NBA
These were my predictions:
Rockets, Lakers, Mavs, Spurs; Lakers-Spurs; Spurs.
Also-Ran Conference:
Celtics, Pistons, Wizards, Raptors (want and think); Celtics-Pistons; Celtics.
Those looking for a Celtics-Lakers rematch (last of the many was some 15 years ago?) will have to wait until Andrew Bynum reaches his full power (2010?)
And in the Finals: Celtics over Spurs, Celtics over anyone else, then Spurs, Pistons, and Hornets.
None of the important picks lost--the fact they were challenged means nothing negative, really. The ones I got wrong (half of them) didn't figure to be important. Have to give a tip of the hat to the Rockets and Hawks, who came back strong after early setbacks to make their defeats contested ones. No tip to Raptors or Mavericks; Wizards showed some signs of life until Arenas pulled out.
Chelsea
The Blue Lions (never heard them called that, though there is a lion in the picture on their seal) grind on with a 2-0 road win over Newcastle (not really so easy). ManU. can still wrap up the Premiership through the tiebreaker with a win at Wigan (who I believe is now safe from relegation) in the last game. So that second-place finish looks pretty likely.
There may still be some serious consolation in Moscow--better be, if you're an Avram Grant fan. I think the team has ended up playing pretty well for him after a difficult start, when Mourinho pulled out in the midst of the early season. Immediately the team had to go to Manchester and lost to the Devils, in the rain, 2-0. It's been a long way back uphill since then, and they're within sight of the summit. Just getting to the Champions League final this year breaks new ground for the club.
Baseball
Through about one-sixth of the season, nothing has happened, except the Diamondbacks have been pretty insistent about pointing out how I overlooked them, unreasonably, in my preseason forecasts. Nobody else really has shone or permanently damaged their chances. Parity seems to be the order of the day, perhaps this year in both leagues. Good for them--it certainly seems to be working in the pro basketball league.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Big Win for Blues
Chelsea's 3-2 win over Liverpool (1-1 in regular time, 4-3 aggregate) puts them in the final against Manchester United. The heroes were many, but most prominent were Drogba, Lampard, Ballack, Terry, Makalele.
This win, combined with the one over Manchester United over the weekend, should make this season a qualified success. Major wins against big teams in the clutch, that's the mark of a great team. Still, there will be those who insist that Chelsea must win "hardware"--trophies. The Champions League one looks like a better shot, and one they can actually have some control over. The Premiership championship depends on Man U. faltering against lesser teams, so don't count on it. The Champions League trophy also seems to be the one the owner covets above all else.
Will Roman Abramovich show in Moscow? Is he likely to be arrested or something if he does? He was conspicuously absent in the Manchester United game over the weekend (and I saw no shots of him at the rainy match today at Stamford Bridge).
I think it's May 21. Key day. There's nothing better than seeing Chelsea win and Manchester United lose at the same time, and that's what will motivate me--not the "hardware" or the fate of our coach.
This win, combined with the one over Manchester United over the weekend, should make this season a qualified success. Major wins against big teams in the clutch, that's the mark of a great team. Still, there will be those who insist that Chelsea must win "hardware"--trophies. The Champions League one looks like a better shot, and one they can actually have some control over. The Premiership championship depends on Man U. faltering against lesser teams, so don't count on it. The Champions League trophy also seems to be the one the owner covets above all else.
Will Roman Abramovich show in Moscow? Is he likely to be arrested or something if he does? He was conspicuously absent in the Manchester United game over the weekend (and I saw no shots of him at the rainy match today at Stamford Bridge).
I think it's May 21. Key day. There's nothing better than seeing Chelsea win and Manchester United lose at the same time, and that's what will motivate me--not the "hardware" or the fate of our coach.
The Wright Stuff
I have watched this thing rise up again with a sense of acute distaste. At first, Rev. Wright's comments were not too provocative, but, as if someone was goading him to break through into pure audacity, he then has to say the bit questioning Obama's sincerity, suggesting that Obama really believes AIDS was a racist plant to attempt genocide, but that he can't admit it because he's running for President.
That was the final straw for Obama, who had tried to slough off Wright's more incendiary comments without repudiating his former pastor, the one who brought out Obama's original conversion to his church, married him, baptized his children, etc.
Obama's response has been sharp enough to make it clear that he will no longer associate himself with Wright in any way. Unfortunately for him, that does not mean Wrightian mischief can no longer harm him. Although Wright should now be considered no more relevant to consideration of Obama himself than, say, Billy Carter to Jimmy Carter (plenty of other examples around), an unavoidable embarrassment, his unique and acknowledged role in Obama's life story probably means Wright can always call a press conference or publish some screed.
I'm sure those who don't wish Obama well will say, "What was he thinking?" about Obama's past worship in Wright's house. I doubt "thinking" had much to do with it, as it rarely does in relation to religious conversion.
There's little doubt that Wright has the potential to hurt Obama both with blacks (some perceive Wright as the victim--it's "a black thing", we can't understand) and with whites (again, undermining his ability to be a non-threatening Afro-American). McCain will no doubt stir it up in the general election, which will cause the spotlight to shift to his right-wing evangelist backers. This might undermine McCain's appeal to independents and any unreconciled Clintonista Democratic moderates. Overall, the issue will end up suppressing turnout, which won't help Obama.
That was the final straw for Obama, who had tried to slough off Wright's more incendiary comments without repudiating his former pastor, the one who brought out Obama's original conversion to his church, married him, baptized his children, etc.
Obama's response has been sharp enough to make it clear that he will no longer associate himself with Wright in any way. Unfortunately for him, that does not mean Wrightian mischief can no longer harm him. Although Wright should now be considered no more relevant to consideration of Obama himself than, say, Billy Carter to Jimmy Carter (plenty of other examples around), an unavoidable embarrassment, his unique and acknowledged role in Obama's life story probably means Wright can always call a press conference or publish some screed.
I'm sure those who don't wish Obama well will say, "What was he thinking?" about Obama's past worship in Wright's house. I doubt "thinking" had much to do with it, as it rarely does in relation to religious conversion.
There's little doubt that Wright has the potential to hurt Obama both with blacks (some perceive Wright as the victim--it's "a black thing", we can't understand) and with whites (again, undermining his ability to be a non-threatening Afro-American). McCain will no doubt stir it up in the general election, which will cause the spotlight to shift to his right-wing evangelist backers. This might undermine McCain's appeal to independents and any unreconciled Clintonista Democratic moderates. Overall, the issue will end up suppressing turnout, which won't help Obama.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Endgame: 1.1
According to the most scientific counts I can find, there are 408 pledged delegates yet to be chosen from the 8-10 territorial entities yet to vote. Short of a dramatic move (like Obama somehow making a successful play to the Puerto Rican Democratic voters, like pledging to work for statehood--which I personally recommend--see If I were Running Things, Pt. 1), it seems conservative and reasonable to expect that he will win at least 45% of these contested delegates. This would bring him, by the latest counts, to 1909, with 2024 needed. He would thus need to pick up 115 of the 302 uncommitted superdelegates (or net out to that number of additional pledges, if some switch candidates). Hillary, with the same assumptions (i.e., 55% of the remaining pledged from primaries and caucuses) would need 207 of those 302. Thus, the expectation that Obama will ultimately win the nomination.
Considering the Michigan and Florida mess, and its impact, makes it a clear imperative that those states' delegations composition will not be considered until after the nominee is determined. As it stands even today, the count with those two states suggests only an 11-delegate lead for Obama, with 55 pledged delegates from the "uncommitted" line in the Michigan primary (I've read about half are Obama supporters), and an extraordinarily high percentage (some 63%) of superdelegates from the two states uncommitted. There are several booby traps there, blasting caps--"Don't touch 'dem!" as Willie Mays used to say to us kids in the TV commercial.
I have three top choices for Obama's VP nomination--I assume he will do the right thing and formally offer the spot on the ticket to Hillary, once he is absolutely certain she will decline--who I've got to name:
1) Sen. Jim Webb (VA)--yes, I bought the Kool Aid. Counters McCain's Defense enthusiasms with someone who knows the military reality from the inside.
2) Ex-Rep. Lee Hamilton (IN)--The major figure from this newly-pivotal state who has endorsed Obama. He's also the most knowledgeable and experienced generalist on national security in the party, who has only enhanced the reputation he earned by taking a leading role in winning the Cold War in the years since his Congessional retirement in 2001 by leading up resolutely non-partisan efforts to diagnose 9/11's failures and to help the Bushites from the Iraq morass (of course, the latter assistance was politely ignored).
3) Gov. Jean Sebelius (KS)--that's Kansas' initials, I think. Executive experience desired.
Each brings help in a very interesting state, one that fits perfectly into the Obama general election strategy, which I see as applying real pressure to McCain (and his inferior financial status) in as many states as possible, looking for cracks. The key is if he can deliver the increased Democratic enrollment in November that seems to have been present throughout the primary season. This means, at a minimum, a decent convention (apart from some generally-ignored platform battles, maybe) and a strong endorsement, with no monkey business, from Edwards and HRC.
If it works, he could win without Ohio or Florida (or Michigan or Pennsylvania, though certainly not without any of them). Obama can compete in states like Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Virginia, even Kansas, Indiana, and Montana, that have been written off before the election started in the recent past. This will bring Presidential Electoral College politics into the 21st Century (contradiction as that may seem: bringing the 19th century into the 21st!)
I think the smartest move would be Sebelius: she looked very impressive (though diminutive) the couple of times I've seen her on national TV, and it would be the best way to assuage any hurt feelings among Hillary's supporters. Bill Richardson might've done as well for him, but he has lost favor with the Clintonistas.
Once again, kudos to "2008 Democratic Convention Watch", which dares to name names on all the committed and uncommitted-but-named superdelegates (see Superdelegate Endorsement List). This fact of this kind of accountability gives some hope for a respectable outcome to a disreputable process.
A Friend of the Earth: Pt 1
I got my hands on a short novel by T. Coraghessan Boyle (T.C. afterwards), A Friend of the Earth, published 2000. It was already overdue when I found it, so I read it in somewhat of a hurry.
A Friend of the Earth is of the genre best defined as "a cautionary tale", which would include Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and much of (the late) Kurt Vonnegut's book-length work. In other words, one of my very favorite genres (satire, and world-historical tragedy, being the only two toward which I'm better disposed).
T.C.'s strong suit is the short story, in which he can let his verbal pyrotechnics go, without restraint, from start to finish. So what do we see when looking at his novel-length form?
1) He's a master of the quick hook. The biggest danger with a longer work is that you'll get an hour or two into it, and it loses urgency. The most obvious strategy to address that is to grab the reader in the first fifteen minutes. People will then have a certain variation in how long they'll go to get the next strong jolt of recognition, excitement, or deep resonance, but you've given yourself (if you're an author craving acceptance) your best chance.
In this case, he puts out in his first few pages a dystopic Boomer retirement vision that will jolt those of that demographic persuasion. Our hero is left, broke and alone, to tend a doomed menagerie of soon-to-be-extinct exotic animals for a semi-retired popstar. And he's happy about his station--it's the best bargain with life he's ever had.
2) The shifting flashback style he employs here maintains short-story tautness. His style of exposition in Friend is episodic, jerking back in forth in time (like, say, Slaughterhouse-Five).
Mostly, Boyle identifies the time and place clearly in the chapter headings. The exception is our (somewhat anti-) hero's greatest loss, the accidental death of his driven, exemplary daughter, which was narrated more conventionally, as reminiscences, buried, undated, within the tale of "the present" (which was 2025, for our hero). Our hero's daughter was the one who should have been the hero, she was the one who should have lived and saved the world. Instead, she died (that occurring approximately in the present for the time Boyle wrote it, just before the turn of the century), and look at this mess that resulted!
3) As with his short stories, he maintains his ironic distance from his characters, even though he clearly loves them. His story is didactic in many ways (thank you for that!), and Tyrone Tierwater (his last name clues us that it's a sob story of a mocking variety) is the teacher. He tells us what we need to learn through the example of his faulty choices in life and through what his resulting, final days (at least, within the bounds of his story) show us about what we have done (or are about to do) wrong.
As for his daughter, she was a friend of the earth, too, only it was no friend to her: she died smacking into it at something approaching terminal velocity (certainly was terminal for her!) after falling out of a high tree that she was hugging for all she was worth, setting a new record for consecutive days living up a tree. A tree that she was saving from the loggers.
The main thrust of the novel seems to be to warn the reader about global warming's potential impact on our lives. Boyle gets the feel of what full-fledged warming, combined with progressive elimination of all wild habitat, would be like in the future. Somehow, though, the weather extremes seems more desperate, but the disruption of ordinary life less severe. How can both be true?
The secondary one is to mock the radical eco-tage (ecological sabotage) movement which popped up in the decade prior to the novel's writing. Tierwater's first eco-tage action (and his first run-in with the law) came when he, his wife and daughter sink their boots in concrete to block a logger road. It fails, but he finds himself irresistibly attracted to this type of action. Always, the forces of ecological destruction find another forest to log, another bulldozer to rape the earth, etc. The publicity--supposedly the reason for the action--goes misdirected; he and his daughter become celebrities (he a bad guy, she a good one), but the point of the actions are always missed by the public. So, it all goes downhill, as he goes to prison and she falls to her death.
All in all, a good novel, perhaps a bit too heavy on plot. In 2000, it was highly advanced in its foresight. Today, it seems right in synch--we've all gone somewhat underground for eight years, if we've tried not to contribute to the disastrous course of public events.
A Friend of the Earth is of the genre best defined as "a cautionary tale", which would include Huxley's Brave New World, Orwell's 1984, and much of (the late) Kurt Vonnegut's book-length work. In other words, one of my very favorite genres (satire, and world-historical tragedy, being the only two toward which I'm better disposed).
T.C.'s strong suit is the short story, in which he can let his verbal pyrotechnics go, without restraint, from start to finish. So what do we see when looking at his novel-length form?
1) He's a master of the quick hook. The biggest danger with a longer work is that you'll get an hour or two into it, and it loses urgency. The most obvious strategy to address that is to grab the reader in the first fifteen minutes. People will then have a certain variation in how long they'll go to get the next strong jolt of recognition, excitement, or deep resonance, but you've given yourself (if you're an author craving acceptance) your best chance.
In this case, he puts out in his first few pages a dystopic Boomer retirement vision that will jolt those of that demographic persuasion. Our hero is left, broke and alone, to tend a doomed menagerie of soon-to-be-extinct exotic animals for a semi-retired popstar. And he's happy about his station--it's the best bargain with life he's ever had.
2) The shifting flashback style he employs here maintains short-story tautness. His style of exposition in Friend is episodic, jerking back in forth in time (like, say, Slaughterhouse-Five).
Mostly, Boyle identifies the time and place clearly in the chapter headings. The exception is our (somewhat anti-) hero's greatest loss, the accidental death of his driven, exemplary daughter, which was narrated more conventionally, as reminiscences, buried, undated, within the tale of "the present" (which was 2025, for our hero). Our hero's daughter was the one who should have been the hero, she was the one who should have lived and saved the world. Instead, she died (that occurring approximately in the present for the time Boyle wrote it, just before the turn of the century), and look at this mess that resulted!
3) As with his short stories, he maintains his ironic distance from his characters, even though he clearly loves them. His story is didactic in many ways (thank you for that!), and Tyrone Tierwater (his last name clues us that it's a sob story of a mocking variety) is the teacher. He tells us what we need to learn through the example of his faulty choices in life and through what his resulting, final days (at least, within the bounds of his story) show us about what we have done (or are about to do) wrong.
As for his daughter, she was a friend of the earth, too, only it was no friend to her: she died smacking into it at something approaching terminal velocity (certainly was terminal for her!) after falling out of a high tree that she was hugging for all she was worth, setting a new record for consecutive days living up a tree. A tree that she was saving from the loggers.
The main thrust of the novel seems to be to warn the reader about global warming's potential impact on our lives. Boyle gets the feel of what full-fledged warming, combined with progressive elimination of all wild habitat, would be like in the future. Somehow, though, the weather extremes seems more desperate, but the disruption of ordinary life less severe. How can both be true?
The secondary one is to mock the radical eco-tage (ecological sabotage) movement which popped up in the decade prior to the novel's writing. Tierwater's first eco-tage action (and his first run-in with the law) came when he, his wife and daughter sink their boots in concrete to block a logger road. It fails, but he finds himself irresistibly attracted to this type of action. Always, the forces of ecological destruction find another forest to log, another bulldozer to rape the earth, etc. The publicity--supposedly the reason for the action--goes misdirected; he and his daughter become celebrities (he a bad guy, she a good one), but the point of the actions are always missed by the public. So, it all goes downhill, as he goes to prison and she falls to her death.
All in all, a good novel, perhaps a bit too heavy on plot. In 2000, it was highly advanced in its foresight. Today, it seems right in synch--we've all gone somewhat underground for eight years, if we've tried not to contribute to the disastrous course of public events.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Chelsea Rule OK!
That would be the traditional graffiti and side-comment cheer for the Blues, at least in its modern-day expression (exclamation point is optional). Links rule, e.g., http://forums.skysports.com/members/posting.aspx?s=1&b=2&c=2&f=20&t=28196&m=316357&p=1&q=y#post, not to mention the well-titled canonical variation "Chelsea Rules. OK?" (http://toksie.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html).
"Chelsea Rule OK!" (along with its predecessor, the well-regarded "Chelsea Rules, OK") sounded throughout all the belfries of Chelseadom today after their clutch win at home yesterday against their arch-foes, Manchester United.
The 2-1 margin was earned by a 86th-minute penalty for a handball in the box by Devils' defender Carrick--disputed, of course, by the road losers (at home they never have to worry about such things). Michael Ballack scored the game-winner.
Ballack, owner of the second-most controversial megacontract of the 2006 summer (after Andrey Shevchenko's) scored both goals for Chelsea, the penalty being particularly excellent. Shev's play on the line (as a late substitute just before the penalty call) saved an even later goal attempt.
Ballack's quality should never have been doubted, only the necessity of his presence (and, given the injuries he's had since, the cost of it). The problem is that he basically serves the same purpose as Frank Lampard, the longtime Chelsea and England scoring midfielder. By acquiring Ballack, Lampard was put on notice that he was dispensable, and it has showed up this year (not so much last year, as Ballack ended up being hurt most of it). Lampard will probably go now, and that's a shame.
The big rematch for Man U. still awaits in Moscow, if they need it. (They probably won't: the teams are tied but Manchester United has an unshakable lead in goal differential, the tiebreaker. So if both teams win both remaining games--all are against decidedly inferior opponents--Chelsea will be nosed out.) The big-time showdown in the Champions League final looks quite possible after the first legs of the two semifinal matchups.
Chelsea's possibilities of making the final look bright, now that they finally caught a break at Anfield, the home arena of their perennial nemesis, Liverpool. A 95th-minute own goal by longtime bane, the Norwegian Jon Arne Riise, gave Chelsea a largely undeserved draw and a critical away goal. Chelsea's prior failures against Liverpool always seemed to come down to scoring at Anfield, and Liverpool would shut down the games and squeak through. Now Chelsea advances with a scoreless draw at home or any victory.
Manchester's chances to advance against Barcelona are slightly less favorable but also decent after a scoreless draw on the road. What they have to watch out for in the replay is giving up a goal, which, whenever it occurs, would then force Manchester U. to score at least two. Of course, scoring has never been at issue for them. What was impressive about their outing was keeping a clean sheet despite giving Barcelona 65% of ball possession. We also saw St. Cristiano Ronaldo miss a penalty shot (!) for Man U. in the first minutes, making me a believer (in their doom).
It would be a shame to squander such a miracle and let them get through, but perhaps it is only just and appropriate that the two English club giants should have their final face-to-face in the Champions League final. I welcome it, "not without trepidation" (as T.C. Boyle says in "Friend of the Earth"--see post to come).
"Chelsea Rule OK!" (along with its predecessor, the well-regarded "Chelsea Rules, OK") sounded throughout all the belfries of Chelseadom today after their clutch win at home yesterday against their arch-foes, Manchester United.
The 2-1 margin was earned by a 86th-minute penalty for a handball in the box by Devils' defender Carrick--disputed, of course, by the road losers (at home they never have to worry about such things). Michael Ballack scored the game-winner.
Ballack, owner of the second-most controversial megacontract of the 2006 summer (after Andrey Shevchenko's) scored both goals for Chelsea, the penalty being particularly excellent. Shev's play on the line (as a late substitute just before the penalty call) saved an even later goal attempt.
Ballack's quality should never have been doubted, only the necessity of his presence (and, given the injuries he's had since, the cost of it). The problem is that he basically serves the same purpose as Frank Lampard, the longtime Chelsea and England scoring midfielder. By acquiring Ballack, Lampard was put on notice that he was dispensable, and it has showed up this year (not so much last year, as Ballack ended up being hurt most of it). Lampard will probably go now, and that's a shame.
The big rematch for Man U. still awaits in Moscow, if they need it. (They probably won't: the teams are tied but Manchester United has an unshakable lead in goal differential, the tiebreaker. So if both teams win both remaining games--all are against decidedly inferior opponents--Chelsea will be nosed out.) The big-time showdown in the Champions League final looks quite possible after the first legs of the two semifinal matchups.
Chelsea's possibilities of making the final look bright, now that they finally caught a break at Anfield, the home arena of their perennial nemesis, Liverpool. A 95th-minute own goal by longtime bane, the Norwegian Jon Arne Riise, gave Chelsea a largely undeserved draw and a critical away goal. Chelsea's prior failures against Liverpool always seemed to come down to scoring at Anfield, and Liverpool would shut down the games and squeak through. Now Chelsea advances with a scoreless draw at home or any victory.
Manchester's chances to advance against Barcelona are slightly less favorable but also decent after a scoreless draw on the road. What they have to watch out for in the replay is giving up a goal, which, whenever it occurs, would then force Manchester U. to score at least two. Of course, scoring has never been at issue for them. What was impressive about their outing was keeping a clean sheet despite giving Barcelona 65% of ball possession. We also saw St. Cristiano Ronaldo miss a penalty shot (!) for Man U. in the first minutes, making me a believer (in their doom).
It would be a shame to squander such a miracle and let them get through, but perhaps it is only just and appropriate that the two English club giants should have their final face-to-face in the Champions League final. I welcome it, "not without trepidation" (as T.C. Boyle says in "Friend of the Earth"--see post to come).
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Post-PA Alignment
PA--Exactly as before, more or less as predicted (9.4% margin instead of 7%).
Indiana now becomes, after New Hampshire, California, Texas/Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the one more mountain that Barack Obama has to climb to win the nomination. Imagine Indiana having a mountain, or being a mountain, anyway. This one, though, I think, is a bit more scalable. The idea is that if Obama wins Indiana, the fence-sitters among Superdelegates will get off (of it). I find this plausible, though of course only a conditional solution.
I love that Lee Hamilton has endorsed Obama--that one is VP-worthy for Barack, just as Charlie Crist was for McCain in his crucial Florida primary. Yes, I'm suggesting Hamilton in the Dick Cheney role. I think it could work extremely well, put Indiana totally in play in November, and give Obama the best possible person to have in his Administration in that reserve roster position.
The keys for Obama will be massive turnout in the northern part of the state and a decent showing in Indianapolis. I think Barack will take a direct personal involvement in mapping out the winning strategy for the state--it's too critical to delegate. In terms of media buy, much of it will be in Chicago--home turf--and in Louisville, where it will serve also for the Kentucky race, if necessary.
I don't find that ads have been that effective for Obama, though, not like his grassroots-combined-with-personal-appearance approach--when he's had the chance to build it. Kentucky and Indiana might appear to be difficult terrain, but are actually quite fertile if he sows it properly.
CNN has belatedly started a pool on the outcome of the Indiana primary, and the action was heavy and unstable. As usual, some serious Obama money arrived and pushed up his figure, to the point almost of 50%. Technically, one should bet against him at that point, but I couldn't do it. I like better the upset chances on Rasmussen, where he's running at about 30-35% for the state. That's down a bit, despite the fact that the latest polls (before PA) showed him closing in fast. The shift in the Delphi prob (that's what I'd call it; it's not really a probability) is legit, though; it represents a certain portion of the probability that shifted because Hillary didn't lose PA (or come close to losing it) and thus give up the ghost.
Indiana now becomes, after New Hampshire, California, Texas/Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the one more mountain that Barack Obama has to climb to win the nomination. Imagine Indiana having a mountain, or being a mountain, anyway. This one, though, I think, is a bit more scalable. The idea is that if Obama wins Indiana, the fence-sitters among Superdelegates will get off (of it). I find this plausible, though of course only a conditional solution.
I love that Lee Hamilton has endorsed Obama--that one is VP-worthy for Barack, just as Charlie Crist was for McCain in his crucial Florida primary. Yes, I'm suggesting Hamilton in the Dick Cheney role. I think it could work extremely well, put Indiana totally in play in November, and give Obama the best possible person to have in his Administration in that reserve roster position.
The keys for Obama will be massive turnout in the northern part of the state and a decent showing in Indianapolis. I think Barack will take a direct personal involvement in mapping out the winning strategy for the state--it's too critical to delegate. In terms of media buy, much of it will be in Chicago--home turf--and in Louisville, where it will serve also for the Kentucky race, if necessary.
I don't find that ads have been that effective for Obama, though, not like his grassroots-combined-with-personal-appearance approach--when he's had the chance to build it. Kentucky and Indiana might appear to be difficult terrain, but are actually quite fertile if he sows it properly.
CNN has belatedly started a pool on the outcome of the Indiana primary, and the action was heavy and unstable. As usual, some serious Obama money arrived and pushed up his figure, to the point almost of 50%. Technically, one should bet against him at that point, but I couldn't do it. I like better the upset chances on Rasmussen, where he's running at about 30-35% for the state. That's down a bit, despite the fact that the latest polls (before PA) showed him closing in fast. The shift in the Delphi prob (that's what I'd call it; it's not really a probability) is legit, though; it represents a certain portion of the probability that shifted because Hillary didn't lose PA (or come close to losing it) and thus give up the ghost.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Eve of PA
We're predicting a Clinton win, 53-46. 2% Std Dev. on that, so 90% chance Obama's will be between 42-50. The consensus of polls (with one or two exceptions) is around a 5-7 point lead for HRC. Obama will exceed the turnout of young people, blacks that the polls have, but Clinton will get more from the late white male deciders. The margin of delegates for HRC will be negligible.
Obama is now projecting to about a 200-delegate lead once superdelegates make up their mind, and assuming the big win in NC and the narrow loss in IN pretty much kill Hillary's real chances, this one shapes up to fold just about when Puerto Rico votes at the beginning of June. Dean will push hard then, and immediately afterward if necessary. Obama's lead will be sufficient that he can do the magnanimous thing and seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Because they won't matter.
Obama is now projecting to about a 200-delegate lead once superdelegates make up their mind, and assuming the big win in NC and the narrow loss in IN pretty much kill Hillary's real chances, this one shapes up to fold just about when Puerto Rico votes at the beginning of June. Dean will push hard then, and immediately afterward if necessary. Obama's lead will be sufficient that he can do the magnanimous thing and seat the Florida and Michigan delegations. Because they won't matter.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
John Adams: An Inspiration for Our Times?
Great miniseries on HBO: last episode on Sunday (preceded by telecasting of the previous six). Kudos for the casting, virtually throughout, and ranging from Washington (David Morse with Marlon Brando cheeks); Jefferson (a lengthy, excellent performance by Stephen Dillane, giving a key depiction of the Great One from the point of view of someone who had a unique perspective--as friend, counsel, and rival over 50 years--of which the last episode will need to cover 26 years; Franklin (Tom Wilkinson--looked and sounded perfect); and, in the last episode, soon-to-be Chief Justice for All Times John Marshall (amazingly, not credited on the iMDB site!). This, of course, beside the excellent choices of the lead characters Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney as John and Abigail Adams.
One thread at HBO somehow proclaimed "Barack Obama is a John Adams for Our Times!" I think, rather, he is the Andrew Jackson for Our Times (successor to the President Whose Father Was Also President--J.Q. Adams in the original instance). Jackson's victory in '28 was particularly decisive because he was robbed in '24--though our revenge in '04 was hardly such. Redemption could come through Hillary or through Obama, but I find Barack much more Jacksonian than HRC is. A blast of fresh air, as it were.
More relevantly, Barack--whom many have compared to another transplanted Illinoisan who made it big, lanky Abe Lincoln--could bear some resemblance to Thomas Jefferson in political party terms. The 1800 election was the most decisive in history--a massive, permanent defeat for the Federalists, who were split between Adams and Hamilton loyalists--and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans eventually cleared the field of domestic political opposition (just in time for the invasion of the War of 1812).
There is the opportunity for that kind of victory against the Republicans this year (we could omit the torching of Washington, DC this time around, even though it might be popular!) The Bushites are defeated soundly and McCain represents no kind of party renewal. This is a year in which, by the dynamics of Senate seats to defend and those of the normal response to gains such as those in the 2006 House elections, the Democrats should be losing ground, but the contrary will be the case. The Democratic Congressional victory in '08 presages a long domination there, so the only question is control of the White House.
So it's very important to have the right casting. That's what this whole primary thing was about, right? Getting the proper casting? It certainly hasn't been about the issues, or those stupid "What I Would Do..." statements candidates are required to produce endlessly. One thing the Adams miniseries has been brilliant about exposing is the fallacy that Presidents control events. This is what John Adams wanted to do, and the miniseries dialogue says as much, but all he was able to do, really, was make choices and roll with the consequences--which, for him, meant political defeat. The same was true of Dubya, though he made bad choices, and he managed to avoid the comprehensive electoral crushing that he deserved.
So it falls to John McCain. (In the John Adams parallel, McCain has been cast to play Charles Pinckney of South Carolina--portrayed in the miniseries as a Hamilton man--who got 27% of the Popular vote: Connecticut, Delaware, and 2 faithless electors in Maryland.) This is a man who was born to fall on a sword; in this case, we're hoping he will do it for the Republican Party. And take it with him.
P.S. After dispensing of the turncoat Aaron Burr--who had so far deceived Jefferson by refusing to yield him his due, but had not yet plugged Hamilton or cavorted with seditious Western secessionists--Jefferson went in his second term for the ominously-named George Clinton (no, not of Funkadelic fame, nor any relation to President Bill). If we're looking for clues for Obama's choice, Clinton was Governor of New York (no help there), a compromise between factions in the suddenly-dominant party. Since we're still just talking about casting, that would be a white woman, a governor or military figure. Jean Sebelius of Kansas seems the best fit for the part.
One thread at HBO somehow proclaimed "Barack Obama is a John Adams for Our Times!" I think, rather, he is the Andrew Jackson for Our Times (successor to the President Whose Father Was Also President--J.Q. Adams in the original instance). Jackson's victory in '28 was particularly decisive because he was robbed in '24--though our revenge in '04 was hardly such. Redemption could come through Hillary or through Obama, but I find Barack much more Jacksonian than HRC is. A blast of fresh air, as it were.
More relevantly, Barack--whom many have compared to another transplanted Illinoisan who made it big, lanky Abe Lincoln--could bear some resemblance to Thomas Jefferson in political party terms. The 1800 election was the most decisive in history--a massive, permanent defeat for the Federalists, who were split between Adams and Hamilton loyalists--and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans eventually cleared the field of domestic political opposition (just in time for the invasion of the War of 1812).
There is the opportunity for that kind of victory against the Republicans this year (we could omit the torching of Washington, DC this time around, even though it might be popular!) The Bushites are defeated soundly and McCain represents no kind of party renewal. This is a year in which, by the dynamics of Senate seats to defend and those of the normal response to gains such as those in the 2006 House elections, the Democrats should be losing ground, but the contrary will be the case. The Democratic Congressional victory in '08 presages a long domination there, so the only question is control of the White House.
So it's very important to have the right casting. That's what this whole primary thing was about, right? Getting the proper casting? It certainly hasn't been about the issues, or those stupid "What I Would Do..." statements candidates are required to produce endlessly. One thing the Adams miniseries has been brilliant about exposing is the fallacy that Presidents control events. This is what John Adams wanted to do, and the miniseries dialogue says as much, but all he was able to do, really, was make choices and roll with the consequences--which, for him, meant political defeat. The same was true of Dubya, though he made bad choices, and he managed to avoid the comprehensive electoral crushing that he deserved.
So it falls to John McCain. (In the John Adams parallel, McCain has been cast to play Charles Pinckney of South Carolina--portrayed in the miniseries as a Hamilton man--who got 27% of the Popular vote: Connecticut, Delaware, and 2 faithless electors in Maryland.) This is a man who was born to fall on a sword; in this case, we're hoping he will do it for the Republican Party. And take it with him.
P.S. After dispensing of the turncoat Aaron Burr--who had so far deceived Jefferson by refusing to yield him his due, but had not yet plugged Hamilton or cavorted with seditious Western secessionists--Jefferson went in his second term for the ominously-named George Clinton (no, not of Funkadelic fame, nor any relation to President Bill). If we're looking for clues for Obama's choice, Clinton was Governor of New York (no help there), a compromise between factions in the suddenly-dominant party. Since we're still just talking about casting, that would be a white woman, a governor or military figure. Jean Sebelius of Kansas seems the best fit for the part.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
NBA update
The NCAA tourney is over--I feel robbed that Memphis didn't win the title it deserved--but the other two contests I've been following the last couple of months (see stoner: Spring Sports Excitement) are as hot as ever.
Chelsea needs to get past Champions' League nemesis Liverpool somehow in the semifinals, to face, most likely, Manchester United on a neutral court. That's an attractive prospect. In the Premier League, it's a showdown with Man U. as well; we're hoping it will come down to Chelsea's home game against them near the end of the season. The season's success will come down to those two showdowns against this supreme foe.
In the NBA, we all know the Eastern finals will be Detroit vs. Boston (perhaps 5% chance for "all others", with 4% of that being some sort of repeat shocker from King James and the Cavaliers over the Detroit Roundheads). But what about the West?
There are 2-3 games left in the regular season for the Western Conference teams, and this is what we know at this point: #7 will be Dallas, and #8 will be either Denver or Golden State (with the other the odd team looking in). The other six seeds are totally in doubt, all within a range of two losses from first to sixth. I think it's pointless to consider the matchup ramifications at this point.
I would say that San Antonio would be favored, because of its superior playoff history, but they're going in playing particularly badly. I'm rooting for Houston to win a series (Tracy McGrady's never done so), and, of course, for the Lakers to lose at some point.
We'll post odds on winning the championship once the playoff teams are finalized, but my bet would be on the Celtics to exceed whatever odds are posted.
Chelsea needs to get past Champions' League nemesis Liverpool somehow in the semifinals, to face, most likely, Manchester United on a neutral court. That's an attractive prospect. In the Premier League, it's a showdown with Man U. as well; we're hoping it will come down to Chelsea's home game against them near the end of the season. The season's success will come down to those two showdowns against this supreme foe.
In the NBA, we all know the Eastern finals will be Detroit vs. Boston (perhaps 5% chance for "all others", with 4% of that being some sort of repeat shocker from King James and the Cavaliers over the Detroit Roundheads). But what about the West?
There are 2-3 games left in the regular season for the Western Conference teams, and this is what we know at this point: #7 will be Dallas, and #8 will be either Denver or Golden State (with the other the odd team looking in). The other six seeds are totally in doubt, all within a range of two losses from first to sixth. I think it's pointless to consider the matchup ramifications at this point.
I would say that San Antonio would be favored, because of its superior playoff history, but they're going in playing particularly badly. I'm rooting for Houston to win a series (Tracy McGrady's never done so), and, of course, for the Lakers to lose at some point.
We'll post odds on winning the championship once the playoff teams are finalized, but my bet would be on the Celtics to exceed whatever odds are posted.
Bad Day for George
George Stephanopoulos must have gotten short-changed on sleep before taping his show for this weekend.
First, in his interview with Jimmy Carter, he didn't really get past Carter's admission that all of his children and their spouses, his home town and Congressional district all were for Obama, but that he (Carter) wouldn't need to endorse anyone until the convention. Don't worry, the Obama campaign is counting him as a sure delegate vote in their counts. On the real news item related to this, Carter's plan to visit Gaza to try to get Hamas to take steps to enter the peace discussion, Stephanopoulos didn't get at all into the content of the discussion. Is Hamas looking to be an equal partner to Fatah, or to represent the territory under its control--Gaza--while Fatah would negotiate for the occupied West Bank? I'm sure the outcome sought is an end to hostility, but something about the strategy to be pursued in getting there might have enlightened us viewers a bit.
Next, he had on National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley affirmed that Carter, as a private citizen, can do what he wants, though the government's policy is that his mission is "unhelpful". He called for reversal of Hamas' "coup" in Gaza--George didn't see fit to challenge that characterization, referring to the argument that the coup was actually a failed Bushite covert operation by Fatah that blew back (see the April Vanity Fair). Then Hadley and George had a long conversation about China, the Olympics, and Dubya's plan to attend--ostensibly the brave thing, to speak openly before the Chinese about their violations of human rights (as if). Through that whole conversation, Hadley referred to what China's doing in "Nepal", and how the international community is speaking out about it. At least six times he referred to these abuses in Nepal. George fell right in with the discussion.
George and Stephen, Nepal is an independent country with its own problems--monarchy or Maoism?--but China is relatively innocent of aggression against it. The geographical/cultural entity being agressed against is called "Tibet".
Finally, Donna Brazile in the panel discussion talked about what Hillary would have to do, to take back control of the nomination race. She said Hillary would need a win by 15%, to which Stephanopoulos said, "So she'd need to get over the 60% mark?"
No, 60% minus 15% is 45%; she doesn't need for vote totals to exceed 100% of those cast. 57-42% (with one percent for all other) would do the job.
Rasmussen Update
Speaking of voting margins, the (two-tailed) victory margins for Pennsylvania and Indiana are the most interesting thing going in the CNN Political Market. I'm doing better in that one than in Rasmussen--I think the result of inferior competition and simpler propositions, though I do like these ones about whether the Democratic margin will be 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, or more than 15% (no matter who wins), just as I like Rasmussen's ones on the number of Democratic seats in the houses of Congress, or on the Bushite approval rating in quarterly Gallup polls. More interesting, betting-wise, than the simple 0-1 propositions on the individual primaries, nomination, general election, and Presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections by state.
In terms of those, Pennsylvania gone back from 70-30 Clinton to 80-20 after this week's Obama "bitter" gaffe (see below). Most of the other races are not so interesting (basically defined as between 40-60 and 60-40, or showing a lot of movement): the one exception is the Indiana primary, which today showed a 49% bid for each side. I think generally interest has waned a little during this unnaturally long hiatus in primaries, not to mention those like me who have already committed all their funds to bets or to margin calls around those bets.
I'm betting on the 0-5% margin range in Indiana, and on 6-10% for Pennsylvania, and against 11-15% margins for either.
First, in his interview with Jimmy Carter, he didn't really get past Carter's admission that all of his children and their spouses, his home town and Congressional district all were for Obama, but that he (Carter) wouldn't need to endorse anyone until the convention. Don't worry, the Obama campaign is counting him as a sure delegate vote in their counts. On the real news item related to this, Carter's plan to visit Gaza to try to get Hamas to take steps to enter the peace discussion, Stephanopoulos didn't get at all into the content of the discussion. Is Hamas looking to be an equal partner to Fatah, or to represent the territory under its control--Gaza--while Fatah would negotiate for the occupied West Bank? I'm sure the outcome sought is an end to hostility, but something about the strategy to be pursued in getting there might have enlightened us viewers a bit.
Next, he had on National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Hadley affirmed that Carter, as a private citizen, can do what he wants, though the government's policy is that his mission is "unhelpful". He called for reversal of Hamas' "coup" in Gaza--George didn't see fit to challenge that characterization, referring to the argument that the coup was actually a failed Bushite covert operation by Fatah that blew back (see the April Vanity Fair). Then Hadley and George had a long conversation about China, the Olympics, and Dubya's plan to attend--ostensibly the brave thing, to speak openly before the Chinese about their violations of human rights (as if). Through that whole conversation, Hadley referred to what China's doing in "Nepal", and how the international community is speaking out about it. At least six times he referred to these abuses in Nepal. George fell right in with the discussion.
George and Stephen, Nepal is an independent country with its own problems--monarchy or Maoism?--but China is relatively innocent of aggression against it. The geographical/cultural entity being agressed against is called "Tibet".
Finally, Donna Brazile in the panel discussion talked about what Hillary would have to do, to take back control of the nomination race. She said Hillary would need a win by 15%, to which Stephanopoulos said, "So she'd need to get over the 60% mark?"
No, 60% minus 15% is 45%; she doesn't need for vote totals to exceed 100% of those cast. 57-42% (with one percent for all other) would do the job.
Rasmussen Update
Speaking of voting margins, the (two-tailed) victory margins for Pennsylvania and Indiana are the most interesting thing going in the CNN Political Market. I'm doing better in that one than in Rasmussen--I think the result of inferior competition and simpler propositions, though I do like these ones about whether the Democratic margin will be 0-5, 6-10, 11-15, or more than 15% (no matter who wins), just as I like Rasmussen's ones on the number of Democratic seats in the houses of Congress, or on the Bushite approval rating in quarterly Gallup polls. More interesting, betting-wise, than the simple 0-1 propositions on the individual primaries, nomination, general election, and Presidential/senatorial/gubernatorial elections by state.
In terms of those, Pennsylvania gone back from 70-30 Clinton to 80-20 after this week's Obama "bitter" gaffe (see below). Most of the other races are not so interesting (basically defined as between 40-60 and 60-40, or showing a lot of movement): the one exception is the Indiana primary, which today showed a 49% bid for each side. I think generally interest has waned a little during this unnaturally long hiatus in primaries, not to mention those like me who have already committed all their funds to bets or to margin calls around those bets.
I'm betting on the 0-5% margin range in Indiana, and on 6-10% for Pennsylvania, and against 11-15% margins for either.
What, Me Bitter?
Here's the text of Obama's gaffe, as reported by semi-hostile Mayhill Fowler on Huff Post:
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
There's nothing particularly incorrect about this perspective on small-town losers, except its utterance in public by someone campaigning for elective office. It's the commonly accepted rationale for racism, and for a lot of America's anti-intellectualism. This is what's come to the fore in the aftermath of the publishing of the quote: how can we elect someone who is such a professor?
About his alleged lack of grit, we can only cheer, say "Amen!", and stick by our guns.
Of course, it is bad politics to tell us Americans that many of us are obtuse and choose not to pursue our class interests in political decisions. For those impolitic remarks, he does need to apologize to his supporters, who are counting on him to keep his vice of intellect under wraps until he gets elected.
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
There's nothing particularly incorrect about this perspective on small-town losers, except its utterance in public by someone campaigning for elective office. It's the commonly accepted rationale for racism, and for a lot of America's anti-intellectualism. This is what's come to the fore in the aftermath of the publishing of the quote: how can we elect someone who is such a professor?
About his alleged lack of grit, we can only cheer, say "Amen!", and stick by our guns.
Of course, it is bad politics to tell us Americans that many of us are obtuse and choose not to pursue our class interests in political decisions. For those impolitic remarks, he does need to apologize to his supporters, who are counting on him to keep his vice of intellect under wraps until he gets elected.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Diana: My First and Last Words
No, it's not that I intend that the name of the late Princess of Wales' name, the goddess of the hunt, be my final utterance before I join her in Heaven. It's that I've never discussed the subject before seeing today's story
and don't intend to do so again, unless it becomes a completely different story somehow. It's basically a one-shot item, the interest on the side at best. The judgment is that there were unlawful deaths to Dodi and Diana, with their driver and the chasing paparazzi culpable. There are theoretical remedies but no practical ones with the driver dead and some of the motorcycle-riding harpies already punished to the full extent of the law, and thus no doubt already penniless.
I do think that today's story, while it changes little in the real world, puts the case on a clear legal path, one appropriate for the actual intents, actions, and reactions of the incident. Maybe Mohammed Fayed's desire to litigate can thus be effectively focused in the proper arena, against the correct defendants.
Diana's death shocked me much more than a normal celebrity event; exactly one week before I'd been staying at the Intercontinental Hotel, right at the place the driver and attendant paparazzi mob would have turned into the tunnel where fate intervened. I could imagine the whole high-speed circus parade--Fellini-esque, in my mind--as it might have been.
I see The Legend of Dodi and Diana as a clear warning to All Who Would Become Famous how badly the game of fame can end up for The Player.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/07/international/i083611D38.DTL)
and don't intend to do so again, unless it becomes a completely different story somehow. It's basically a one-shot item, the interest on the side at best. The judgment is that there were unlawful deaths to Dodi and Diana, with their driver and the chasing paparazzi culpable. There are theoretical remedies but no practical ones with the driver dead and some of the motorcycle-riding harpies already punished to the full extent of the law, and thus no doubt already penniless.
I do think that today's story, while it changes little in the real world, puts the case on a clear legal path, one appropriate for the actual intents, actions, and reactions of the incident. Maybe Mohammed Fayed's desire to litigate can thus be effectively focused in the proper arena, against the correct defendants.
Diana's death shocked me much more than a normal celebrity event; exactly one week before I'd been staying at the Intercontinental Hotel, right at the place the driver and attendant paparazzi mob would have turned into the tunnel where fate intervened. I could imagine the whole high-speed circus parade--Fellini-esque, in my mind--as it might have been.
I see The Legend of Dodi and Diana as a clear warning to All Who Would Become Famous how badly the game of fame can end up for The Player.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Final Four X 1
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.
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.
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
