This year's NCAA tournament has set a record that can never be broken: the lowest ever sum of seeds for the four teams making the national semifinals. It'll miss by just one day that numerological miracle date: 4/4/08.
It wasn't impossible that we could end up with the four number one seeds, though no one ever bothered to think of it. The women's brackets come pretty close to it, every year (but I frankly don't know if they've ever equalled this year's men's record). Those who blundered into it with their bracket outcomes and just stuck with it were made to feel pretty foolish before. Now, they would seem to have locked up the pointage, whatever happens from here on. Perennial bracket losers who phoned it in rule!
So, let's declare the winners now and throw the thing open to a new competition. Two rounds, for all the marbles.
I don't find it easy to handicap at all. Each is a top team, well-coached, with genuine stars, team play, and few weaknesses. In their four tourney victories, all have overcome some stiff challenges, though the theme has been convincing, even one-sided, wins.
North Carolina has had ridiculous home-crowd advantage up until now, and while it will finally lose it in San Antonio, it will gain psychological advantage in the semis as Roy Williams looks back at his former employers and makes them pay for ever letting him go. The psychological aspect is very important to both of these squads: they rely on having multiple options, which can eventually pick up (break up double teams on) their stars. So, with the psych job Roy'll do on Self I'd give the Tar Heels a significant edge over the Jayhawks.
Memphis and UCLA were the teams I expected to win their divisions (before the draw, I picked them to meet in the finals). The super freshmen, point guard Derrick Rose for Memphis, and Kevin Love for UCLA, have both lived up to major expectations. I don't know the timing of their pro aspirations, but they're both ready and proven. The supporting casts are fully functional. This game could be better than UNC-Louisville, or Davidson-anybody. I'll go narrowly with Memphis in the semis (revenge for 1973!) and then by nine points over North Carolina in the finals.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Git the Grit Outta Here!
I have to say that this rant has been building up in me for a long time. It's been chafing my groin, getting in somehow under my waistband and bothering me. I can't get it out from under my fingernails. It's grit, and I'm sick of it.
I have had it, so that I can no longer remain silent, with "gritty" being used as a word of praise in describing an artist, musician, or politician.
First, the politicians: at some point I have heard all three of the top remaining Presidential contenders being described as "gritty".
That is nonsense. The only national politician who could really lay claim to grit in his gut is Jimmy Carter.
Even if we go along with the conventional misreading of "gritty" as a synonym for "gutsy" (I think it came from a corruption of the Italian "grinta", which is exactly that, intestinal fortitude), the old John Wayne True Grit kind, I don't buy it. Though Obama was surely exposed to his share of solid atmospheric pollutants during his days playing and working outside in Djakarta, New York, and Chicago, he's a man who's been wearing a tie on an expense account for a long time. Hillary has long left behind her hippie roots, which never strayed that far from the Old Money tree in the first place, and made her peaces with big lobbies and fat salaries. McCain's grittiness was in his low-budget campaign status early on, and isn't that nice? I'm sure it's been rectified now that the scenario has been clarified, and much in his favor.
What those MSM grit-adorners are referring to--code word--is "appearance of toughness", the thing that is supposed to most impress the blue-collar voters who can't apprehend the issues and vote based on pack mentality perceptions.
Music, Art: I can't imagine how we've reached the point where "gritty" is a favorable attribute in art. Yes, I know about "seeing the world in a grain of sand", but that is not at all what we are talking about here. We're talking about the worship of the street--the source of modern, urban grit. The residue of lots of sooty vehicles and stuff the street-sweepers missed.
Once again, we seem to have lost our ability to appreciate the clear, melodious voice, the sharp photographic image ("gritty" is not equal to "grainy", either), the painterly technique. Fashion becomes would-be wolves parading around with their pants waistlines hanging at mid-thigh. "The better to let the grit in, my dear."
I imagine I've gotten my point across by now. If you want to get under my skin, really irritate me, just rub me the wrong way with something gritty.
I have had it, so that I can no longer remain silent, with "gritty" being used as a word of praise in describing an artist, musician, or politician.
First, the politicians: at some point I have heard all three of the top remaining Presidential contenders being described as "gritty".
That is nonsense. The only national politician who could really lay claim to grit in his gut is Jimmy Carter.
Even if we go along with the conventional misreading of "gritty" as a synonym for "gutsy" (I think it came from a corruption of the Italian "grinta", which is exactly that, intestinal fortitude), the old John Wayne True Grit kind, I don't buy it. Though Obama was surely exposed to his share of solid atmospheric pollutants during his days playing and working outside in Djakarta, New York, and Chicago, he's a man who's been wearing a tie on an expense account for a long time. Hillary has long left behind her hippie roots, which never strayed that far from the Old Money tree in the first place, and made her peaces with big lobbies and fat salaries. McCain's grittiness was in his low-budget campaign status early on, and isn't that nice? I'm sure it's been rectified now that the scenario has been clarified, and much in his favor.
What those MSM grit-adorners are referring to--code word--is "appearance of toughness", the thing that is supposed to most impress the blue-collar voters who can't apprehend the issues and vote based on pack mentality perceptions.
Music, Art: I can't imagine how we've reached the point where "gritty" is a favorable attribute in art. Yes, I know about "seeing the world in a grain of sand", but that is not at all what we are talking about here. We're talking about the worship of the street--the source of modern, urban grit. The residue of lots of sooty vehicles and stuff the street-sweepers missed.
Once again, we seem to have lost our ability to appreciate the clear, melodious voice, the sharp photographic image ("gritty" is not equal to "grainy", either), the painterly technique. Fashion becomes would-be wolves parading around with their pants waistlines hanging at mid-thigh. "The better to let the grit in, my dear."
I imagine I've gotten my point across by now. If you want to get under my skin, really irritate me, just rub me the wrong way with something gritty.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
The Latest Straw
It comes to us from Jonathan Alter, though I have no doubt it originates from the fertile, devious mind of Mark Penn. Hillary has no rational path to winning the nomination (as her lead among superdelegates dissolves like a time-release cold capsule), but she should stay in because there's the chance Obama could lose to John McCain.
It's not impossible, I guess, but it is somewhat poorly supported by logic. Let's look at the three basic scenarios and how they play out:
1--HRC makes her best deal, bows out, and endorses Obama now (or soon--before the bitter end, which I see coming around the time of the Puerto Rico primary). A chance to heal properly by the convention, rally the Hispanics and women for Barack.
Results: 75% chance for B.O. to win; 2% HRC (some freakish combination occurrence which will not be named); 23% McCain.
2--HRC fights to the bitter end and loses. Whatever endorsement Barack Obama ends up with doesn't taste too good to Democrats or Independents. Obama is at a disadvantage--as he is right now--in the matchup with McCain.
Results: 50% chance for B.O.; 50% McCain. Don't fear too much, though, as the Democratic gains in Congress are going to be locked in anyway.
3--HRC fights to the end and somehow wins, or Obama has a major catastrophe and HRC wins the nomination because she's still in the game. Democrats are the weakest they could be coming out of the convention.
Results: 33% chance for HRC; 67% McCain.
Thus, if the outcome in November were at all a criterion, she would step out. Soon.
Alter said the Clintonista advisers aren't so Macchiavellian that their basic strategy is to seek Obama's downfall through strategy #2 (as opposed to #1 which takes her out of the picture in 2012, or #3, which is highly unlikely), but I'm not sure that's true. Hillary should ignore this bad advice and consider her options carefully. If she pulled out, she could get V.P., Gov. of New York, or Majority Leader of the Senate--all good launching pads if Obama should lose. In scenario #2, she'll be a pariah if Obama loses; in scenario #3, she's got a two-thirds chance of being toast.
Hillary's chances of becoming President by 2013
Option 1--The Sure Thing--2% in 2008; 2013: 40% X 23% (she would get her shot if McCain won, and would have a good chance against his failed administration in a re-election try, or his replacement if he died or didn't run); 5% of 75% if she makes nice with Obama and then he can't run in 2013 for whatever reason. Total: 14.95%
Option 2--The Macchiavelli Route--0% in 2008 (by definition); 2013: 2% (at best) X 50% if Obama wins; 20% (at best) X 50% if McCain wins. As I said, she'll be blamed--properly so. Total: 11%.
Option 3--The Real Long Shot--6.67% in 2008 (20% of taking it away X 33% in the general); 2013-- 10% (at best) X 67% for getting the nomination again and doing the Benjamin Harrison/Grover Cleveland or Ali/Frazier title switch in the rematch (regardless of the outcome in the 3rd go-round). Total: 13.33%
By my calculation, her best shot of getting the Presidency someday is to give up now.
It's not impossible, I guess, but it is somewhat poorly supported by logic. Let's look at the three basic scenarios and how they play out:
1--HRC makes her best deal, bows out, and endorses Obama now (or soon--before the bitter end, which I see coming around the time of the Puerto Rico primary). A chance to heal properly by the convention, rally the Hispanics and women for Barack.
Results: 75% chance for B.O. to win; 2% HRC (some freakish combination occurrence which will not be named); 23% McCain.
2--HRC fights to the bitter end and loses. Whatever endorsement Barack Obama ends up with doesn't taste too good to Democrats or Independents. Obama is at a disadvantage--as he is right now--in the matchup with McCain.
Results: 50% chance for B.O.; 50% McCain. Don't fear too much, though, as the Democratic gains in Congress are going to be locked in anyway.
3--HRC fights to the end and somehow wins, or Obama has a major catastrophe and HRC wins the nomination because she's still in the game. Democrats are the weakest they could be coming out of the convention.
Results: 33% chance for HRC; 67% McCain.
Thus, if the outcome in November were at all a criterion, she would step out. Soon.
Alter said the Clintonista advisers aren't so Macchiavellian that their basic strategy is to seek Obama's downfall through strategy #2 (as opposed to #1 which takes her out of the picture in 2012, or #3, which is highly unlikely), but I'm not sure that's true. Hillary should ignore this bad advice and consider her options carefully. If she pulled out, she could get V.P., Gov. of New York, or Majority Leader of the Senate--all good launching pads if Obama should lose. In scenario #2, she'll be a pariah if Obama loses; in scenario #3, she's got a two-thirds chance of being toast.
Hillary's chances of becoming President by 2013
Option 1--The Sure Thing--2% in 2008; 2013: 40% X 23% (she would get her shot if McCain won, and would have a good chance against his failed administration in a re-election try, or his replacement if he died or didn't run); 5% of 75% if she makes nice with Obama and then he can't run in 2013 for whatever reason. Total: 14.95%
Option 2--The Macchiavelli Route--0% in 2008 (by definition); 2013: 2% (at best) X 50% if Obama wins; 20% (at best) X 50% if McCain wins. As I said, she'll be blamed--properly so. Total: 11%.
Option 3--The Real Long Shot--6.67% in 2008 (20% of taking it away X 33% in the general); 2013-- 10% (at best) X 67% for getting the nomination again and doing the Benjamin Harrison/Grover Cleveland or Ali/Frazier title switch in the rematch (regardless of the outcome in the 3rd go-round). Total: 13.33%
By my calculation, her best shot of getting the Presidency someday is to give up now.
Wall Street Journal Baseball Challenge and Responses
THE BASICS (point value in parentheses)
1. Which six teams will be division winners? (5 each)
2. Which two teams will win the wild cards? (5 each)
3. Which two teams will go to the World Series? (15 each)
4. Which team will win the World Series? (30)
5. Which team will have the best regular-season record? (10)
6. Which team will have the worst regular-season record? (10)
7. Who will win the
8. Who will win the
9. Who will win the AL and NL Rookie of the Year awards? (10 each)
TEAMS (all remaining questions 10 points each. All questions include regular-season games only.)
10. Which NL team will score the most runs? And which
11. Which NL team will give up the most runs? And which
12. Which team will have the most-improved record, measured in increase in total regular-season victories?
13. Which team will suffer the biggest decline, measured in decrease in total regular-season victories?
14. Rank these teams in order of regular-season wins, most to fewest: Nationals, Pirates, Orioles, Devil Rays, Royals.
INDIVIDUALS (Asterisk denotes partial credit will be given.)
15. Which manager will be first to no longer be managing his team (whether fired, retired, resigned or otherwise not managing) in 2008?
16. Who will be the highest-salaried player (based on 2008 salary) released or traded?
17. Which starting pitcher who’s changed teams (a group that includes Johan Santana and Dontrelle Willis) will earn the most wins?
18. Will anyone reach the 20-20-20-20 threshold (in doubles, triples, home runs and stolen bases) that Curtis Granderson and Jimmy Rollins reached last year? If yes, who?
19. How many home runs will Barry Bonds hit?*
WE’RE CURIOUS
20. Will average television ratings for the World Series go up or down from last year’s 10.6?
I’m going mostly chalk this year. Unlike most years, I see nothing wrong with a lot of the Conventional Wisdom. The big one for me is that the Reds are actually in the mix as a legitimate darkhorse in the NLC. I have to go for it.
- Mets (to repeat—just kidding, he! He!), Reds,
- Phillies, Yanks.
- BoTox and Phillies. Reds contribute to the final outcome by eliminating the Mets in the first round for Phila and for the Griffer, probably in his last year in Cincy.
- BoTox Dynasty, Phase I.
- Mets. I’m looking for NY-Phila race to be a hot one with some 95 wins each and beat the NL Central teams up mercilessly. Boston and Yanks will run into some tougher opposition (TBR turns out to be a better idea than TBD, and the Rays will no longer obediently give each AL East bleeder 12 wins+ each. Orioles will now absorb that role.
- A good question, indeed. I’ll go with Orioles, narrowly over the Twins and Pirates.
- AL Cy Young: Mark Buehrle. NL Cy Young: Chris Young (PMar finishes second in the voting).
- AL Rookie of the Year: At the risk of submitting a possibly illegal entry, Erick “Aqbar” Aybar. NL Rookie: Joey Votto.
- Teams scoring the most-- NL: Brewers; AL: Yankees. Strangely, WSJ reverses league it asks for starting with this question. Please note for automated replies.
- Give up the most—NL: Brewers (also).
- Best to worst— Royals, Nationals, (F.D.) Rays, Pirates, Orioles.
- First manager to go: Tony LaRussa (a guy can hope).
- Highest-salaried player released or traded: Milton Bradley is a perennial choice.
- “Which starting pitcher who’s changed teams (a group that includes Johan Santana and Dontrelle Willis) will earn the most wins?” Well, duh, Johan Santana.
- No.
- Bonds will hit four HR before his new indictment comes down; seven after. Total of 11.
- Way, way up, as
I found the questions very pedestrian; not much imagination went into their framing this year.
Tourney Challenge Headline: ESPN Member Services Disappoints
I think ESPN's idea (or Disney's ad agency's, whichever of the two may deserve the credit) of the $1,000,000 payout in their Tourney Challenge for a perfect bracket (64 correct game-winning decisions out of 64) was a great one. I'm sure it brought in lots of additional entries and new members.
Unfortunately, their website service doesn't seem to be up to the task of managing the simple task of logging in members (except those who are "In" and pay up, of course). After logging in successfully and getting my picks in, I have had repeated experiences of failing to get my password accepted. I've gone through several rounds of requesting new passwords (even though I knew I was putting in the right ones) and then having those rejected. So, I can't see how I'm doing compared to my peers in such groups as "Fans of Louisville", "ESPN Sports Anchors," and "The Perfect Bracket" (my daughter's entry, more on that later).
Fortunately, I wrote down some of the basics of each entry, which I will now put "on record" (since ESPN's don't hardly count with me, since I can't see it)--each valid entrant gets up to 10 bracket entries:
Final Four /Championship game/Who?/Comment at time
1 U. of Louisville, Kansas U., Memphis U., UCLA/ MU over UL, 71-59/me/not bad
2 U. of North Carolina, USC, MU, Drake/MU over UNC, 89-84/me/Radical but grounded
3 UL, U. of Wisconsin, MU, UCLA/ UL over UCLA, 73-65/ me/wishful
4 Notre Dame, Georgetown U. , Stanford U., UCLA/ SU over GU, 70-76/my wife/I liked the 2 chalk/2 Wild Card strategy
5 UL, KU, MU, Duke U./ MU over UL, 83-80/for my daughter/for "The Perfect Bracket"
6 UNC, KU, MU, DU/ MU over KU, 82-79/my son/"chalky"
7 U. of Tennessee, UW, MU, UCLA/UCLA over UT, 89-75/me/boring
8 UL, GU, MU, UCLA/MU over GU, 71-63/me/maybe
9 ND, KU, U. of Kentucky, UCLA/KU over UCLA 77-75/balancing except UK
10 UL, USC, U. of Texas, UCLA/UCLA over USC, 69-62/me/interesting but outrageous.
With six teams left, entries 2, 6, and 9 are still alive with regard to the finalists and winner (respectively, Memphis over UNC, Memphis over Kansas, and Kansas over UCLA). All three of those are matchups of #1 seeds. I think my son's entry, which I labeled "chalky", has the highest score of the 10 at this point. None of the 10 have all four teams possibly correct.
This year certainly makes the selection of all four #1 seeds (a common and much-despised choice by people who don't know any better or care) look respectable.
I have to kick myself for not picking Davidson to beat Georgetown in one or two of the scenarios. I had a lot of good picks identified (like W. Va. in the second round, Louisville to win through a tough half-bracket, Duke out, the 1-2-3-4 Regional Semis in the Southern) but no systematically wise set of selections. I picked #8 ("Fans of New Mexico") for my official submission to the NRDC, but the Davidson-Georgetown fiasco (from the bracket's point of view) was deadly to my chances there.
Back to the $1 million
That was gone in the first round. I was very impressed to see a couple of folks had all 16 of the Sweet Sixteen, and that deserves, but will not get, some sort of prize.
ESPN may feel it has dodged a bullet with all the chalk in the late rounds, but it's really quite safe. They could insure against the million pretty cheaply and they have nothing else to worry about. I hope they bring it back, with a new website management team for next year.
Unfortunately, their website service doesn't seem to be up to the task of managing the simple task of logging in members (except those who are "In" and pay up, of course). After logging in successfully and getting my picks in, I have had repeated experiences of failing to get my password accepted. I've gone through several rounds of requesting new passwords (even though I knew I was putting in the right ones) and then having those rejected. So, I can't see how I'm doing compared to my peers in such groups as "Fans of Louisville", "ESPN Sports Anchors," and "The Perfect Bracket" (my daughter's entry, more on that later).
Fortunately, I wrote down some of the basics of each entry, which I will now put "on record" (since ESPN's don't hardly count with me, since I can't see it)--each valid entrant gets up to 10 bracket entries:
Final Four /Championship game/Who?/Comment at time
1 U. of Louisville, Kansas U., Memphis U., UCLA/ MU over UL, 71-59/me/not bad
2 U. of North Carolina, USC, MU, Drake/MU over UNC, 89-84/me/Radical but grounded
3 UL, U. of Wisconsin, MU, UCLA/ UL over UCLA, 73-65/ me/wishful
4 Notre Dame, Georgetown U. , Stanford U., UCLA/ SU over GU, 70-76/my wife/I liked the 2 chalk/2 Wild Card strategy
5 UL, KU, MU, Duke U./ MU over UL, 83-80/for my daughter/for "The Perfect Bracket"
6 UNC, KU, MU, DU/ MU over KU, 82-79/my son/"chalky"
7 U. of Tennessee, UW, MU, UCLA/UCLA over UT, 89-75/me/boring
8 UL, GU, MU, UCLA/MU over GU, 71-63/me/maybe
9 ND, KU, U. of Kentucky, UCLA/KU over UCLA 77-75/balancing except UK
10 UL, USC, U. of Texas, UCLA/UCLA over USC, 69-62/me/interesting but outrageous.
With six teams left, entries 2, 6, and 9 are still alive with regard to the finalists and winner (respectively, Memphis over UNC, Memphis over Kansas, and Kansas over UCLA). All three of those are matchups of #1 seeds. I think my son's entry, which I labeled "chalky", has the highest score of the 10 at this point. None of the 10 have all four teams possibly correct.
This year certainly makes the selection of all four #1 seeds (a common and much-despised choice by people who don't know any better or care) look respectable.
I have to kick myself for not picking Davidson to beat Georgetown in one or two of the scenarios. I had a lot of good picks identified (like W. Va. in the second round, Louisville to win through a tough half-bracket, Duke out, the 1-2-3-4 Regional Semis in the Southern) but no systematically wise set of selections. I picked #8 ("Fans of New Mexico") for my official submission to the NRDC, but the Davidson-Georgetown fiasco (from the bracket's point of view) was deadly to my chances there.
Back to the $1 million
That was gone in the first round. I was very impressed to see a couple of folks had all 16 of the Sweet Sixteen, and that deserves, but will not get, some sort of prize.
ESPN may feel it has dodged a bullet with all the chalk in the late rounds, but it's really quite safe. They could insure against the million pretty cheaply and they have nothing else to worry about. I hope they bring it back, with a new website management team for next year.
Pivotal NCAA Game/Missed Prediction Opportunities
I haven't seen any yet of it (as I type this paragraph), but from the point of view of the championship and the dynamics of how it will play out, the critical game of the tournament is just underway--Louisville vs. U. of North Carolina.
I should have posted since I opined on "Spring Sports Excitement", but I've been away on vacation and haven't had a moment. What I would have said on an intermediate posting just before the tourney started:
1) Unlike some years, the 4-8 seeds looked seriously weak in relation to 1-3, so there shouldn't be too many upsets.
2) I saw an article saying essentially, "People often have #1 seeds facing each other in the Final Four. This is a bad play, as it has only happened once in the modern era of 64-65 teams, in the year that 3 #1's made the semis." I would say that there is a much better chance this year than normal for a showdown of #1's, particularly in the case that exactly two of them make the Final Four. I am personally featuring Memphis-UCLA in most of my brackets.
3) There are about 10 teams that can win it: they include all four of the #1's, #2's Georgetown, Tennessee, and Texas, and #3's Stanford, Louisville, and Wisconsin. Duke, while certainly a top team, doesn't look like Final Four material to me.
4) Davidson looks like the best mid-major contender for a surprise, but I don't like their second-round matchup indicated against Georgetown.
Now, what I'd say: North Carolina and Louisville look like the best teams in the tournament so far. I'd pick the winner of that one, narrowly, over Kansas, UCLA, or Memphis, which I thought was the best team of the regular season, and still improving, but may still have a fatal weakness at the line. Davidson-Georgetown, with Davidson's incredible second-half comeback, has set the tone for the entertainment value of the coverage. This is great, but different from the ultimate question of who will win the tourney.
As for the other sports mentioned in the previous link:
NBA: all 9 teams are still contending in the West and no one has broken clear. My early suggestion that Dallas or Golden State could be the odd one out (check that) now looks like the "smart bet" I often favor, that of the #2 and #3-probability contenders. The favorite was Denver and still is, but that's the one I'd tend to bet against, figuring the money on it was too short.
Boston's successful three-game sweep on the road in Texas has to be considered the wake-up call of the year, if anyone didn't believe how competitive this team could be in the postseason.
English soccer: It's looking now more clearly than ever a showdown between Chelsea and Man U. --definitely in the Premier League and quite possibly in the Champions League. Early season leader Arsenal (my wife's team) has fallen off the pace: their early-season super combo of Fabregas and Robin Van Persie hasn't resumed with Van Persie's return after a long injury. Fabregas/Agdebayor worked well in the interim, but now that Arsenal has both forwards it isn't working. Perhaps V.P. isn't 100%, but I think it's more Fabregas' wearing out.
Meanwhile both Man U. and Chelsea have had enough variety in scoring options that they have never gone cold.
I should have posted since I opined on "Spring Sports Excitement", but I've been away on vacation and haven't had a moment. What I would have said on an intermediate posting just before the tourney started:
1) Unlike some years, the 4-8 seeds looked seriously weak in relation to 1-3, so there shouldn't be too many upsets.
2) I saw an article saying essentially, "People often have #1 seeds facing each other in the Final Four. This is a bad play, as it has only happened once in the modern era of 64-65 teams, in the year that 3 #1's made the semis." I would say that there is a much better chance this year than normal for a showdown of #1's, particularly in the case that exactly two of them make the Final Four. I am personally featuring Memphis-UCLA in most of my brackets.
3) There are about 10 teams that can win it: they include all four of the #1's, #2's Georgetown, Tennessee, and Texas, and #3's Stanford, Louisville, and Wisconsin. Duke, while certainly a top team, doesn't look like Final Four material to me.
4) Davidson looks like the best mid-major contender for a surprise, but I don't like their second-round matchup indicated against Georgetown.
Now, what I'd say: North Carolina and Louisville look like the best teams in the tournament so far. I'd pick the winner of that one, narrowly, over Kansas, UCLA, or Memphis, which I thought was the best team of the regular season, and still improving, but may still have a fatal weakness at the line. Davidson-Georgetown, with Davidson's incredible second-half comeback, has set the tone for the entertainment value of the coverage. This is great, but different from the ultimate question of who will win the tourney.
As for the other sports mentioned in the previous link:
NBA: all 9 teams are still contending in the West and no one has broken clear. My early suggestion that Dallas or Golden State could be the odd one out (check that) now looks like the "smart bet" I often favor, that of the #2 and #3-probability contenders. The favorite was Denver and still is, but that's the one I'd tend to bet against, figuring the money on it was too short.
Boston's successful three-game sweep on the road in Texas has to be considered the wake-up call of the year, if anyone didn't believe how competitive this team could be in the postseason.
English soccer: It's looking now more clearly than ever a showdown between Chelsea and Man U. --definitely in the Premier League and quite possibly in the Champions League. Early season leader Arsenal (my wife's team) has fallen off the pace: their early-season super combo of Fabregas and Robin Van Persie hasn't resumed with Van Persie's return after a long injury. Fabregas/Agdebayor worked well in the interim, but now that Arsenal has both forwards it isn't working. Perhaps V.P. isn't 100%, but I think it's more Fabregas' wearing out.
Meanwhile both Man U. and Chelsea have had enough variety in scoring options that they have never gone cold.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Will Wright Hurt Obama?
I think the short answer is "yes". For those (white) Americans who liked Obama simply because he was a non-threatening black man, it will hurt. Obama could not keep those voters through the general election, though--not because he is threatening to white people--but because sooner or later, someone was going to find something that resonated with those people and told them, "Well, he is a black person who has some awareness of the racial history of injustice and understands that it applies to him, after all."
Those people are not ready for a black President; any black President short of an Uncle Tom.
Even Clarence Thomas has this understanding; it's just that Thomas's response to it has been intensely perverse. For that matter, those people are not ready for a President who doesn't treat them like children or gulls.
So, let it rage now and pass. Some people--and I hope it includes some who were not already in Obama's camp--appreciate him and The Speech for what he and it represent: wisdom, grace, and maturity.
Those people are not ready for a black President; any black President short of an Uncle Tom.
Even Clarence Thomas has this understanding; it's just that Thomas's response to it has been intensely perverse. For that matter, those people are not ready for a President who doesn't treat them like children or gulls.
So, let it rage now and pass. Some people--and I hope it includes some who were not already in Obama's camp--appreciate him and The Speech for what he and it represent: wisdom, grace, and maturity.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Obama's Grandmother and Pastor
I missed The Speech today. I don't really need to be convinced of his good faith on race, or once again convinced of his superb ability to deliver a message through oratory. He had to put some political distance between himself and his preacher, Rev. Wright, who had excalimed "God damn America!" in a sermon being used to discredit Obama.
The key point was when he said the following: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” who showed Barack all the love, but expressed her fear of Negroes (and other somewhat racialist sentiments) to him on some occasions when he was growing up--which confused him immensely.
Some were looking for a stronger denunciation of his pastor (not just those sentiments he expressed which showed bitterness and racialist anger), but didn't get it. I don't need it. Some think that Obama's unique personal history will provide fodder for Republican attacks. I say, "Bring it on!" It's extremely well documented (the superb "Dreams from my Father") , entirely consistent with his persona, and totally defensible. Anyone who tries to attack it will end up losing ground.
The key point was when he said the following: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother,” who showed Barack all the love, but expressed her fear of Negroes (and other somewhat racialist sentiments) to him on some occasions when he was growing up--which confused him immensely.
Some were looking for a stronger denunciation of his pastor (not just those sentiments he expressed which showed bitterness and racialist anger), but didn't get it. I don't need it. Some think that Obama's unique personal history will provide fodder for Republican attacks. I say, "Bring it on!" It's extremely well documented (the superb "Dreams from my Father") , entirely consistent with his persona, and totally defensible. Anyone who tries to attack it will end up losing ground.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Julius Spitzer
The Ides of March were not kind to (soon-to-be former) New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. He got his comeuppance, big-time, and the knives of cutthroat politicos and media types were fully in evidence as he fell. It was his prior demeanor and hypocrisy, rather than his sexual peccadilloes, which made his political position untenable. It seems as though he wasn't even given enough time to cop a plea.
I'd say that the fault was both within him and in the stars. Apparently he was unlucky that some of his bank transactions--fairly large ones, to pay for high-class hookers willing to engage in unsafe, covert sex--fit a pattern which caught the attention of snoops and flatfeet.
There's plenty of irony in his fate. As NY Attorney General, he helped develop the techniques of using these "structured" bank transactions (structured to avoid mandatory reporting) to develop cases against suspected criminals. He went after prostitution rings (like the one he got entangled with) and various other financial rip-offs, some of which crossed boundaries (as he did in his search for good hideouts for his compulsive behavior). His technique in high-profile cases was to throw a wall of charges publicly at his targets, forcing them to settle--just as he was made to do.
David Patterson (Lt. Governor, until Monday) has become the unlikely beneficiary of Spitzer's hubristic, tragic fall. It remains to be seen whether he will take on the role of Mark Antony (protegee, and defender of his predecessor's legacy), of Augustus (the guy who cleaned up in the end and ruled all), or merely Lepidus (the Third Man of the triumvirate, who makes an early exit from the competition for supreme power, but hung around as high priest). Unlike Patterson, I don't think history notes that any of the three were blind, so no clue there.
Once again, though, we see that those who pose as holier-than-thou are highly vulnerable to the greatest corruption, whether venal or, in this case, carnal.
I'd say that the fault was both within him and in the stars. Apparently he was unlucky that some of his bank transactions--fairly large ones, to pay for high-class hookers willing to engage in unsafe, covert sex--fit a pattern which caught the attention of snoops and flatfeet.
There's plenty of irony in his fate. As NY Attorney General, he helped develop the techniques of using these "structured" bank transactions (structured to avoid mandatory reporting) to develop cases against suspected criminals. He went after prostitution rings (like the one he got entangled with) and various other financial rip-offs, some of which crossed boundaries (as he did in his search for good hideouts for his compulsive behavior). His technique in high-profile cases was to throw a wall of charges publicly at his targets, forcing them to settle--just as he was made to do.
David Patterson (Lt. Governor, until Monday) has become the unlikely beneficiary of Spitzer's hubristic, tragic fall. It remains to be seen whether he will take on the role of Mark Antony (protegee, and defender of his predecessor's legacy), of Augustus (the guy who cleaned up in the end and ruled all), or merely Lepidus (the Third Man of the triumvirate, who makes an early exit from the competition for supreme power, but hung around as high priest). Unlike Patterson, I don't think history notes that any of the three were blind, so no clue there.
Once again, though, we see that those who pose as holier-than-thou are highly vulnerable to the greatest corruption, whether venal or, in this case, carnal.
Ferraro's Fatuity
Geraldine Ferraro said yesterday that Barack Obama is only in the position he's in because he's black (or words to that effect). It's only the novelty of his candidacy that attracts, she thinks.
She should know: if it were not for her status as a fellow "firster" (first woman on a major-party ticket), the three-term Congresswoman from Queens would be indistinguishable in history from the likes of other running mates to landslide losers, like Charles McNary (Wendell Wilkie's in 1940), William E. Miller (Goldwater's in 1964), Sargent Shriver (McGovern's second one, in 1972, though he also has starting the Peace Corps for his brother-in-law JFK on his slate), and, to be fair, FDR (running mate to James Cox in the Democrats' landslide defeat in 1920).
She should know, but unfortunately she doesn't. Obama is a rare talent, who possesses a sharp mind, unique oratorical skill, and apparently much greater ability in heading up a national campaign than his current opponent, Ferraro's choice, Hillary Clinton.
Hillary and her husband have been going around suggesting what a good VP candidate (and, presumably, VP office-holder) Obama would make, prompting some to note what a contradiction that makes with their suggestions that he's not quite ready for prime time. Not that I'm trying to help them figure out what they should be saying (and we know they'll say whatever is necessary), but a more intelligent formulation that would not be self-contradictory would be a simile: Obama is like a newly-bottled fine wine--we should buy it, and put it away until it is ready to be consumed. That would at least do justice to the Clintons' deserved reputations as connoisseurs of political talent.
Alternatively, one could say that being an African-American (in a more literal sense than most, notwithstanding his white mother) does, in part, make him what he is. In Obama, we have someone whose candidacy presents a unique opportunity:
-- to American voters to redeem themselves (collectively, not individually) for forty-some years of bad decisions in national elections (I'm including Bill Clinton, who I'd say in fairness was the best we could expect, given our poor methods of Presidential selection, but whose eventual political decline should have been readily foreseen given our full knowledge of his flawed character when we elected him);
--to repair our poor reputation in the world, resulting from our miserable foreign and military policies;
--to bring political participation at the most basic levels (voting, electoral organizing, running for public office) back into respectability, and even to make it "cool"; and
--to mark a definitive end to Bushite Misrule and Bush/Clinton dynastic leadership.
As for Ferraro and her fatuous remark, the most amazing thing is that she is "standing by" it. With her, they make a fine couple of inanities.
She should know: if it were not for her status as a fellow "firster" (first woman on a major-party ticket), the three-term Congresswoman from Queens would be indistinguishable in history from the likes of other running mates to landslide losers, like Charles McNary (Wendell Wilkie's in 1940), William E. Miller (Goldwater's in 1964), Sargent Shriver (McGovern's second one, in 1972, though he also has starting the Peace Corps for his brother-in-law JFK on his slate), and, to be fair, FDR (running mate to James Cox in the Democrats' landslide defeat in 1920).
She should know, but unfortunately she doesn't. Obama is a rare talent, who possesses a sharp mind, unique oratorical skill, and apparently much greater ability in heading up a national campaign than his current opponent, Ferraro's choice, Hillary Clinton.
Hillary and her husband have been going around suggesting what a good VP candidate (and, presumably, VP office-holder) Obama would make, prompting some to note what a contradiction that makes with their suggestions that he's not quite ready for prime time. Not that I'm trying to help them figure out what they should be saying (and we know they'll say whatever is necessary), but a more intelligent formulation that would not be self-contradictory would be a simile: Obama is like a newly-bottled fine wine--we should buy it, and put it away until it is ready to be consumed. That would at least do justice to the Clintons' deserved reputations as connoisseurs of political talent.
Alternatively, one could say that being an African-American (in a more literal sense than most, notwithstanding his white mother) does, in part, make him what he is. In Obama, we have someone whose candidacy presents a unique opportunity:
-- to American voters to redeem themselves (collectively, not individually) for forty-some years of bad decisions in national elections (I'm including Bill Clinton, who I'd say in fairness was the best we could expect, given our poor methods of Presidential selection, but whose eventual political decline should have been readily foreseen given our full knowledge of his flawed character when we elected him);
--to repair our poor reputation in the world, resulting from our miserable foreign and military policies;
--to bring political participation at the most basic levels (voting, electoral organizing, running for public office) back into respectability, and even to make it "cool"; and
--to mark a definitive end to Bushite Misrule and Bush/Clinton dynastic leadership.
As for Ferraro and her fatuous remark, the most amazing thing is that she is "standing by" it. With her, they make a fine couple of inanities.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Spring Sports Excitement
My focus has been on three areas: the NBA, college (men's) hoops, and England's Chelsea Football Club.
Starting with the college game, this appears to be another banner year for freshmen about to turn pro (although one of the "diaper dandies", Love of UCLA, seems to be sticking around). Not only that, though, this season is shaping up as a wide-open contest. I see 10 or more teams who could win the championship, and no clear favorite. As usual, I will eschew Duke and N.C., and I will predict a finals matchup of Memphis and UCLA (it's been done before). Despite their weak free throw shooting, I think Memphis may actually have the horses this year.
The NBA, similarly, has 11 teams capable of winning the championship. Nine of them are competing for eight spots in the Western Conference playoffs (the other two are Detroit and Boston). The mad scramble in the West is basically just to make the playoffs; seedings are not going to count as much as in the past given the parity that exists (recall Golden State over Dallas last year, the first time #8 ever beat #1).
New Orleans has been a huge surprise and is legitimately a contender; Houston has surprised and maintained its momentum since the injury to Yao. Some really good team is going to get eliminated, though: right now, I'd go with Phoenix or Golden State. Denver's the team looking in right now, but I expect them to get it together (with their broad talent) and squeak through.
In English football, Chelsea lost today in one of the most thrilling matches I've seen, on the road in the the 6th round (quarterfinals) of the F.A. Cup, 0-1 at Barnsley (a team--nicknamed the "Tykes"--that's one level down in league play). The F.A. has had a series of big upsets, driven partly by the fact that the top 4 teams in English soccer (Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal) are focused on the Champions' League and the Premiership itself--now none of them will make the final four. Of the six teams left, two are middle-level Premier squads (Portsmouth, and Middlesbrough, which has underperformed this year), three are in the "Championship" (Barnsley, Cardiff, and West Brom), and one is in "League One" (the third level)--Bristol Rovers.
In today's game Chelsea could push Barnsley all over but couldn't put it in. It looked like pinball for most of the last 10 minutes. Chelsea coach Evran Grant will get reamed for taking the risk by not playing some of his top players (Drogba, Lampard, Ashley Cole, first-string goalie Petr Cech), but I think he was right: he's got to put some of these others out there, in a game of importance, and see what they can do. Some looked up to the challenge (Essian, Terry, Joe Cole), others tried hard with little success (Wright-Phillips, Ballack, late reserves Kalou and Pizarro), and some looked as though they'd rather have been elsewhere (Malouda, Anelka, Carvalho).
Chelsea can now focus on the big games coming up in the Champions' League (through to the final eight) and the Premier League (home games coming up against both teams ahead of them in the standings, Man U. and Arsenal, which will give them a shot at a come-from-behind title.
Starting with the college game, this appears to be another banner year for freshmen about to turn pro (although one of the "diaper dandies", Love of UCLA, seems to be sticking around). Not only that, though, this season is shaping up as a wide-open contest. I see 10 or more teams who could win the championship, and no clear favorite. As usual, I will eschew Duke and N.C., and I will predict a finals matchup of Memphis and UCLA (it's been done before). Despite their weak free throw shooting, I think Memphis may actually have the horses this year.
The NBA, similarly, has 11 teams capable of winning the championship. Nine of them are competing for eight spots in the Western Conference playoffs (the other two are Detroit and Boston). The mad scramble in the West is basically just to make the playoffs; seedings are not going to count as much as in the past given the parity that exists (recall Golden State over Dallas last year, the first time #8 ever beat #1).
New Orleans has been a huge surprise and is legitimately a contender; Houston has surprised and maintained its momentum since the injury to Yao. Some really good team is going to get eliminated, though: right now, I'd go with Phoenix or Golden State. Denver's the team looking in right now, but I expect them to get it together (with their broad talent) and squeak through.
In English football, Chelsea lost today in one of the most thrilling matches I've seen, on the road in the the 6th round (quarterfinals) of the F.A. Cup, 0-1 at Barnsley (a team--nicknamed the "Tykes"--that's one level down in league play). The F.A. has had a series of big upsets, driven partly by the fact that the top 4 teams in English soccer (Chelsea, Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal) are focused on the Champions' League and the Premiership itself--now none of them will make the final four. Of the six teams left, two are middle-level Premier squads (Portsmouth, and Middlesbrough, which has underperformed this year), three are in the "Championship" (Barnsley, Cardiff, and West Brom), and one is in "League One" (the third level)--Bristol Rovers.
In today's game Chelsea could push Barnsley all over but couldn't put it in. It looked like pinball for most of the last 10 minutes. Chelsea coach Evran Grant will get reamed for taking the risk by not playing some of his top players (Drogba, Lampard, Ashley Cole, first-string goalie Petr Cech), but I think he was right: he's got to put some of these others out there, in a game of importance, and see what they can do. Some looked up to the challenge (Essian, Terry, Joe Cole), others tried hard with little success (Wright-Phillips, Ballack, late reserves Kalou and Pizarro), and some looked as though they'd rather have been elsewhere (Malouda, Anelka, Carvalho).
Chelsea can now focus on the big games coming up in the Champions' League (through to the final eight) and the Premier League (home games coming up against both teams ahead of them in the standings, Man U. and Arsenal, which will give them a shot at a come-from-behind title.
It's Called a "Coalition"
I must've been more down than I seemed, in order to have suggested, The Morning After Ohio and Texas (a/k/a The Unofficial National Primary, Democratic side, part 2A), that Obama might end up giving up the top spot despite leading in delegates. The key is that in the title I accepted the less-than-efficient "Obamamania" instead of my preferred "Obamania".
I do think there's an answer to Why would he ever do it? It would set the Democrats up for a big win, he would get executive experience (should insist upon it), and get the Clintons out of the way once and for all. I suspect the 2009-2013 term is going to be a bummer for whoever gets it--Clinton, McCain, or Obama. There's a real question whether either candidate can win a fight to the finish without being irreparably damaged, and this would certainly avoid that. It would certainly be a break from the "winner take all" rules which prevailed in much of pre-Obama America.
Still, there are huge issues. Could he possibly preserve his Movement, if he yielded to Hillary? Could he trust her not to run again? What about "the urgency of now"?
Probably this is an option that should be reserved for the worst case scenario: the one that has Hillary improbably closing the gap through a 60-40 type win in Pennsylvania, a reversal of some kind on Florida delegates (which would cost Obama 20-30 delegates) and some sort of unfavorable outcome in Michigan, and erosion of his position on superdelegates.
I do think there's an answer to Why would he ever do it? It would set the Democrats up for a big win, he would get executive experience (should insist upon it), and get the Clintons out of the way once and for all. I suspect the 2009-2013 term is going to be a bummer for whoever gets it--Clinton, McCain, or Obama. There's a real question whether either candidate can win a fight to the finish without being irreparably damaged, and this would certainly avoid that. It would certainly be a break from the "winner take all" rules which prevailed in much of pre-Obama America.
Still, there are huge issues. Could he possibly preserve his Movement, if he yielded to Hillary? Could he trust her not to run again? What about "the urgency of now"?
Probably this is an option that should be reserved for the worst case scenario: the one that has Hillary improbably closing the gap through a 60-40 type win in Pennsylvania, a reversal of some kind on Florida delegates (which would cost Obama 20-30 delegates) and some sort of unfavorable outcome in Michigan, and erosion of his position on superdelegates.
Power That Be
I have to admit that I was unfamiliar with Samantha Power, the Yalie and Harvard professor who was adviser to Obama on foreign policy.
The more I read about her, and about the episode that caused her to resign from his campaign, the more impressed I am with her. Of course, it was a mistake to refer to Her Royal Clinton-ness as a "monster"; no matter how monstrous some of her campaign's distortions, she is still recognizably human. At least most of the time. This was something for which Power should have been able to apologize and move on.
The other quote from her that the media are hammering, the one in which she said Obama will have to adapt his plan once he gets into office (so that his withdrawal intentions are subject to modification!), is really just common sense. His Iraq position still far outstrips any other candidate still in the race for its clarity and determination to end the occupation (except Ron Paul's; technically he is still running, though he's much more concerned about keeping his day job as a Texas Congressman these days).
The problem is that Obama maintains a higher moral plane for his campaign than Clinton, and those who want to be associated with it have to help maintain it. Far from being too nice to Obama, the media are holding him to it, and he is living up to it.
David Brooks says that "all Obama has is new politics". That's all he needs.
As for the awesome Power, I think she can easily be invited back to the future Obama Administration if she learns the rules for modern-day "Gotcha!" journalism and behaves herself accordingly.
The more I read about her, and about the episode that caused her to resign from his campaign, the more impressed I am with her. Of course, it was a mistake to refer to Her Royal Clinton-ness as a "monster"; no matter how monstrous some of her campaign's distortions, she is still recognizably human. At least most of the time. This was something for which Power should have been able to apologize and move on.
The other quote from her that the media are hammering, the one in which she said Obama will have to adapt his plan once he gets into office (so that his withdrawal intentions are subject to modification!), is really just common sense. His Iraq position still far outstrips any other candidate still in the race for its clarity and determination to end the occupation (except Ron Paul's; technically he is still running, though he's much more concerned about keeping his day job as a Texas Congressman these days).
The problem is that Obama maintains a higher moral plane for his campaign than Clinton, and those who want to be associated with it have to help maintain it. Far from being too nice to Obama, the media are holding him to it, and he is living up to it.
David Brooks says that "all Obama has is new politics". That's all he needs.
As for the awesome Power, I think she can easily be invited back to the future Obama Administration if she learns the rules for modern-day "Gotcha!" journalism and behaves herself accordingly.
Big State Nonsense
This idea being promoted, in order to sway undecided superdelegates, that Hillary should be nominated because she can win the big states and Obama can't is total nonsense.
First of all, one could argue whether she won Texas this week. One should certainly argue that she didn't "win" Michigan or Florida. Obama won Illlinois, big time.
Hillary's campaign is certainly wrong if they believe they can ignore all the "little states" in the general election, as she has tried to do (after losing them) in the primaries. Obama has taken the lead by doing the hard work, state by state, building organization and turning out voters. Caucuses may favor his voters and disadvantage Hillary's to some extent, but generally the outcomes in the caucuses haven't even been close. Hillary's reputation in this campaign turns mostly on a couple of victories by microscopic margins in Texas and in New Hampshire.
The real point is, Obama will be running against John McCain with a united Democratic party behind him. Whether the popular vote in these big states has been for Obama or Clinton, Obama's always gotten more votes than McCain (OK, when he was on the ballot--he wasn't in Michigan). I suspect that Obama has outpolled ALL of the Republicans (not just McCain) combined in most of these big-state primaries.
First of all, one could argue whether she won Texas this week. One should certainly argue that she didn't "win" Michigan or Florida. Obama won Illlinois, big time.
Hillary's campaign is certainly wrong if they believe they can ignore all the "little states" in the general election, as she has tried to do (after losing them) in the primaries. Obama has taken the lead by doing the hard work, state by state, building organization and turning out voters. Caucuses may favor his voters and disadvantage Hillary's to some extent, but generally the outcomes in the caucuses haven't even been close. Hillary's reputation in this campaign turns mostly on a couple of victories by microscopic margins in Texas and in New Hampshire.
The real point is, Obama will be running against John McCain with a united Democratic party behind him. Whether the popular vote in these big states has been for Obama or Clinton, Obama's always gotten more votes than McCain (OK, when he was on the ballot--he wasn't in Michigan). I suspect that Obama has outpolled ALL of the Republicans (not just McCain) combined in most of these big-state primaries.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Obama in San Antonio
The following are the great words--totally overlooked in the evening--of Obama's speech, from barackobama.com. This was his general election framing; the press thought it was arrogant, with the nomination not sewn up and all. Obama tried to re-frame the evening's big news as the definitive victory of McCain, and they weren't buying it.
Well, we are in the middle of a very close race right now in
You know, decades ago, as a community organizer, I learned that the real work of democracy begins far from the closed doors and marbled halls of
It begins on street corners and front porches; in living rooms and meeting halls with ordinary Americans who see the world as it is and realize that we have it within our power to remake the world as it should be.
It is with that hope that we began this unlikely journey – the hope that if we could go block by block, city by city, state by state and build a movement that spanned race and region; party and gender; if we could give young people a reason to vote and the young at heart a reason to believe again; if we could inspire a nation to come together again, then we could turn the page on the politics that's shut us out, let us down, and told us to settle. We could write a new chapter in the American story.
We were told this wasn't possible. We were told the climb was too steep. We were told our country was too cynical – that we were just being naïve; that we couldn't really change the world as it is.
But then a few people in
In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly. And tonight, I called John McCain and congratulated him on winning the Republican nomination.
But in this election, we will offer two very different visions of the
It's the same course that threatens a century of war in Iraq – a third and fourth and fifth tour of duty for brave troops who've done all we've asked them to, even while we ask little and expect nothing of the Iraqi government whose job it is to put their country back together. A course where we spend billions of dollars a week that could be used to rebuild our roads and our schools; to care for our veterans and send our children to college.
It's the same course that continues to divide and isolate
And it's the same course that offers the same tired answer to workers without health care and families without homes; to students in debt and children who go to bed hungry in the richest nation on Earth – four more years of tax breaks for the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don't need them and aren't even asking for them. It's a course that further divides Wall Street from Main Street; where struggling families are told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps because there's nothing government can do or should do – and so we should give more to those with the most and let the chips fall where they may.
Well we are here tonight to say that this is not the
John McCain and Senator Clinton echo each other in dismissing this call for change. They say it is eloquent but empty; speeches and not solutions. And yet, they should know that it's a call that did not begin with my words. It began with words that were spoken on the floors of factories in
They should know that there's nothing empty about the call for affordable health care that came from the young student who told me she gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can't pay her sister's medical bills.
There's nothing empty about the call for help that came from the mother in
There's nothing empty about the call for change that came from the elderly woman who wants it so badly that she sent me an envelope with a money order for $3.01 and a simple verse of scripture tucked inside.
These Americans know that government cannot solve all of our problems, and they don't expect it to. Americans know that we have to work harder and study more to compete in a global economy. We know that we need to take responsibility for ourselves and our children – that we need to spend more time with them, and teach them well, and put a book in their hands instead of a video game once in awhile. We know this.
But we also believe that there is a larger responsibility we have to one another as Americans.
We believe that we rise or fall as one nation – as one people. That we are our brother's keeper. That we are our sister's keeper.
We believe that a child born tonight should have the same chances whether she arrives in the barrios of
We believe that when she goes to school for the first time, it should be in a place where the rats don't outnumber the computers; that when she applies to college, cost is no barrier to a degree that will allow her to compete with children in
We believe that these jobs should provide wages that can raise her family, health care for when she gets sick and a pension for when she retires.
We believe that when she tucks her own children into bed, she should feel safe knowing that they are protected from the threats we face by the bravest, best-equipped, military in the world, led by a Commander-in-Chief who has the judgment to know when to send them into battle and which battlefield to fight on.
And if that child should ever get the chance to travel the world, and someone should ask her where she is from, we believe that she should always be able to hold her head high with pride in her voice when she answers "I am an American."
That is the course we seek. That is the change we are calling for. You can call it many things, but you cannot call it empty.
If I am the nominee of this party, I will not allow us to be distracted by the same politics that seeks to divide us with false charges and meaningless labels. In this campaign, we will not stand for the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon.
It is now my hope and our task to set this country on a course that will keep this promise alive in the twenty-first century. And the eyes of the world are watching to see if we can.
There is a young man on my campaign whose grandfather lives in
The world is watching what we do here. The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?
Can we come together across party and region; race and religion to restore prosperity and opportunity as the birthright of every American?
Can we lead the community of nations in taking on the common threats of the 21st century – terrorism and climate change; genocide and disease?
Can we send a message to all those weary travelers beyond our shores who long to be free from fear and want that the
We say; we hope; we believe – yes we can.
Unlike "Change We Can Believe In", "yes we can" may sound ungrammatical but is not. It's about ability; the part about permission--"yes we may"--can not be implied (because it would be ungrammatical) and would certainly never be stated, because it's too wishy-washy. The acceptable political formulation is with Hillary's "Yes we will" last night (although most of her audience was saying "Yes, SHE will" in a thoroughly white-and-disjointed-sounding call-and-response), or even better, "Yes we shall", in which the "shall" is emphatic in its reversal with the normal "will".
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Obamamania--The Morning After
(I've gone with the predominant, easier-to-pronounce neologism in the title)
Coming Down Syndrome was described nicely by Brooks in the NYT. Democratic Convention Watch (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/) has gone to bed. It goes on.
I admire Obama's willingness to stick to the high road and to believe it will pay off in the end. Thus my faith leads to the irrational conclusion that Obama will get the nomination in the end. (Delphi says 74% he will get it somehow while losing Pennsylvania, also at 74%). The pledged delegate lead is around 140, according to CNN. Clinton's Superdelegate lead, now at 40-45, will expand to about 75 in the next couple of weeks. That seems to be about all that will happen.
I also feel that Obama is willing to accommodate Hillary at an appropriate time (which will be after Pennsylvania, and probably after North Carolina confirms that she will not be able to close the gap). The metaphor has shifted, and "Hillary's lifeline" is right on target. He will throw her a life preserver if she's not too crazy while still drifting free.
Meanwhile, the polls will duly reflect her latest resurrection vs. McCain and Obama will drop sharply. He has got to throw some elbows, but keep it clean, and the Tax Return issue (brought forward by Carl Bernstein, thank you) will probably work.
The only way out from this bloodshed is for Hillary to be co-opted into Obama's Movement, and the only way to do that is to give her the Presidency. For one term only, witnessed by both spouses and signed in blood. Whether they choose to tell everyone is their business.
Barring that, he's got to war to the end. "Yes We Can" will defeat "Yes She Will".
Coming Down Syndrome was described nicely by Brooks in the NYT. Democratic Convention Watch (http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/) has gone to bed. It goes on.
I admire Obama's willingness to stick to the high road and to believe it will pay off in the end. Thus my faith leads to the irrational conclusion that Obama will get the nomination in the end. (Delphi says 74% he will get it somehow while losing Pennsylvania, also at 74%). The pledged delegate lead is around 140, according to CNN. Clinton's Superdelegate lead, now at 40-45, will expand to about 75 in the next couple of weeks. That seems to be about all that will happen.
I also feel that Obama is willing to accommodate Hillary at an appropriate time (which will be after Pennsylvania, and probably after North Carolina confirms that she will not be able to close the gap). The metaphor has shifted, and "Hillary's lifeline" is right on target. He will throw her a life preserver if she's not too crazy while still drifting free.
Meanwhile, the polls will duly reflect her latest resurrection vs. McCain and Obama will drop sharply. He has got to throw some elbows, but keep it clean, and the Tax Return issue (brought forward by Carl Bernstein, thank you) will probably work.
The only way out from this bloodshed is for Hillary to be co-opted into Obama's Movement, and the only way to do that is to give her the Presidency. For one term only, witnessed by both spouses and signed in blood. Whether they choose to tell everyone is their business.
Barring that, he's got to war to the end. "Yes We Can" will defeat "Yes She Will".
UNP-D (2A)
We have had yet another abrupt turn in the Argument. My predictions were on target, though the drop in Ohio was a bit sharper than I expected. Doing as well as he did in Texas was quite an accomplishment.
Obama's speech was dynamite (his tone--the world is watching, let's be adults--was perfect, though his delivery was a bit strained: he looks angry) and the realpols on the telecast ignored it entirely. They've heard it before and they want to see the beef.
Obama's got the beef, but has to find the method of communicating his wonkish side without being too professorial. I recommend a businesslike approach with something like Power Point--people are inordinately impressed with it. Just ask Al Gore.
It's great that Hillary's "just getting started" and all, but there's one problem: about 85% of the US has now had its chance.
Obama's speech was dynamite (his tone--the world is watching, let's be adults--was perfect, though his delivery was a bit strained: he looks angry) and the realpols on the telecast ignored it entirely. They've heard it before and they want to see the beef.
Obama's got the beef, but has to find the method of communicating his wonkish side without being too professorial. I recommend a businesslike approach with something like Power Point--people are inordinately impressed with it. Just ask Al Gore.
It's great that Hillary's "just getting started" and all, but there's one problem: about 85% of the US has now had its chance.
Monday, March 03, 2008
UNP-D (Part 2A): Rasmussen Markets
Going by the Offer on the contracts (more reliable than the last strike price, from my observation), Clinton is at 57% to win in Ohio and 27% to win in Texas. If we assume these are accurate and independent, that means she has about 15-16% chance of winning both.
We can compare these with the 12% she's at to win the nomination in the trading, the 21% chance she's now given in Pennsylvania, and the 11% for her to win the "Lifeline" parley of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Essentially, this means that if she were to win both, her chances in PA would shift from 20-80 against to 80-20 in favor.
Given my predictions (that she can win both OH and TX and lose the nomination; surely PA's outcome is most likely to ratify the nomination winner), I have to bet against this combination of expectations.
I'm betting against Clinton on the parley, though I really don't know which state(s) she will lose. I have ridden Obama's odds on TX upward to a potential fat profit (though I'd have to sell before Tuesday night to secure it with certainty).
Less proudly, I am also showing a considerable loss on HRC's nomination chances, which I put some fake money behind when she was around a 60-40 favorite (that calculation persisted right through the UNP until the Obama sweep in the Potomac Primary outcomes became clear to forecasters). So I'm also trying to sell her contracts and limit my loss on that one, asking about 12%.
We can compare these with the 12% she's at to win the nomination in the trading, the 21% chance she's now given in Pennsylvania, and the 11% for her to win the "Lifeline" parley of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Essentially, this means that if she were to win both, her chances in PA would shift from 20-80 against to 80-20 in favor.
Given my predictions (that she can win both OH and TX and lose the nomination; surely PA's outcome is most likely to ratify the nomination winner), I have to bet against this combination of expectations.
I'm betting against Clinton on the parley, though I really don't know which state(s) she will lose. I have ridden Obama's odds on TX upward to a potential fat profit (though I'd have to sell before Tuesday night to secure it with certainty).
Less proudly, I am also showing a considerable loss on HRC's nomination chances, which I put some fake money behind when she was around a 60-40 favorite (that calculation persisted right through the UNP until the Obama sweep in the Potomac Primary outcomes became clear to forecasters). So I'm also trying to sell her contracts and limit my loss on that one, asking about 12%.
Taos: Proud Host of the Congressional District Convention
The Taos News trumpeted the "coup" of Our Town's being named the site for the Democratic Convention for this Congressional district.
In a confused and confusing story, it was revealed that our County Democratic Committee has been thrown a bone by our equally suspicious state party leadership. At least our guys locally didn't appear to have overtly favored either candidate in the closely contested, massively turned out, incompetently-planned-and-executed primary. That is, once Bill Richardson upset all the original planning and bowed out.
What exactly is supposed to happen in this convention, and whether it will do more than rubber stamp other results, is unfortunately less than clear. Everyone seems to know that Clinton won 14 delegates and Obama 12 in the state, so does it really matter what happens here?
There is still a very raw feeling among county Democrats over the manner of the movida which gave the current county party leaders their positions. It will be more than interesting to see if this emerges in some way connected to the convention.
In a confused and confusing story, it was revealed that our County Democratic Committee has been thrown a bone by our equally suspicious state party leadership. At least our guys locally didn't appear to have overtly favored either candidate in the closely contested, massively turned out, incompetently-planned-and-executed primary. That is, once Bill Richardson upset all the original planning and bowed out.
What exactly is supposed to happen in this convention, and whether it will do more than rubber stamp other results, is unfortunately less than clear. Everyone seems to know that Clinton won 14 delegates and Obama 12 in the state, so does it really matter what happens here?
There is still a very raw feeling among county Democrats over the manner of the movida which gave the current county party leaders their positions. It will be more than interesting to see if this emerges in some way connected to the convention.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Pro-Retro-spective Look at UNP-D (2A)
I think this is the part of the TV program where they try to raise our interest just before going to a commercial. The ending that comes afterward may be just what we expected, but at least we kept watching for the commercial.
The networks aren't too sure if there will be one more big primary show or if this is it, but at least they want to get good ratings on Tuesday. They have enjoyed promoting the notion that the winner of the two primaries will have the momentum, and the one who has less popular votes in Texas and Ohio will have evitability. All the time they're secretly hoping for a split decision, and another ratings payday in Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island has been perhaps the most interesting part of this drama. First, the Clinton campaign spins that Obama can only clinch the nomination by sweeping the four primaries Tuesday (thus holding Rhode Island as their secure fallback). Obama's campaign responds by going on the attack in Providence. This puts Clinton, Inc. into a tizzy: do they dare keep faith in their data, which shows them clearly ahead, or counter with a visit themselves?
I like the Obama Rhode Island move for other reasons. One is that moving from 30-something percent to 40-something there could pick up a couple delegates (are there actually geographical divisions within the state?) The second is the consistent principle of the Obama campaign to contest everywhere. The third is his defiance of conventional thinking: the answer to Ohio or Texas? is Rhode Island!
Finally, if we look at the highly-touted Clinton "firewall" strategy, I would describe the reality as as more analogous to New Orleans in recent years: the levee only had to break once, somewhere, and the storm waters came rushing in to inundate the City of Hillary. Rhode Island is one more place the Clintons may have to put their finger (cigar?) in. So to speak.
Report from the Spillway Watch
The polls in Texas have showed Obama has closed and it's 2C2C, while Ohio still shows a slight Clinton lead. The conventional thinking would thus identify Texas as the target for Obama to break through. I think the NAFTA issue--on which his stance is more clearly perceived than Hillary's very similar one-- is working in his favor in Ohio (and against him in Texas), and so does the Huckabee Factor (fictionalized form: The Hudsucker Proxy): Potential McCain Voters in Ohio may as well turn out for Obama, as the Republican race is over there. The word hasn't filtered down to everyone in Texas, though.
The best answer for Obama may be the complex one: heavy TV in Texas, followed up by intensive tactical support for the second step caucuses later on in the evening of Su-22 (sounds like a Russian fighter plane, but it is supposed to mean "Super Tuesday Too"); ground organizing in Ohio in preparation for the general election. Winning Ohio--a state which should, by all rights, swing to the Democrats this year--is huge for the Electoral College outcome, whereas the chances for the Democrats in Texas in November are negligible, or none. Furthermore, I think the Obama campaign management has thoroughly figured all this out.
Predictions: Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas by 2-4%; Obama keeps R.I. close, edges Clinton in Texas delegates, and ends up the night increasing his lead in pledged delegates (now about 150) by a half-dozen.
The Wednesday meeting of the Clinton campaign presents her and Bill with a stark forecast: despite delivering narrow victories in both of the key primaries, she still has virtually no chance of winning. She at least has the small consolation of firing her advisers before she decides to quit by the weekend.
Despite taking advantage of the Texas Two-Step nonsense, Obama makes a note to abolish the elitist practice from allowed party methods of delegate selection for next time around.
The networks aren't too sure if there will be one more big primary show or if this is it, but at least they want to get good ratings on Tuesday. They have enjoyed promoting the notion that the winner of the two primaries will have the momentum, and the one who has less popular votes in Texas and Ohio will have evitability. All the time they're secretly hoping for a split decision, and another ratings payday in Pennsylvania.
Rhode Island has been perhaps the most interesting part of this drama. First, the Clinton campaign spins that Obama can only clinch the nomination by sweeping the four primaries Tuesday (thus holding Rhode Island as their secure fallback). Obama's campaign responds by going on the attack in Providence. This puts Clinton, Inc. into a tizzy: do they dare keep faith in their data, which shows them clearly ahead, or counter with a visit themselves?
I like the Obama Rhode Island move for other reasons. One is that moving from 30-something percent to 40-something there could pick up a couple delegates (are there actually geographical divisions within the state?) The second is the consistent principle of the Obama campaign to contest everywhere. The third is his defiance of conventional thinking: the answer to Ohio or Texas? is Rhode Island!
Finally, if we look at the highly-touted Clinton "firewall" strategy, I would describe the reality as as more analogous to New Orleans in recent years: the levee only had to break once, somewhere, and the storm waters came rushing in to inundate the City of Hillary. Rhode Island is one more place the Clintons may have to put their finger (cigar?) in. So to speak.
Report from the Spillway Watch
The polls in Texas have showed Obama has closed and it's 2C2C, while Ohio still shows a slight Clinton lead. The conventional thinking would thus identify Texas as the target for Obama to break through. I think the NAFTA issue--on which his stance is more clearly perceived than Hillary's very similar one-- is working in his favor in Ohio (and against him in Texas), and so does the Huckabee Factor (fictionalized form: The Hudsucker Proxy): Potential McCain Voters in Ohio may as well turn out for Obama, as the Republican race is over there. The word hasn't filtered down to everyone in Texas, though.
The best answer for Obama may be the complex one: heavy TV in Texas, followed up by intensive tactical support for the second step caucuses later on in the evening of Su-22 (sounds like a Russian fighter plane, but it is supposed to mean "Super Tuesday Too"); ground organizing in Ohio in preparation for the general election. Winning Ohio--a state which should, by all rights, swing to the Democrats this year--is huge for the Electoral College outcome, whereas the chances for the Democrats in Texas in November are negligible, or none. Furthermore, I think the Obama campaign management has thoroughly figured all this out.
Predictions: Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas by 2-4%; Obama keeps R.I. close, edges Clinton in Texas delegates, and ends up the night increasing his lead in pledged delegates (now about 150) by a half-dozen.
The Wednesday meeting of the Clinton campaign presents her and Bill with a stark forecast: despite delivering narrow victories in both of the key primaries, she still has virtually no chance of winning. She at least has the small consolation of firing her advisers before she decides to quit by the weekend.
Despite taking advantage of the Texas Two-Step nonsense, Obama makes a note to abolish the elitist practice from allowed party methods of delegate selection for next time around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
