert can tell you that is not reason enough to place someone under arrest in handcuffs, drive them to a booking facility, photograph and fingerprint them and lock them up for a while, knowing full well the charge likely won't stick under prosecutorial review.

Those who think Crowley was right to bust Gates will sing a different tune if the person taken downtown in handcuffs from their own home happens to be their father or brother or son. But this kind of stuff occurs daily in cases that will never see the light. And we can support our police while pointing out abuses or errors in judgment.

In a special report last year, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer crunched six years' worth of arrest and population data and found that blacks in that city were eight times more likely than whites to be arrested and booked on a charge of "obstructing" — a kissing cousin to the disorderly-conduct charge that was used to arrest Gates. Half of those arrests were kicked out after city attorney review.

The newspaper noted that Seattle police civilian auditor Kate Flamer warned that city's police department four years ago about the need for more training and stiffer punishments for officers who "abuse their discretion."

It also published a 12-point rundown by the department legal adviser on avoiding bad busts and the potential for civil liability claims.

"Don't arrest for 'contempt of cop,' " the adviser, Leo Poort, wrote in the memo. "Officers must be thick-skinned and not unduly influenced by the attitudes of persons they contact. Flunking the 'attitude' test (is) not a bookable offense."

That's Seattle, you say. Well, I would wager a kidney we would find similar results in most areas.

To wit: The police chief in Albuquerque, N.M., concerned about a community backlash over such arrests, instructed rank-and-file cops to not slap citizens with "refusing to obey" violations unless the target already was undergoing a bust on another crime.

ST. PAUL PROCESS WORKS

An ongoing effort in St. Paul may just supply Obama and his brewski buddies with another example of why it's best to sit down and air things out.

In 2006, the Saintly City recorded a historic high in what is called "obstructing legal process" arrests. John Choi, then the new city attorney, took a look at the surge.

He was not surprised that most of those busted were people of color.

"Actually, we did not really have to study that, because all anyone had to do was to show up at arraignment court and see who showed up," Choi said Wednesday. "It was obvious."

So, with the collaboration of cops, Choi's office and academic experts, a restorative-justice project was established and policies reviewed and fine-tuned.

The police agreed to have a watch commander or supervisor review obstructing-legal-process arrests before booking or prior to the city attorney's review.

A mediation process was set up. Those who had no previous criminal record would be selected to undergo a mediation process that could lead to a dismissal of charges and record expungements.

Such arrests plunged from a high of 568 in 2006 to 399 last year. Five cases so far underwent reviews that included face-to-face sessions between the cop and the person arrested — mostly first-time offenders with no criminal record, just like Gates.

The process essentially forces participants to walk in the other person's shoes.

"I believe that when these things happen, everyone involved — from the officer, to the person arrested, to the prosecutor looking at the law — is looking at the situation from a narrow perspective," Choi said.

"I'm convinced that what we are doing here has led to a better prosecution, a better police department and a better community because we took the extra time and the patience to resolve these cases as a way to achieve better justice."

Works for me. Choi mentioned the restorative-justice sessions usually involve the cop and a supervisor, the person arrested, Choi or an underling, and two mediators from the city's dispute and mediation center.

That's six. Six-pack in order here?

"No beers," said St. Paul police spokesman Paul Schnell, who has taken part in sessions from an observer-supervisor function. "The cops are on duty."

I'm assuming Crowley is off-duty or off the clock tonight. If not, he'll likely get a presidential pardon.