Quo Vadimus

Defending the (In?)defensible: The 2009 Detroit Lions Draft

2009-04-26T22:17:00.003-04:00

Long time no blog (mainly because I've been using Twitter so much) but sometimes you need more than 140 characters, and if I'm going to defend the 2009 Detroit Lions draft, I may need 10 times that amount.

If newspaper articles, calls to talk radio, reaction at the Lions' own draft party, and comments from friends and family members are any indication, Matt Millen would have had an easier time pleasing the Lions faithful than what new GM Martin Mayhew and head coach Jim Schwartz put together. The newspaper columns are brutal, fans booed nearly every pick at Ford Field, I had to talk one friend off the ledge on the phone this afternoon, and another described the draft tonight as "TERRIBLE" (capitals included). Welcome to Detroit Matt Stafford and Jim Schwartz, where Lions fans have been bred to lose the "benefit of the doubt gene."

And there's every reason not to give the Lions the benefit of the doubt. After all, Matt Millen for eight years, produced eight years of wasted drafts. Two of the Lions first round picks of the Millen era (Charles Rogers and Mike Williams) are out of football. Another (Joey Harrington) is hanging on by a thread. Others aren't even with the Lions anymore (Roy Williams and Kevin Jones), and the ones that are (Jeff Backus, Ernie Sims, and Gosder Cherilus) have not lived up to expectations. And those late round gems every other team seems to find? Well, not so much with the Lions. Brian Calhoun has spent the better part of three years on IR though, and we've wasted more second round picks than most teams have had in eight years, so that's something.

All that is said to lay the foundation for this: Lions fans, I understand your frustration, and I understand your pessimism. But, let's also be honest, the Lions draft was far from "terrible" and it was certainly not the epic disaster most are portraying it as. We can disagree about the pick of QB Matt Stafford #1 overall, and had I been running the Lions, I probably would have taken Baylor left tackle Jason Smith (despite my love of Wake Forrest linebacker Aaron Curry, and I think he's going to be a leader in Seattle for the next decade, you can't take a linebacker #1 overall, give him $60 million, and then move him to middle linebacker, a position he's never played before -- you just can't do it), but if the Lions truly believe he can be an elite quarterback, they couldn't pass on him. You can't say "well, it didn't work out with Andre Ware or Joey Harrington or Chuck Long" so Stafford's destined to fail too. And I don't even mind the big contract, because, the Lions had no choice. Once they decided to take a QB #1 overall, the money was going to be outrageous. There was nothing they could do; they were slaves to the out-of-whack NFL rookie salary system.

The big problem Lions fans seem to have is that with both the team's second first round pick #20, and the first pick in the second round, #33, the Lions did not address a glaring need at middle linebacker. And there's no question, the Detroit Lions need a middle linebacker. With last year's starter Paris Lenon unsigned, there isn't one on the roster at the moment. That's a problem. But the Lions have a lot of problems. While we haven't had a Pro Bowl QB since the 1970's, that was also the last time the team had an elite tight end (and please, David Sloan doesn't count -- he was good, but certainly not great). And there's certainly no question the current Lions team also lacks a quality tight end. The team also lacks a play making free safety, in the mold of an Ed Reed or Bob Sanders.

So, with multiple holes, and only a limited number of picks with which to fill them, Martin Mayhew and Jim Schwartz did what they could. They went with the highest rated player on their board, pretty much regardless of position. And that meant taking tight end Brandon Pettigrew #20 overall, despite the needs on defense. This just infuriated most Lions fans, especially with MLB's Rey Rey Maualuga and James Laurinaitis on the board. But, Pettigrew was ranked as Mel Kiper's #7 overall prospect, was by far the #1 tight end in the draft, and is one of the most complete tight-end prospects in years. Not only does he have soft hands and NFL quality speed (though he's not going to blow by people) but he's a monster blocker thanks to his 6'5", 260-pound frame. So, not only does he give the Lions another weapon to take pressure off of Calvin Johnson, but he instantly makes the running game and the offensive line better because of his elite blocking skills. He can step in and start immediately, and he'll make a huge impact as a rookie.

Of course the Lions needed help on defense, but the fact that no NFL team thought it wise to take Maualuga or Laurinatis in the first round (or even into the second) ought to tell you something. It's easy to fall in love with big name players from big name college programs who we watch every week for years and are on the cover of Sports Illustrated (like Maualuga was the week before the draft) and see them make great plays and big hits, and say "we need that guy." And that's especially true when you are a team like the Lions who lack a defensive identity. But, this is a multi-year rebuilding process for the Lions. We're not going from 0-16 to the playoffs, we're not the next Miami Dolphins or Atlanta Falcons. We can't afford to pass up talent for need. We need players, at every position. We can't afford to be choosy.

The next sin, according to the local media and local fans, was passing up Mauluga nad Laurinatis again at #33 to take Western Michigan safety Louis Delmas. Delmas, though, was the #1 safety in the draft, and safety is becoming an elite, and vital position in the league (maybe even more so than middle linebacker). If Delmas lives up to his potential, Lions fans will be very happy, even if he's not a middle linebacker.

Jim Schwartz said today the Lions were not going to "fit square pegs into round holes" with the linebackers in this draft. Who am I, who didn't watch film on these guys, didn't interview them or see them work out at their pro day or the Combine, to say Schwartz is wrong? I know as Lions fans we have been conditioned to believe our coaches are bafoons, but I liked the hiring of Jim Schwartz. I have to at least give him one draft to get the types of players he thinks will fit best in his scheme.

Now, was I thrilled with all of the Lions picks? No. Day 2, while it obtained some depth at both defensive and offensive tackle, and brought us two potential kick returners (another desperate need), also included two outside linebackers. Maybe they can move inside, but the last thing we needed were more athletic outside linebackrs. And nary a defensive end or cornerback was taken. So, I was a bit less happy with Sunday than I was with Saturday.

So, maybe I'm just a Lions apologist, but I'm not expecting the Lions to rebuild overnight. We need players, everywhere and when you can leave a draft with the top player at three different positions of need (quarterback, tight end, and safety), even if you didn't address your most pressing need (middle linebacker) I can live with that. As Martin Mayhew said before the draft, as much as the draft is about next year, it's really about three, four years down the road. Of course we didn't fill all of our needs this weekend. But, this is a process, and one the Lions have just begun.

Lions Struggle in Free Agency, But Its Not Mayhew's Fault

2009-03-01T07:53:00.002-05:00

Despite having almost $40 million to spend in cap room, and more starting positions to fill than almost any team in football, the Detroit Lions have had a quiet start to free agency. Sure, they've signed a backup running back (Maurice Morris, a solid pickup, sure), a second or third option at wide receiver (the talented, but always seemingly disappointing Bryant Johnson), and picked up a couple of cornerbacks (aging veteran Anthony Henry from Dallas in a trade for Jon Kitna, and former Tennessee Titan backup Eric King) but certainly, for a team that went 0-16, these signings aren't going to instantly make the Lions a contender for much of anything.

Yet, I'm not upset, nor do I even remotely blame new Lions general manger Martin Mayhew. In fact, I give Mayhew high marks for how he's handled this off-season so far. Why? Because had things gone according to plan, the Lions would be in a much different position right now, and for once, the plan was not foiled by the Lions ineptitude, but by that of other teams.

First, the Lions had finally filled the left guard spot vacated when Matt Millen, in his first season as general manager, balked at paying Pro Bowl guard Jeff Hartings a few hundred thousand dollars more to stay in the Detroit. Instead, Hartings continued to visit Pro Bowls as a member of the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Millen regime was off and running in the wrong direction (little did we know at the time just how much the Hartings decision was a foreshadowing of things to come). This time, though, the Lions had lined up a trade with Buffalo for guard Derrick Dockery. Dockery is in the prime of his career and would have been the first real replacement for Hartings in almost a decade. He would have solidified the offensive line and would have instantly improved the Lions team. So what happened? The Bills screwed up the paperwork and failed to get it to the league office in time before Dockery was due a roster bonus. They chose to cut him instead, and the Lions were left with nothing. And despite offering Dockery more money than he later received from the Washington Redskins, Dockery chose D.C., his previous home before he went to Buffalo two seasons ago. Mayhew tried, but forces beyond his control kept the Lions without a starting offensive lineman.

An even larger disappointment perhaps was when Denver backed out of a potential trade for Jay Cutler. The Lions were trying to use their second round pick to trade for New England QB Matt Cassel, who the Lions would have then shipped to Denver in exchange for Cutler, who would instantly become the best quarterback the Lions have had in at least four decades. Denver, though, ultimately decided against moving Cutler, and the Patriots sent Cassel to Kansas City.

So, had Mayhew had his way, the Lions, along with the signings of Johnson, Morris, and King, would have added a top LG and one of the league's best quarterbacks to the Lions. And both were very close to happening, and both failed due to no fault of the Lions. And yet, Mayhew didn't get discouraged, and instead, went back to work. He somehow was able to get something for Jon Kitna, the quarterback the Lions would have cut in the next 48-hours before a roster bonus came due, sending him to Dallas for Henry, who, while aging, was a starter on one of the league's best defenses last season.

Would I have liked to see the Lions acquire more talent so far in free agency? Absolutely. But, it hasn't been for a lack of effort. And I like how Mayhew's mind seems to be working, as he is trying everything possible, and considering every option, to improve the Lions. Let's just hope in the next few days, if the Lions have another blockbuster move lined up, he's actually able to pull it off.

Blogging about Twittering and Facebook Statusing

2009-02-15T21:01:00.002-05:00

I have joined the phenomenon which is Twitter. As Sam Seaborn once said on West Wing, let's forget the fact that I'm coming a
little late to the party and embrace the fact that I showed up at all.

I was an early adopter to Facebook, joining back in the days when it was limited to .edu e-mail addresses (almost seems quaint now), but I've been slow to the other platforms which have defined this technological age. I started this blog back almost two years ago now (well after blogs became commonplace -- although, in my defense, I did write for the nascent MLive.com back in 1997, and created and edited other websites in the late 1990s, which had a lot of blog-like qualities before the term blog was coined). But I never got into "Twittering," figuring instead that anytime I had anything to say, I'd just post it here. And since I like to drone on and use five words when two would do (a habit I'm trying to break when it comes to drafting legal briefs), limiting myself to the 140 words of a Twitter update seemed too constraining. Plus, I always had Facebook status updates to use whenever I did want to say something, succinctly, about what I was up to.

I've had a change of heart though, and now, You can follow me on Twitter. And I have Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill to thank. I never really followed people's "Tweets" on Twitter before I think Ben Smith at Politco (or maybe it was Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, I forget which) referenced the Senator's Twittering of the negotiations over President Obama's stimulus bill. McCaskill's Twitters were candid (refreshing for a Washington politician) and I became hooked reading them (so much so that I put my following of the Senator's messages on my list of "25 Interesting Things About Me" on Facebook -- Another internet fad I gave into, but in a much quicker fashion). It was about then I realized the value of Twitter, and how entertaining and informative the content people post on Twitter can be. And along with now following Twitter feeds of friends of mine, there's David Gregory of Meet the Press, The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza and others. Some of the posts are interesting, others just allow you to see the real person behind the column or television show that you read or see. And, I think it can only be good for business. If I feel like I know David Gregory or Chris Cillizza a little bit better as people because I read their Twitter feed, I'm going to be more likely to watch Meet the Press as opposed to This Week or read The Fix as opposed to something else. It's another great example of the internet making our vast world smaller, and actually bringing people together (especially when people like Gregory use their Twitter feed to actively engage with and communicate with viewers or readers).

So by joining the ranks of Twitter, does that mean I am abandoning the Facebook status update? Not at all. While the two appear to serve the same function (Facebook asks 'What Are You Doing Right Now?' while Twitter asks 'What Are You Doing?') I see them as two very different and distinct mediums. Twitter is almost a mini-blog, a stream-of-consciousness collection of thoughts as they hit me. Thoughts that don't merit an entire blog post, but yet, seem worth sharing. I'll continue to use Facebook status updates, on the other hand, for just that, status updates. I like that distinction because I'm friends with hundreds of more people on Facebook than I am on Twitter, so actually using the status update to update my status makes more sense. Plus, I can see updating Twitter multiple times a day -- If I did that on Facebook, it would quickly overwhelm my wall and my friends' Newsfeeds, and that wouldn't be good for anyone. What we need is a Twitter application for Facebook which posts your Twitter feed without clogging your Newsfeed or Wall, and without hijacking your Facebook status updates. I'm sure that's coming (if it doesn't already exist).

So, now I feel my life is almost too integrated with the internet, though I'm sure I'll get over their feeling soon enough. But with a blog column for an internet newspaper, this blog, my Facebook account, and now, Twitter (most of which I can view and update from my Blackberry -- No wonder President Obama refused to give his up) odds are something else will soon come along that will further strengthen this bond. Yet, I don't think that's a bad thing. As I said, there's something about Twittering that connects people, and I'm sure in the future, we'll see the value and utility of those connections expand exponentially.

Welcome to Monday, the New Thursday

2009-02-02T19:37:00.002-05:00

Remember was Thursday was "Must See TV"? Didn't seem that long ago. Friends, Seinfeld, ER, Mad About You, a bunch of other random sitcoms that never made it, like Fred Savage's Working and that Christina Applegate sitcom (Jesse maybe?). Thursday's aren't so much good for that anymore. Now all we have (that I watch anyway -- and that's the only thing that's important right?) is Survivor. Sure, other people watch CSI and The Office and 30 Rock (and Grey's Anatomy I guess, but I think most folks, like me, have just become annoyed with that show), but Thursday is certainly a far cry from the appointment television it used to be.

And then, there's Monday. So many shows my DVR is on the verge of over-exhaustion. Here's my schedule for tonight (or say a normal Monday, considering I've got a few other things on my plate tonight -- And I can fit all this in thanks to the magic of my DVR which turns a 60 minute show into 42 commercial free minutes of television:
8:00-8:50 -- Countdown with Keith Olbermann
8:50-9:30 -- House
9:30-10:10 -- 24
10:10-10:30 -- How I Met Your Mother
10:30-11:10 -- Trust Me
11:10-11:50 -- Heroes
11:50-sleep: -- The Tonight Show
Now, of course, I don't have to watch everything in one night, but if I'm home, I might as well gorge on television. But just look at that lineup. A news show, a late night show, three dramas, a dramedy, a comedy, five networks (NBC, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, and TNT).

How can you top Monday? You can't. House, I've already written about. 24, obviously, has had its ups and downs. The shows' fifth season (the Evil President Logan year) was one of the best season's of television I've ever seen. The next season (the Evil Jack's family year) was one of the worst. When I heard the show was bringing Tony Almeida back from the dead, this season, I thought the show was getting desperate. Yet, the explanation for his return is very logical and has been well-handled, and this season has been very good so far. Back to the 24 of old. I am getting a bit tired though of moles in the upper echelon of the White House. 24's done that to death already, and it was a focal point of Prison Break and numerous other shows. It's time to come up with some new obstacle.

Heroes, similarly, has had its ups and downs, but I'm not giving up on it yet, as the new chapter which begins tonight ("Fugitives") looks to recapture the magic of the first season (though every new chapter supposedly was supposed to do that). Bringing in the brilliant Zeljko Ivanek is a great start, as from Damages to John Adams to 24 to The West Wing, Zeljko is great in everything he's in.

The recent success of How I Met Your Mother is gratifying as a longtime fan of the show. It didn't have a lot of critical or rating success in its first years, but CBS stuck with it, and it's the only comedy I watch, and it's both very funny, and yet, a show with a soul at the same time, which isn't just mindless slapstick (though there's some of that too). It continues to grow its audience, and it's hitting its stride (especially when Scrubs' Sarah Chalke guest starred last season into this start of this season).

And Trust/Me, while new, seems to be a show worth watching. I was always a big fan of NBC's Ed, and Tom Cavanaugh brings a lot of Ed Stevens to his role as an ad writer in this buddy dramedy about the modern world of advertising. Plus -- Monday means Headlines on Jay Leno. Can't beat that.

So, I guess my message to the TV executives (who, I'm sure, read my blog on a daily basis): Spread the wealth. Why have all your good shows on Monday? There's tons of bad television on the other six days of the week, save my DVR some work. Or, maybe it's better to have all these shows on the same day. You can watch them all and have the rest of the week TV free (except for NCIS, LOST, Damages, Survivor, The Amazing Race and 60 Minutes of course, plus nightly editions of Hardball, Countdown, Rachel Maddow, and The Tonight Show).

And with that, I need to get back to my television.

Zero Republicans Support Saving The Economy From Ruin

2009-01-28T18:34:00.003-05:00

Well, okay, maybe the headline overstates things. But, perhaps not by that much. In a vote tonight on the $800-billion-plus stimulus package which, in part, is designed to save us from the second Great Depression, not a SINGLE Republican voted for it.

The Republicans need a public relations lesson. Now, I understand there are things in the stimulus plan the Republicans don't like (or, a lot they don't like). And I understand they weren't happy that the bill was entirely written by House Democrats and they weren't given any input on the bill from Nancy Pelosi and company. And there's something to be said for sticking together and showing the Democrats and the President that they won't be pushed around.

Except, this was entirely the wrong moment and the wrong bill to do something like this. Not that we should be surprised. Earlier this week, before the President ventured to Capitol Hill to meet with Republicans in both the House and Senate to discuss the Stimulus Bill, Republicans already decided they were going to vote against it. This was despite the President being more than willing to listen to and even incorporate some Republican demands -- Such as removing money for family planning and adding an almost $70 million patch to shield middle-income Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The President, in fact, has gone out of his way to be bi-partisan. He's had Republicans to the White House. He's gone to Republicans on Capitol Hill. And he's having them over again tonight. And even if one disagrees over the Stimulus Bill as written, there's no question everyone agrees (or, at least, every reasonable person agrees) that something has to be done. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of some sort of stimulus/recovery bill, and now the Republicans look completely obstructionist. Not only did they decide to oppose the bill even before Obama had the chance to talk to them about it, they ALL voted against it. It's just not believable that every single Republican was against the Stimulus Bill. 95%, sure. But 100%? No. This vote was nothing more than a cheap shot at the President because the Republicans are upset with Nancy Pelosi.

Well, the Republicans need to get over it. America is hemorrhaging jobs. Small businesses are closing by the hour and behemoths like Microsoft are laying off thousands of people. We don't have the luxury of our past pettiness. Republicans are in the minority. That means they don't get to write big legislation like the Stimulus Bill anymore. It also means the White House and Democrats don't have to compromise with them at all, at least in the House, where the filibuster doesn't exist. Yet, the White House was more than willing to comprise. And the Republicans responded by poking a stick in his eye. Metaphorically of course (otherwise, I'm sure the Secret Service would have gotten involved).

After all, if this is what Barack Obama gets for trying to be conciliatory towards Republicans, what motivation does he have to continue to compromise? Democrats should have passed a trillion dollar stimulus -- They would have gotten the same exact number of Republican votes.

A Eulogy for WDFN, AM 1130, The Fan

2009-01-20T18:35:00.003-05:00

While it was a great day for the United States, with the inauguration of President Barack Obama, it is sad day in Detroit. That's because WDFN, Detroit's first all-sports radio station was, for all intents and purposes, eliminated in a nation-wide cost cutting sweep by its parent company, Clear Channel Communication. Former host and program director Gregg Henson warned that this was coming earlier this week, but I didn't want to believe it. Yet, the reality is here, and all of WDFN's local programming, including the Stoney and Wojo show, are history. And all without even the courtesy of a last show for any of WDFN's personalities, like Mike Stone, who has been with the station from day one in July of 1994.

While it seems almost silly to say outloud, WDFN has played an incredibly important role in my life, and I am especially sad to see the station as we know it end. I have listened to the station since its inception, where as an eleven-year-old, I couldn't believe my luck that a radio station which talked sports 24-hours-a-day had started. And so I started listening, to Mike Stone and Rob Parker, and Butch Stearns and Larry Sorensen, and Van Earl Wright, and, of course, the Mega Mega Sports Man Ike Griffen. And I started writing, just for myself, sports "columns" about what was going on in the sports world.

And one Friday afternoon, while at my grandparents for a family dinner, I faxed in one of these "columns" to the afternoon show hosted by Rob Parker and Mike Stone. The column was about the Detroit Lions and how insane it was that despite a blowout loss in the playoffs to Philadelphia, coach Wayne Fontes somehow got a contract extension. As you can see, nothing changes with the Lions. I still remember the thrill I had when Rob Parker read the last line of that column on the air ("Mr. Ford, you could have lost your coach, but you lost your mind instead.") and commented on how clever it was.

I was hooked. After that point, you couldn't get me off the air at WDFN. From calling into Stoney and Parker's show, to impersonating Hulk Hogan on Ike Griffen's show and winning ringside tickets to WCW's Halloween Havoc pay-per-view event at Joe Louis to proposing absurd Detroit Pistons' trades with Art Regner and Gregg Henson on the "Sunday Afternoon Sit-In," I was a regular caller at WDFN. The morning show, then hosted by Butch Stearns and Keith Gave, became my favorite show, and the one I called into the most. And Butch and Keith were great, allowing a twelve-year-old kid to ramble on and on. They kept me on the air sometimes for a half hour or more, taking phone calls, and acting as a de-facto co-host.

And then, one day, it was over. WDFN went through a massive reorganization, and Butch and Keith were unceremoniously let go from the station. Unlike today's bloodletting, though, Butch and Keith were at least allowed to have a final show to say goodbye to their listeners. I was in seventh-grade at the time, and my math teacher, Nicole Champe (who, later, went on to marry WDFN Program Director Gregg Henson) allowed me to go down to the teacher's lounge and call in to Butch and Keith so I could appear on their last show. Later that day, at lunch, I called Keith, who had become somewhat of a mentor to me, and I'll always remember him telling me that while sports journalism was the greatest job in the world, that job security was not something the industry provided. It was something I always kept in mind when deciding whether or not to pursue a sports journalism career full-time.

And the fact that I had that option to consider at all, and the fact that I was able to write for The Detroit Sports Confidential, The Oakland Press, The Detroit Jewish News, Michigan Live (twice), and The Detroit News, would have never happened without WDFN. Without the encouragement of people like Mike Stone, Butch Stearns, Keith Gave, Art Regner, Gregg Henson, Jamie Samulson, Damon Perry, Rob Parker and Bob Wojnowski, who humored a teenager who thought he knew it all about sports by letting him on the air and reading his faxes and columns he sent in, I never would have had that start in sports writing. In fact, my first real "gig," at the Detroit Sports Confidential came about because the editor of the monthly sports magazine heard me co-hosting The Great American Sports Trivia Show, a weekend show WDFN aired back in the mid 1990s. Without the Confidential, there would have been no future columns anywhere else. And there wouldn't have been a job at the Confidential without WDFN.

What this city will also miss, in addition to the radio station itself, the news it broke, and the analysis that it provided, is the yearly Stoney and Wojo radiothon. Each year, the station came together, spearheaded by Mike Stone and Bob Wojnowski, to raise money for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Over a million dollars have been raised through Stoney and Wojo's dedication to defeat the disease and I'm proud to have attended and donated to many of the radiothons. I'll always remember the 2000 radiothon, hosted at the Star Southfield. Stoney and Wojo had scheduled a live interview with actress Elizabeth Berkley (of Saved by the Bell fame and Showgirls infamy). I was working on yearbook at the time at North Farmington High School, where Berkley attended for her freshman and sophomore years before she moved to California to become Jessie Spano. So, learning that she was going to be interviewed in the afternoon, I grabbed an old 1988 yearbook from the back office, and headed to the radiothon. Knowing me from my history with the station and sports writing, Stoney and Wojo put a headset on me during Elizabeth's live interview, and we all had a good laugh about her pre-fame days at North Farmington. Afterward, she signed that yearbook for me, and it's one of my favorite stories to tell (as most of my friends know -- most have heard it more than once). If nothing else, the legacy of WDFN should be the money raised to fight cancer, and hopefully, that tradition does not die with the station where it began.

I never worked at WDFN, but today's decision to pull the plug on the station ends a significant chapter in my life. From my twelfth birthday celebrated at WDFN's anniversary party at the Main Event at the Pontiac Silverdome, to the WDFN hockey jersey I still, and will continue, to proudly wear, to all of the columns I have ever written which I owe, at least in part, to WDFN, and to the hosts who have provided me friendship and advice over the years, it is truly an end of an era. And one I will not soon forget.

I like Jim Schwartz Already

2009-01-16T07:15:00.002-05:00

I'll have more thoughts on the hiring of Jim Schwartz later today after I have a chance to listen to his introductory press conference, but I saw this story at Pro Football Talk this morning and it already makes me feel good about the man the Lions have hired to turn the team around.

Now that Jim Schwartz is the new coach of the Detroit Lions, he’ll have to lure assistant coaches to a franchise that has won one playoff game since Dwight D. Eisenhower was running the country.

At the top of his list on the offensive side of the ball, per Chris Mortensen of ESPN, are Broncos quarterbacks coach Jeremy Bates and Jets offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer.

Schottenheimer and Bates are two of the most respected, brightest young offensive minds in football. Schottenheimer is a head-coach in the making and Bates is credited by Jay Cutler as helping him become a Pro Bowl quarterback. Now, there's no guarantee the Lions will be able to hire either (Schottenheimer may become the head coach for the New York Jets, and even if he doesn't, the Jets may hold on to him; And Bates not only signed a three-year extension with Denver just a few weeks ago, but he's already being courted by Oakland to run their offense) but the fact that those two are the leaders in the clubhouse for the Lions tells me a lot. It tells me that Schwartz understands that he needs to bring a new perspective to the Lions offense, and it shows me that he isn't afraid to bring in an offensive coordinator who can pretty much run the offense on his own, allowing Schwartz to concentrate on fixing the Lions porous defense.

There are not two better names to hire as offensive coordinator, and the mere fact that Schwartz is focusing on them means he's looking exactaly in the right places to fix the Lions.

Thoughts on the Detroit Lions Coaching Search

2009-01-12T00:11:00.005-05:00

As the Detroit Lions coaching search continues, a few quick hits:

* First, I'm happy to see that new General Manager Martin Mayhew, and team President Tom Lewand, are taking their time and talking to everyone. The team has already interviewed at least half a dozen candidates (including defensive coordinators Jim Schwartz (Tennessee Titans), Steve Spagnuolo (New York Giants) and Leslie Frazier (Minnesota Vikings) as well as Dallas Cowboys offensive coordinator Jason Garrett) and, could expand to include San Diego Charges defensive coordinator Ron Rivera according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter. Talking to as many candidates as possible and not rushing into a decision or falling in love with one candidate to the exclusion of all others (like Matt Millen did with all of his coaches) shows a thoughtfulness and consideration which is a welcome change for this franchise.

* My top candidate, at least for the moment, is Titans' defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz, who is known for his "Moneyball"-esque analysis of defensive statistics (interceptions, much more than fumbles, are the key to winning and losing, and running on third and short is more successful than putting the ball in the air according to this fascinating profile on Schwartz from the New York Times.) Schwartz has done wonders with the Titans defense, has learned from one of the best coaches in the game, Jeff Fisher, and is ready to become a head coach. And the Lions like him, bringing him in for a second interview Monday, which will include owner William Clay Ford, Sr.

* But, I have my concerns too. While I understand the need to rebuild a Lions defense which is in desperate need of an overhaul, I can't help but marvel at what the Denver Broncos have been able to do. After stunning the football world by firing Mike Shanahan, the Broncos engaged in a whirlwind coaching search just like the Lions. And given the team's history of success, and the fact that the Broncos were interviewing many of the same candidates the Lions are looking at (like Frazier, Garrett, and Dolphins assistant Todd Bowles), it would be hard not to look at who Denver hired, and say, odds are, they are more likely to make the right hire. And they by-passed all of the Lions candidates (not even speaking to Schwartz, which honestly, does frighten me a little -- if he's such a sure-fire candidate, why didn't Denver even talk to him?) and hired New England Patriots young wiz-kid Josh McDaniels. Now, I'm not sold on McDaniels for a few reasons. The first being his age (32). While I don't think that'll be a handicap in Denver, which is much closer to turning back into a winner than the Lions, when you have a mess like you have in Detroit, I'd want someone with a bit more experience building a franchise. And the second being the very shaky history Bill Belichick's assistants have had as head coaches (two, Eric Mangini and Romeo Crennel, have been fired, though Mangini was recently hired to replace Crennel in Cleveland, and the third, Charlie Weiss, has been a failure at Notre Dame). But, I have to say, the fact that Denver interviewed Leslie Fazier and Jason Garrett, and chose McDaniels tells me something. And McDaniels' first move as head coach does too. According to Adam Schfter again, he's hiring former San Francisco 49ers head coach Mike Nolan to run his defense. A brilliant move. Nolan is a master defensive coordinator who has the experience to run Denver's defense on his own, allowing McDaniels to concentrate on Jay Cutler and Denver's offense. It's practically getting two head coaches for the price of one. Now, these kinds of arrangements don't always work out (see Detroit's ill-fated attempt to turn its offense over to Mike Martz so Rod Marinelli could run Detroit's defense as a perfect example of that) but something tells me, it will in Denver.

And with no knowledge of who would run the Lions offense if the team were to hire any of the defensive coaches the team is currently focused on, I can't help but look at Denver and ask, what do they know that the Lions don't? And I'm reminded of the answer Tim Matheson's character of John Hoynes gave on West Wing when he was asked that question by an inquiring Toby Ziegler: "The total tonnage of what I know that you don't could stun a team of oxen in its tracks. Goodnight."

What I'm Reading - The Know It All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World

2009-01-10T14:18:00.004-05:00

I've always wanted to write a book. Back, years ago, when I was a teenage sports columnist for The Oakland Press and the Detroit News I had a vision of writing some kind of a sports book. Not sure on what exactaly, but something interesting. I never got very far though. I convinced my parents one summer that instead of getting one of those summer jobs most kids get (like the one I had at Staples or Sam Goody the year before -- As an aside, working at Sam Goody, the mall CD store which may not even exist anymore, when you know next to nothing about music, really doesn't work) I'd write a book instead. I'm still working on that.

In 2002 (or 2003, my computer isn't quite sure, and neither am I) I started on "Sterling Sharpe, Wide Open in the Endzone -- One Superfans Journal of the Lovable Losers Known As The Detroit Football Lions." Who knew that six (or seven) years later, they'd really become losers. I got through an introduction (which, ironically, as I look back at it now, started with "I’ve always wanted to write a book", which shows how little has changed with me, or the Lions, in six years) which explained my passion for the Lions, and why I felt qualified at such a young age to write a book about the failings of a franchise which had been a laughingstock for more years than I had been alive. I also got about a page into a prologue, which I titled "The Draft." Maybe one day I'll pick it back up again.

But this blog entry isn't about my writing as much as it is about A.J. Jacobs bestseller The Know It All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World. As those long-time blog readers know, I don't read a lot (or, any, really) fiction, so this kind of book is what qualifies for me as "light reading." Over the summer and early fall of 2008 I was on an American History kick, mainly focused around the Revolutionary period. And after two John Adams biographies, a Jefferson biography, and two Joseph Ellis bestsellers on stories from the American founding, I moved on to the 1800s, and 1812: The War That Forged a Nation (good, but too battle intensive and full of military strategy for my tastes) and Lincoln. I was going to start Team of Rivals, but following the 2008 general election ate up a lot of my time, and then I watched the entire first season of Mad Men on Blu-Ray, then got obsessed with House repeats (as I wrote about last week) so I haven't read much in a while. And getting back into the swing of things with something entertaining and fun seemed like a good start.

The book is about magazine columnist and editor A.J. Jacobs' quest to become the smartest person in the world by reading the entire contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica from start to finish. And what may sound dry in description is anything but in print. Jacobs has a very conversational writing style (very similar to what I hope the writing style of this blog is, and very similar to what I would imagine a book I would write would read like). Aside from learning some of the more humorous tidbits Jacobs picked up through his quest (so the book is educational, and like a shorter, punchier, wittier version of Cliff Notes) you can also read about the puzzled and mystified reactions of Jacobs' friends, family, and co-workers to his new found knowledge. So far it's been a very entertaining book, and I should make a decent amount of progress on it before the NFL games start in about an hour and a half.

And because I'm enjoying it, it likely means the purchase of Jacobs follow-up book, "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible." Because just what I need are more books. Hey. Maybe that's an idea for my book. "One Man's Humble Quest to Read All of the Books He Bought Foolishly Believing He'd Ever Have Time to Read Them All." Nah.

The "National Title" Game? Yeah, Not So Much

2009-01-08T19:42:00.002-05:00

I continue to be very annoyed as the hype-machine churns towards tonight's Florida-Oklahoma matchup. Mainly because people keep referring to the game as the "National Title" game. It's not. It's the "BCS Championship Game." No more, no less. It certainly is not the "National Championship" game, as it doesn't include the team that I would vote #1 in the country: Utah.

All Utah did was be the only team in the entire country to win every single game it played. Starting with a romp in the Big House over Michigan, to it's domination of Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, there is no question Utah should end the season as National Champion. It won't, of course, but it won't be because of a deficient resume. It beat 4 Top 25 teams, including a 48-24 drubbing of BYU, and a clubbing of Alabama in what was practically a road game. You know, Alabama, the team that was #1 in the country for a significant part of the season? Completely over matched from the start, in a game lost 31-17, and it wasn't even that close. Oregon State, the only team in the country to beat vaunted USC, also lost to Utah. The only real question is, how can this team not be #1 overall at the end of the season?

But, they won't be. Florida or Oklahoma undoubtedly will. Laughable that Oklahoma could win the National Title, despite losing to Texas, on a neutral field no less, but that's been beaten to death, so I won't go on about it here. Not to mention USC, who also has a claim to a #1 overall ranking. But that's what the BCS is designed for: many teams, each with an equally legitimate argument for why they should win the national title, and with no resolution at all.

Oh wait, that's not what the BCS was designed to do? My mistake.

What I'm Watching -- USA Network (More specifically, House and NCIS repeats)

2009-01-06T22:14:00.004-05:00

Ed Note: Yes, I'm back. I missed blogging. Too much to talk about I guess.

Little did I appreciate syndication until, oh, about two months ago. Most of the time, when a television show had gone into syndication, it didn't really affect my life any. Sure, I'd catch a Seinfeld episode when nothing else was on, but most shows in syndication that I'd flip to I'd already seen every episode of.

That's until I started watching House. Yes, I know I'm late to the party. I don't know why I didn't watch the show from the start, but I have a very vague recollection of seeing previews for the show when it first started, and for some reason, I thought it was a science-fiction show. Probably because it was sold as a doctor solving impossible-to-solve (read, or at least I believed,: other-wordly) cases. Ironically, basically, I thought House was Fringe. I don't think it helped that the one episode I later did see, probably a year later or so, was when Omar Epps' Dr. Foreman was going insane due to contracting a rare disease from a patient (which somehow confirmed in my mind that the show was not anything I'd be interested in watching). And besides, I had a dozen other shows I watched, no problem.

Well, with most of those shows (West Wing, The Practice, Las Vegas, Jack & Boddy, Ed, and Alias, among others) going off the air, I gave House a shot last year (the addition of Olivia Wilde to the cast probably didn't hurt either). And, like most others, I was hooked almost immediately. And, luckily, this fall is exactaly when the USA Network started airing House episodes in syndication, every day. With House marathons practically every weekend. At one point, I had over 25 episodes of House on my DVR. And then, thanks to a week of DirecTV outages (don't ask), I caught up faster than I thought. Having now seen almost every House episode (or, at least, every old episode USA Network has aired, which is most all of them), I'm a true believer. I don't know what I've been missing for all these years. And with House now on Monday's before 24, I never need to leave my couch. House, 24, the 10:00 Countdown with Keith Olbermann repeat, How I Met Your Mother on my DVR from 11 to 11:30, watch the Leno monologue and Headlines, and then fall asleep. That's a great night of television right there.

So, given how the USA Network came through with House, I decided to give another show a chance that I've never seen but everyone else seems to love. Over the Christmas holiday, in between two days of House marathons, the cable network aired a full day of NCIS episodes. I didn't know much about NCIS other than it was a spin-off of another show I never watched (JAG), it was sort-of-like CSI, and it starred Mark Harmon, who not only had a great four-episode run as a secret service agent on The West Wing, but who is married to Pam Dauber, who was Mindy on Mork and Mindy, and more importantly, went to North Farmington High School, of which I am also a proud alum (Ed Note: Wow, that was a long sentence, even for me. I'm a bit rusty at blogging obviously.) And I'm hooked. Now that I've watched all of House that USA has to offer, DVRing multiple episodes of NCIS a day should give me plenty to watch in case my satellite ever goes out again.

Of course, it would probably be better if instead of watching House and NCIS I got back to reading the numerous books I have on my list to read (I started Team of Rivals after finishing my first Lincoln biography, Lincoln, and need to get back to it) but I'm enjoying what USA Network has to offer for the time being. And with 24, LOST, and Damages set to make returns in the next three weeks, something tells me my TV will continue to get a workout. Thank God for HD.

The Democrats Must Pass The Bailout Plan, On Their Own If Necessary

2008-09-25T22:56:00.004-04:00

John McCain has said before that he'd rather win a war than a Presidential election. And he's all but said that Barack Obama is willing to lose a war if it means being elected President. With House Republicans and Senator McCain killing any hope of saving this nation's economy from almost certain catastrophe (and after reading and listening to some of the smartest minds in the world discuss what might happen if this deal doesn't get done, catastrophe is no overstatement), the Democrats must save this country's financial system. There are enough votes in the Senate to pass a bailout plan. There are enough votes in the House to pass a bailout plan. And the President is prepared to sign a bailout plan. The only thing standing in the way other than John McCain? Politics.

See, Democrats want to pass the bailout and save the country's financial system from ruin. But, the plan, no thanks to an unpopular President with next to no credibility and no ability to convince the American people of anything, has been completely botched in its presentation to the American people. Is it bailing out Wall Street? Absolutely. But, that doesn't mean the plan is helping out risky executives while leaving American taxpayers out in the cold. It's bailing out Wall Street to get credit moving again and to get banks lending again and to stop businesses from failing, banks from closing, and people in their homes. And it's not "spending" $700 billion. It's investing it, in assets which should eventually turn a profit for the country. Is it a risk? Yes. But, unless we enter a second Great Depression, we won't lose everything. But the American people don't understand that, and they either don't understand the bailout or viscerally oppose it, in large part because they don't understand the consequences of not supporting it.

So why won't the Democrats pass the bailout and save the world? Because they are afraid it won't work. And because the plan has been so mis-sold, and is so unpopular, the Democrats are afraid to go it alone. Well, sometimes, you have to lose an election to win a war. Sometimes you have to make a decision you know is right even if it's unpopular.

Screw the House Republicans. They were never on board to begin with and they likely never were going to be. And don't you dare let John McCain, in a disgustingly partisan press release blame Senator Obama for the breakdown in negotiations. Had John McCain not shown up in Washington, this deal may have been done by now. Instead, it's a boondoggle threatening the world economy. Because John McCain wanted to look "Presidential" because his campaign was failing. Yeah, he really puts "Country First."

Pass the plan tomorrow without the House Republicans. Save the country worry about the politics later. If the Democrats have the votes, and they are afraid to exercise them because the Republicans won't give them cover, then everyone involved deserves blame. Saving our economy should come first, even if that means going it alone.

Protecting Palin Too Much Plus: Palin's Jews for Jesus Problem

2008-09-02T21:44:00.004-04:00

...If you even dare ask about Governor Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience (or lackthereof) the question is so out-of-bounds, so sexist (even when it comes from a woman, Campbell Brown) that John McCain was so offended that he jilted Larry King of all people, canceling a scheduled interview on Larry King Live after Campbell Brown dared ask the question. Give me a break. A few months after Sarah Palin called Hillary Clinton a "whiner" because her campaign was complaining about sexism (saying such comments did women a disservice), the McCain-Palin campaign has decided that any criticism of Palin, no matter how substantive, is sexism.

The fact that she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it? Can't bring that up, that's sexism. The fact that her town of 6,500 people received almost $30 million in earmarks? Can't go there. How about her abuse of power in firing a public safety commissioner after he refused to fire her brother in law? Or her and her husband's support of the Alaska Independence Party, which wants a vote on succeeding from the Union and whose founder has damned America and said he would refuse to be buried in the US flag? Or, today's news that Palin's church, while Palin was present, allowed an anti-Jewish group to preach. In August, while Palin was in the pews, Palin's pastor turned over the pulpit to the founder of "Jews for Jesus" which aims to covert those of the Jewish faith, and who said, in front of Palin, that terror attacks on Israel were God's wrath against uncoverted Jews. I can't make this up.

An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus.

Palin’s pastor, Larry Kroon, introduced Brickner on Aug. 17, according to a transcript of the sermon on the church’s website.

“He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism,” Kroon said.

[ . . . . ] Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

Why do I think that Sean Hannity, who spent months railing against Barack Obama (even demanding that he resign from the Senate) because of his association with Jerimiah Wright, won't be talking about how Palin should have walked out of her church, and how Palin should have stood up to her pastor. And worse than Obama, she was there that day in August when the Jews for Jesus founder spoke about how those who are Jewish have a "difficult time understanding the reality" that they need to convert to Christianity.

But, I'm sure bringing this up just makes me sexist. Just one question then before I go. Does questioning Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright or his lack of experience make Republicans racist?

McCain Not Playing Politics With Gustav? Yeah, Not So Much

2008-09-01T17:24:00.004-04:00

John McCain has gotten a lot of credit in recent days, and deservedly so, for choosing to curtail part of the Republican National Convention in deference to the people of New Orleans the related areas who at this time are being hammered by the remnants of Hurricane Gustav. Good for McCain. He absolutely deserves credit for that. While it's also the right thing to do politically (attacking Obama and celebrating while a hurricane is punishing part of America doesn't work) McCain is paying a price for this decision, as his party will not get the chance to get their message out on an equal basis like the Democrats did last week.

But, let's not kid ourselves, the McCain campaign absolutely is playing politics with the hurricane. And in many ways, what they accomplished today, and the news they buried today, by making it public on the same day all the newspapers, cable news networks, and evening newscasts are focused on the hurricane, was worth so much more than anything they could have gained from tonight's scheduled convention speeches from the vastly unpopular Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

What news did the McCain campaign release today that each could have been big stories, and could have been very damaging to the campaign? Three dings to the Vice President nobody (including, apparently, the McCain campaign) knows anything about. First was word that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. And, I agree with what Barack Obama said earlier today that families should be off-limit in Presidential campaigns. The story here isn't that Palin's daughter is pregnant, that's a private family matter. It's how McCain could trust somebody with the future of the country that he knows so little about, and that he's still learning about.

One thing perhaps he didn't know, which was also very quietly released today, was news that Palin's husband was arrested for DUI in 1986. Now does a candidate's husband's mistake as a 22-year-old disqualify that candidate from seeking higher office? Of course not. But there's no coincidence the news was released today when it would get absolutely zero attention because of the hurricane.

And then there was the late breaking news that Palin has hired a private attorney for herself and her staff related to allegations she fired an Alaska Public Safety Comissioner who refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law. As Dan Abrams said on MSNBC this afternoon, it makes a lot of sense that Palin would hire a lawyer (especially since her deposition is likely to be taken in the next few weeks) and there's nothing inherently suspicious about doing so (in fact, it's the right and smart thing to do). But, again, politically, it won't look good. And there's no question the release of the news late this afternoon was done purposefully as to be buried by the hurricane coverage.

Was the McCain campaign smart to release these news items today? Absolutely. No question. But let's not pretend that the timing was simply coincidental or that the McCain campaign wasn't trying to take advantage of the news dead zone the hurricane provided them to release these stories.

Lessons From President Bartlet: The Only Four Words That Matter About The Choice of Vice President

2008-08-30T13:43:00.002-04:00

As I was watching Barack Obama's equally awe-inspiring and uplifting acceptance speech Thursday night, a particular line jumped out at me. It's not that John McCain doesn't care, Obama argued, it's that John McCain doesn't get it. I turned to my buddy Dave with whom I was watching the speech, and I said, he just turned into Andrew Shepherd. Shepherd, of course, was Aaron Sorkin's President in The American President, played perfectly by Michael Douglas. After enduring a movie-full of negative character attacks by his Republican opponent, in the climax of the movie, Shepherd, after trying to take the high road the entire film lashes out in the press briefing room, with an awe-inspiring and uplifting response to the attacks. One of the key lines?

I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy yelling into the rain is because he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is he can't sell it.

And I laughed afterwards when both Brian Williams and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC noted the very same point about Sorkin's words. Well, there are more lessons to be learned from Aaron Sorkin, this time about John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice President.

During the third season of The West Wing, as Martin Sheen's President Josiah a Bartlet was preparing to run for a second term, the question came up about whether he should replace his Vice President on the ticket. Texas, the state the Vice President carried in the election for Bartlet four years ago was no longer in play, and the two never got along and often clashed. So the whole episode, Bartlet's west wing team held closed door meetings, debating whom could replace the Vice President. But, at the end of the episode, President Bartlet put a stop the speculation and reaffirmed his commitment to his Vice President. Why? Because when it comes to selecting a Vice President, only four words really matter.

And what are those four words?

LEO: I think that issue is probably worth further discussion but we're done talking about the ticket. The President's made it very clear that he wants the Vice President to remain the Vice President and he wrote down his one and only reason.

[He pulls out the paper and hands it to Josh.]

JOSH: "Because I could die." Well, of course he's right, sir.

Because I Could Die. That's why you pick a Vice President, who while he or she may sure up your weaknesses, or help you electorally, at the end of the day, is somebody you are supremely confident could lead the country, and in many ways the world. It's a lesson Barack Obama took to heart. He could have chosen Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as his running mate. The two are very close personally, Obama trusts Kaine (in some ways perhaps more than the man he selected, Joe Biden), he may have helped Obama carry Virginia, and he re-enforced Obama's message of change. But, Kaine had serious questions about his experience (he's only been Governor of Virginia for one term and had little-to-no foreign policy experience) so Obama went in a different direction, and his choice of Biden (no offense to Kaine) was in the better interest of the country. John McCain didn't heed that lesson, and chose a Vice President who in no way would be qualified or ready to be President tomorrow.

Governor Palin may have a lot of positive attributes but she John McCain failed President Bartlet's and Aaron Sorkin's only test for the selection of the Vice President. "Because I Could Die." It's four words John McCain should have thought about before he named a Vice President he met just one time, and spoke with about the Vice Presidency, on the phone, just once. It's about putting the country first, instead of one's political or personal ambitions. And it's another example of why John McCain's judgment and temperament are not suited for the Oval Office.

Country First? Not With McCain'sVP Choice

2008-08-29T19:13:00.006-04:00

There's a lot to like about John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. She has challenged her own party on ethics and other issues. She's smart and tough, and getting new blood in Washington is never a bad thing. But, that means she'd make a good Senator. Vice President? At 44, having been Governor of one of the smallest states in the Union (population wise) for less than two years, and having been mayor of a town of just 6,500 people before that, and with no interest in foreign policy (she's been quoted as saying she doesn't know anything about the conditions in Iraq related to our exiting the country) she is nowhere near "ready to lead" (to steal a McCain phrase).

Yet John McCain has put her one heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is despite meeting her just one time, just six months ago (!) and having talked with her about the Vice Presidency exactly one (!) time (on the phone no less). Apparently it's harder to get hired at a fast food restaurant than it is to be named the second most powerful person in the world in John McCain's administration. And while that's not completely fair (I'm sure there was a thorough vetting process which took place) it's not completely unfair either. In many ways, this bothers me more than anything else about the Palin pick, even her inexperience.

The selection of Vice President is often seen as a political gambit, but in many ways, it has to be about putting "County First" to use John McCain's own campaign slogan. Because the Vice President is one heartbeat away from running the free world, ensuring that the Vice President, more than anything else, is qualified to be President, has to be the first quality satisfied. Should something happen to the President, the country has to know that the Vice President is capable of taking over immediately. And how can John McCain know that Sarah Palin is ready? How do you not meet and interview the person, in-person? How do you only speak to the person ONE time about the job? How can you be sure that Sarah Palin is best for the country having hardly spoken to her. If John McCain allows his staff to make this decision for him (and if they didn't, they certainly must have played an extraordinary large role given the lack of personal contact between McCain and Palin) what other critical decisions will McCain similarly have little input on as President? He didn't just pick somebody the country doesn't know very well. He picked someone whom he doesn't know very well. How could he? He's met or spoken to her just twice in his entire life.

As Paul Begala put it so well yesterday night on Larry King, would you entrust your children, if something happened to you, to somebody who you met one time at a luncheon and with whom you've spoken with one time, on the phone, about raising your kids? That would sound absurd. Yet John McCain has entrusted the future of over 300 million Americans (and in many ways, the future of the world) to Sarah Palin, despite not knowing her at all. She may turn out to be a tremendous Vice President, but how can John McCain know that for sure? How can he gamble with the country's future like this?

This shows me a real lack of consideration on John McCain's part which really concerns me about how he'll make decisions if he becomes President. His lack of personal engagement is remarkable in a decision this important.

And what about Palin's stances on the issues? We already know, based on her past statements, that she knows very little about foreign policy. She's fiercely pro-life (going so far as to say she wouldn't allow abortions even in cases of rape and incest), is a life long member of the NRA, and has talked favorably about requiring schools to teach creationism in public schools. And she has a very thin (and questionable) record on Israel. Both her and her husband were fundraisers for Pat Buchanan when he ran for President (he proudly admitted that on MSNBC tonight, giving Palin a stronger Buchanan connection than Politco's Ben Smith earlier believed) and while I enjoy watching Buchanan on MSNBC and think he's very knowledgeable about political issues, he has never been a strong (or any kind) of real friend of Israel. I can't imagine that's going to play well in the very swing state of Florida, where Obama has shown surprising strength.

John McCain needed to follow his own slogan and put "County First" with his Vice Presidential pick. It's what Barack Obama did. There is no question that should something happen where Barack cannot continue as President, Joe Biden is ready and qualified to be President. John McCain, on the other hand, selected a woman with an extraordinarily thin resume whom he hardly knows. And this is after spending months convincing America that Barack Obama is not ready to lead. With the way he made his choice (even more than the choice itself), John McCain certainly did not put his "Country First."

Barack Obama's Secret Weapon: Tom Ridge?

2008-08-24T19:04:00.002-04:00

I was thinking today, could Barack Obama's secret weapon against John McCain be none other than former Pennsylvania Governor and first Homeland Security Secretary, Republican Tom Ridge? May not be as crazy as it first sounds. Here's why.

As Marc Ambinder brilliantly points out today over at the Atlantic, John Mccain is running into a real problem with his choices for Vice President. A week ago, Mitt Romney was the odds on favorite, and I was a firm believer that even if McCain didn't like or trust Romney, he still had to pick him politically. Romney, because of his Michigan connections, would give McCain a coin-flip (or better) chance to win here (and Barack Obama, barring a very strange election, cannot win without Michigan) and Romney also could put both Colorado and Nevada, two traditionally Republican states Obama is showing real strength in, out of reach by maximizing Mormon turnout. But, Romney's chances took a real hit when McCain made his housing gaffe last week. After being painted as out-of-touch with middle-class Americans, can McCain really put Mitt Romney, worth north of $250 million, on the ticket without playing right into Obama's hands? And not only that, look at the ads McCain has run since Joe Biden was named as Vice President. Ads of Biden and Clinton bashing Obama. Mitt Romney said much worse things about John McCain during the Republican primary. And even worse, McCain said horrible things about Romney. Imagine those ads. And McCain opened the door by running his anti-Obama ads starring Joe Biden.

And as Ambinder notes, even the other supposed finalist, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, doesn't look that attractive anymore now that Biden is Obama's VP. Pawlenty, aside from being as inexperienced (if not more so) than Obama, would be eaten alive by Biden in the Vice Presidential debate (just as John Edwards was by Dick Cheney in 2004). And how can McCain continue to attack Obama for not being ready to lead, and then pick Pawlenty as his second in command?

So how does Tom Ridge play into all of this? In his heart of hearts, McCain would almost certainly choose Ridge as his VP. The two are very close, Ridge has both executive experience (Homeland Security Secretary and as Governor of Pennsylvania) and knows Washington well enough to help get things done on the Hill. Plus, electorally, he puts Pennsylvania very much in play, and if McCain wins Pennsylvania, just as does if he wins Michigan, he makes the electoral math very very difficult for Obama. The problem with Ridge? Just one. He's pro-choice. And the so-called "Maverick" of politics has given in to the right-wing of his party and has eliminated Ridge from consideration.

As soon as McCain names his VP, especially if it's Romney, Obama needs to come out with a Tom Ridge ad, very much in the same vein as McCain's ad today about Hillary Clinton and the Vice Presidency. The ad needs to tout Ridge's credentials, his closeness to McCain, and then ask "So why is he not on the ticket? Because he's pro-choice and John McCain gave into the right wing of his party and chose ____ instead. Some Maverick." Or something like that. Maybe "Is he looking out for your values or theirs" while flashing pictures of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

The ad would accomplish multiple goals. First, it would remind women, especially those Hillary supporters, that McCain is staunchly pro-life. Because of his "moderate" imagine, many women wrongly believe McCain is pro-choice, and because of that, they find him easier to support, especially given their feelings about the Hillary Clinton-Obama primary. This would show them how pro-life he really is. Secondly, it would show that McCain is giving in to the far right, and doing so against his own better judgment, and in many ways, against what's best for the country. And it would instantly create credibility questions about McCain's decision making process.

Would it last long in this era of a 24-hour news cycle? Maybe. But it would make a powerful point, and maybe help change the public's perception of John McCain.

McCain Campaign: Great Idea, Horrible Execution on Hillary Clinton Ad

2008-08-24T08:52:00.005-04:00

As I was watching MSNBC's coverage of the Barack Obama-Joe Biden unveiling yesterday (after I got home from the Lions 26-6 victory over Cleveland, thank God for DVRs) I got to thinking. While the McCain campaign's original ad in response to Obama picking Biden was utterly predictable (a clip of Biden attacking Obama at a debate for being inexperienced followed by Biden praising McCain) I thought that if the McCain campaign was really smart, they'd run an ad praising Hillary Clinton, and try to draw a wedge with Hillary voters and get them riled up that she wasn't on the ticket. After all, in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the reason why Obama is only up on McCain by an insignificant margin is because of the significant number of Hillary voters either supporting McCain or refusing to support Obama. These are liberal-learning voters, mostly Democrats, but they are angry with Obama for winning the nomination and they are currently preventing him from stretching his lead over McCain. And had a Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee won the Republican nomination, they almost certainly wouldn't have supported those candidates, McCain, because of his "maverick" reputation, and the mistaken belief by many that he's a moderate (when he's not), is a palatable choice. Especially when compared with Obama.

So what has the McCain campaign done? Put together a Hillary Clinton ad, questioning Obama for not putting her on the ticket. The problem? The ad makes no sense when viewed next to their first ad about Biden. Take a look at both ads:

So let me get this straight. Barack Obama picked a running mate (Joe Biden) who at a debate said he wasn't ready to lead, but he refused to pick another (Hillary Clinton) because she dared question his policies? Am I missing something here? If Barack Obama eschewed Hillary because she didn't agree with him on every issue, then why pick Biden, who, as McCain's first ad is all about, questioned Obama's ability to lead the country? Doesn't Obama picking Biden show that he's willing, if not eager, to select a VP who isn't a sycophant?

The message of these two ads completely conflict with one another. They are utterly inconsistent, and when viewed together, they make no logical sense. It's almost as if whomever created the Hillary ad never saw the Biden ad. Plus, there were a lot more harsh comments by Hillary they could have used (Shame on you Barack Obama!; When you were representing your slum landlord contributor Rezko; John McCain has a lifetime of experience and Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002) which would fit much more neatly into the "not ready to lead" meme the McCain campaign has been pushing and would have fit with the theme of the Biden ad. Throw in a line about "18 million voters and she wasn't even on his short list?" and a McCain clip praising Hillary and there's a very effective 30-second spot which should really get the Clintonite blood boiling.

Instead, we get this ad, which while a good idea in theory, does not fit with McCain's broader message, and is contrary to his earlier attack ad on Biden. Good idea McCain campaign, just horrendous execution.

Why I Like Joe Biden

2008-08-23T09:18:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama finally selected his Vice President, text messaging his supporters around 3 AM yesterday announcing that Senator Joe Biden was his choice for Vice President (I, however, have yet to get that text message, though I did get an e-mail from Obama around 4:50 a.m. announcing the pick). As I wrote earlier, Biden was my pick for VP. He has an extremely compelling personal story (he was elected to the United States Senate at age 29, then months later he lost his wife and infant daughter to a horrific car accident, was sworn into the Senate from his sons hospital beds as they recovered from their injuries sustained in the same accident; he ran for the Presidency in 1988 and then almost died of a brain aneurysm;, and he continues, to this day, to ride Amtrak back and forth from Delaware to Washington each day, eschewing living in D.C.), he has an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy and will undoubtedly help Obama govern effectively, and he's fiercely independent and won't be afraid to question and challenge Obama when they disagree.

Going into the primaries, I wasn't sold on Biden. But after watching him campaign, and especially his performances in the debates, I changed my tune very quickly. From the Democratic CNN YouTube debate on July 24, 2007 (wow, this election has been going on for a long time, and July was almost eight months into it to boot):

As for who else really impressed me, Joe Biden continues to show that he may be the smartest candidate of the bunch. A bit angry at times, but while everyone else talks about getting out of Iraq, Biden sounds like he actually knows how to get out of Iraq. On foreign policy, there is nobody better right now than Biden, and he sounds intelligent on the domestic issues too. He has no chance to be President, but should a Democrat win in 2008, I couldn't think of a better candidate for Secretary of State.

I had much the same opinion in September after an MSNBC debate:

Edwards, as well as Joe Biden, had good nights. I like Biden more and more every time I see him. Sure, he's not going to win, but he's the only one, especially when compared to Clinton, to actually answer questions, and he's incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to Iraq and foreign policy. Would he make a good President? I don't know. But he needs a prominent role in our government.

And then there was the December 2007 debate:

And one last debate thought, Joe Biden, again, a great performance. More than anyone else, including Obama, Biden has impressed me in these debates. So much so that I'm going to write his name in and vote for him in the Michigan primary. It doesn't mean much since the Democrats have all taken their names off the ballot here in accordance with the wishes of the DNC (except for Hillary of course) so our primary is pretty meaningless, but Biden deserves it. He doesn't want to be VP, and probably wouldn't be a good electoral choice, but I'd make him Secretary of State or Defense or anything he wanted if I were the next President.

So, while I was pushing Biden for Secretary of State, Vice President works too. I think he was the best choice, and he's the right choice. And he's going to be a fiery advocate and campaigner for Obama. I can't wait to see the team in action.

McCain Camp Misses Big Opportunity

2008-08-21T18:40:00.003-04:00

I don't know if the McCain Campaign failed to finish their negative Tony Rezko ad in time for the nightly newscasts to air it tonight, or if the networks, without knowledge or confidence the ad will ever air (McCain in the past this election cycle has created strong attack ads but not actually paid to air them, with the aim of having the networks air the ad for free on news and opinion broadcasts, which they have been more than happy to do) but the ad did not air on either NBC Nightly News or ABC's World News Tonight. Instead, the pieces the networks ran focused on Obama's attacks, and his tying McCain's statement that he doesn't know how many houses he knows to how out of touch McCain is with problems in the economy.

The Rezko ad is a brutal hatchet job on Obama. While Obama's negative ad today at least is tangentially related to policy (asking how McCain can understand or fix the economy if he doesn't know it's broken) McCain's ad is completely unrelated to policy. It's a total negative character attack, essentially saying "Obama is a crook who associates with other crooks. He does them political favors and he swindles real estate on the side." Of course, Rezko is not one of Obama's biggest fundraisers by any calculation (and he never donated a dime to Obama's Presidential campaign, and all of the funds Rezko raised or had any connection have long been donated to charity by Obama) and Obama was never the subject of any suspicion of wrong-doing related to Rezko. But, that's surely not the picture painted by McCain's ad.

I'll be honest, nothing surprises me in politics, but I really thought McCain was more honorable than the campaign he's running. The advantage to having McCain as the Republican nominee, and Obama as the Democratic nominee, was supposed to be a civil campaign. Instead, McCain has run almost entirely negative ads, mostly involving Obama's character (not his policies) and he has repeatedly questioned Obama's patriotism (including saying that Obama would choose to lose a war if it meant he was elected President). Obama, in recent days, has gone more on the attack, but always couched in policy distinctions, not personal ones. John McCain has chosen not to follow that path. And it's working, because the polls have tightened, and McCain seems to have the wind at his back. But, something tells me, McCain would not have accepted this kind of campaign when he ran in 2000. But if you want to win badly enough, and you are willing to do whatever your advisers tell you to do, then this is the kind of campaign you get. One indistinguishable from the campaign George W. Bush ran against McCain in 2000.

The Veepstakes

2008-08-18T20:19:00.003-04:00

As we get to crunch time in the so-called Veepstakes (with Drudge via the New York Times reporting Barack Obama could announce his choice as early as Wednesday morning) it appears that the names for Obama are narrowed to the three which have been at the top of the list for months now: Senators Joe Biden and Evan Bayh and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.

And, maybe coincidentally, and maybe purposefully, each represents a different kind of Vice President and the reasons for selecting each are very different. Biden doesn't help Obama with any particular state on the electoral map (maybe he solidifies Pennsylvania, but I don't think that states in much jeopardy anyway) but he provides Obama with the veteran, foreign-policy expert many believe he needs, he's highly respected and has a national profile, and he "checks a lot of boxes" as Chuck Todd would say. Bayh seems to be an electoral choice. Indiana, a perpetually red state, is turning blue, in large part because of the economic woes, and in part because Obama's familiarity in neighboring Illinois. Bayh on the ticket could tip the state to Obama. And Bayh's very public support of Hillary Clinton doesn't hurt either as Obama tries, still, to soothe things over with Clinton supporters. And there's Tim Kaine. While Governor of Virginia, Obama will likely win or lose the state whether or not Kaine's on the ticket. So why Kaine? Obama and Kaine are close personally, so they will work well together, and Obama trusts Kaine, which is crucial with a VP pick. And Kaine is not part of the Washington establishment, like Biden (and to a lesser extent) Bayh, so he doubles down on the "change" message.

I think Bayh comes in third place here. He's perpetually on the short list for VP but never picked, and despite the desire to put Indiana in the Democratic column, I just don't think Obama's going to go with him. Which means it comes down to Bayh and Biden.

First, who I think Obama will select: Tim Kaine. While many in the national media have consistently said that Obama needs a foreign-policy guy as his VP (hence the talk of Biden, Wes Clark, and Sam Nunn), Obama has never signaled he was thinking that way. In fact, all of his public comments have been just the opposite. While some have called him cocky, and that may be a bridge too far, there is no doubt Obama is supremely confident in his foreign policy judgment. And with very good reason, as his prescient objections to the Iraq War prove. It doesn't seem like Obama believes that foreign policy is a real weakness which mandates the VP nail down that policy area. And Obama certainly seems like the kind of person that would value the personal relationship with his VP and the ability to trust that VP above all else. And there's no question Obama and Kaine are close, and both are simpatico when it comes to fundimentally changing how business is done in Washington.

The problem? Kaine's almost more inexperienced than Obama (he's been Governor for less than a full term), has zero national profile (and thus wouldn't help the ticket gain any steam or erase any doubts voters may have about Obama, and in fact, may enlarge the doubts people have), and he seems like a third choice from his state alone. With word leaking out last week (courtesy of Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic) that the Obama campaign was pressuring former Virginia Governor Mark Warner to submit his name to be vetted for VP (he declined to concentrate on his blowout of a US Senate Race and was subsequently named Keynote Speaker at the Democratic Convention next week) and with Senator Jim Webb, a perfect VP choice, also declining, Kaine's selection could (and maybe should) be seen as Obama settling. And one should never settle on the VP choice. And most importantly, should something happen to Obama, can you really imagine a President Kaine? Just think about that question for a minute.

Now, my choice would be Joe Biden. I was thoroughly impressed with Biden in the Democratic primaries. So much so that because the Michigan primary meant nothing, I planned on voting for Biden before I learned doing so would make my vote invalid. Nobody running for President (and perhaps nobody else, although, I reserve judgment out of respect for the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin) had a better understanding, knowledge, and ability to articulate a vision of the quagmire in Iraq and other foreign policy happenings than Biden. And while John McCain likes to tout his "Straight Talk Express" there is no doubt that Joe Biden will always tell you what he's thinking, and what he's honestly thinking, and to prove it, he's gotten himself into some trouble speaking his mind. He gives Obama the experience and gravitas Obama may lack, he'd be a huge asset to the country as Vice President. And he's instantly believable and credible as President. And , back to those "boxes" again. He's Catholic. He's blue collar. He's popular with the kinds of voters Obama may have a hard time attracting. And while Obama may be confident in his own foreign policy judgments (again, with good reasons), voters still aren't. Voters need to be convinced. Joe Biden will do that. People will feel much better about Obama as President with the knowledge he has somebody as his VP to support him. Maybe people shouldn't think like that, but they do, and Biden would instantly strengthen the ticket in ways Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh would not.

I hope I'm wrong, and I hope Biden is the pick. We should know by the end of the week. But, while Obama's heart may be leaning towards Kaine, he should make this choice with his head, and he should choose the Senator from Delaware.

What I'm Reading - American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson

2008-07-06T19:40:00.002-04:00

As I have mentioned before, I own way too many books. Well, that has a negative connotation to it, which I don't mean, because I don't regret owning so many books (maybe, if I could do it over again, there are a number of sports related books I purchased at a discount from a book outlet website I wouldn't buy again, but they look good on my bookshelves). So the question always is, when I finish one book (as I did this weekend with John Adams) what to do next. I have over 200 books in my ever-growing collection, and I've read only just over 50. Close to another dozen (including Bill Clinton's My Life which I started but never finished before I began Law School) are in some stage of being read. Instead of picking one of those back up (and in truth, some, I'll likely start fresh if/when I pick them up again), being in a very Revolutionary history state of mind, I picked up Joseph Ellis' Thomas Jefferson's biography American Sphinx.

After the over 650 page Adams' biography, Ellis' character study of Jefferson is just under 370-pages of text, so the long weekend allowed me to devour it almost whole (I have only 70-some pages to go and may finish tonight). I continue to be fascinated by the friendship, rivalry, and correspondence between Adams and Jefferson (so much so that my next book will be one I purchased this weekend, Ellis' study of Adams post-Presidential life which goes deeper into the Adams-Jefferson relationship; I also almost purchased a 600-page text containing the actual letters between John and Abigail Adams and Jefferson throughout their lives, but I left that purchase for another day). And as I learn more about Jefferson, I become more conflicted on what to think of him. As Ellis writes, he is truly a unique character in history, full of honest but real contradictions. What I find most interesting are not his internal battles over slavery, but of his thoughts on government and revolutions. His demand for personal freedom is laudable, but his thoughts on letting laws and governments lapse every generation are wild, and his appreciation, and even desire, for sometimes bloody revolutions (which he thought would ensure citizen freedom) are by today's standards dangerous.

I don't leave these books though h a lower opinion of Jefferson, but of a decidedly improved opinion of Adams, whose left-behind and under-appreciated position in American History I am now much more sympathetic. The books too allow you to really see the human side of these American icons, the day-to-day struggles they faced in their everyday lives, which in admiring all they did for this country, we often forget they had. And learning about the early days of Presidential campaigns (where the principals would steadfastly refuse to campaign, but would bankroll and encourage others to engage in scurrilous attacks) makes today's campaigns look tame by comparison.

In any case, another worthy read, which you could tell by how quick I read through it. My plan is to continue on this Revolutionary-era kick, with Ellis' Adams book next (Passionate Sage) followed by his two composites next, the Pulitzer Prize winning Founding Brothers (of which I have read over half of, but so long ago, I'll likely start from scratch) and his newest book American Creation. Then I'll think I'll be done in this time period (despite having biographies of Franklin and Hamilton to go, as well as David McCollough's 1776 to read at some point as well). But, then again, there's always those Adams-Jefferson letters, right?

What I'm Watching - Hancock

2008-07-05T21:38:00.003-04:00

What would a Fourth of July weekend be without a big movie from Will Smith? So, like many others (the film is set to gross at least $100 million in the United States this long weekend and will top its $150 million-plus budget with its worldwide take) I ventured out to see Hancock yesterday, Smith's newest film where he plays a Superhero who, well, doesn't understand or know how to act like a superhero.

I'll be the first to admit I am not a superhero or comic-book movie person. So it is without regret that I readily admit to never having seen any of the Spiderman movies which have made so much money in recent years, or any of the X-Men or Iron Man or Incredible Hulk films. A few years back, when Batman Begins was all the rage, I went to the movies with some buddies, but while they saw Batman, I instead bought tickets for the well-done and vastly underrated boxing movie Cinderella Man.

But Hancock looked (and was) different. While most superhero movies are pure fantasy (with a good deal of special effects, cool as they are, added in) and Hancock certainly has a good amount of that (it is, after all, a movie about a man with superhuman strength who can fly) what I enjoyed most about it was how grounded the movie is. What if a superhero, instead of constantly coming to victims' rescue, didn't understand or know how to use his or her powers, struggled with the psychology of being a superhero, and caused more harm than good, no matter the intent? That's how Hancock begins, and it's a fascinating concept and character study.

I didn't find the laughs in Hancock as plentiful as some, but that's not why I wanted to see the movie. I went to see it for the dramatic story of a superhero struggling to be super, and for most of the movie that's what we got. And the big twist in the movie (which I won't reveal here) was well-done, and one I did not see coming (though, looking back, made sense and was subtly foreshadowed).

Certainly a film well worth seeing, and much better than the poor reviews the movie seems to have been tagged with make it sound. And with Smith, the always funny Jason Bateman, and Charlize Theron (who makes just about anything worthwhile, and as an aside, I just realized this is the second Theron-Smith movie to be panned by critics, but which I actually enjoyed, with The Legend of Bagger Vance being the first) what more do you need?. And while I don't know if I need to see a sequel to the film (there's some talk into making the movie a franchise, a common idea in Hollywood these days anytime any movie does even remotely well at the box office) I recommend Hancock.

The Fourth of July

2008-07-04T22:36:00.004-04:00

It may be no coincidence, and certainly is fitting, that I finished David McCullough's wonderful John Adams this evening, surrounded by fireworks all around me (it really was something, standing on my balcony in Royal Oak, seeing fireworks from all over metro-Detroit in all directions, some just visible over the tree-line, some heard but not seen, others seen but not heard, and some almost directly in front of me). As great as HBO's recent mini-series of the same name was (it was based on McCollough's biography and will undoubtedly and deservedly win numerous awards at this year's Emmy's) the 651-page (751 counting the indexes) book was even better. While McCullough seems to be as much of Adams' advocate as his biographer, it is hard not to come away from reading the book with the highest regard for our nation's second President. Adams is often overlooked in history (Washington, Jefferson, and Ben Franklin get most of the credit for the Revolution and the success of the early United States) and his one term as President may not have been remarkable (he saved the country from war with France but earned the praise of neither political party at the time while doing so) but after reading the book, it is clear that no man fought harder to convince his fellow colonists that revolution was necessary and that independence was essential. And his work in France, Britain, and Holland, securing peace and security (and in Holland, much needed financial support) for the new nation may have been the most important and least appreciated and remembered parts of the Revolutionary War.

It was remarkable to read about the founding generation, the letters between John and his wife Abigail (who could have been and would have been a great political leader herself had she been allowed to govern) and John and Thomas Jefferson, two of the brightest minds of their generation. It's incredible to think back and read about that time in history, where all of the greatest minds of the country gathered to form a new world order. And also to think about how different history would have been if e-mail, telephones, and Blackberries existed in the late 1700s. Much of time back then was spent waiting for word from across the ocean, and it could take weeks, if not usually month, to receive any word on how negotiations were progressing (or not) in matters of peace and war. And how much of history we would have lost had John and Abigail Adams spoken on the phone once a day instead of writing countless letters back and forth, which have provided us an first-row view of the most important period in our country's history.

Whenever I say I'm interested in politics, sometimes I get quizzical looks, and am asked why. After all, most think politicians to be corrupt, and only interested in boosting their own ego and their own political party, advanced not by interest in country, but personal ambition. A recent Rasmussen survey bears that out. Just 17-percent of the country "believe working for the government is more honorable than working in the private sector."

But there is a difference, one that is often lost, between politics and governance. Yes, I'm interested in politics. The sport, the human chess match, the back-and-forth, the intellectual puzzles and arguments and the thrill of election night. The science of Barack Obama spending the Fourth of July in Montana (despite the Democrats not winning the state in a generation) or John McCain kicking off an economic tour as we inch towards a global recession.

But, politics, to me, is a means to an end (though not an uninteresting or unenjoyable one). Governing is what's important. In the end, I'm interested in politics (and want to govern or help somebody else govern) because of the power and good that can be done when good men and women govern, and not in their own self-interest, but in the interest of their country. Jim Webb, for example, from the day he was elected to the United States Senate in 2006, has worked tirelessly to pass a 21st Century GI Bill. While soldiers returning from World War II were treated as heroes and given a first class college education in return for their service, those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been all but forgotten. Some said a new GI Bill was too expensive and others, including John McCain and President Bush, believed such a generous reward to our armed forces was too generous, and would hurt retention by encouraging soldiers to leave the Army to get their degrees. As if one tour in Iraq was not enough for a man or woman to deserve a college education. But despite the opposition, Webb succeeded last month in passing the resolution, and President Bush grudgingly signed it into law. Thanks to Webb, a new generation of Americans will receive an education which will pay us all dividends in the future.

The problem isn't that politics and governing isn't "honorable" as the Rasmussen poll suggests. Its that we have too few Jim Webb's in government. Just as the brightest minds of 1776 came together to not just declare independence and win a war many thought unwinniable, but to form a government, the form of which had never before been seen on such a large scale, and which has endured now for over 200-years, we need the brightest minds of this generation to come together to solve the problems we all now face. Otherwise, the government and the governing will be left in the hands of those whose decisions are shaped by self interest and greed, and who put party and politics above the needs of everyday Americans.

It's an obligation to one's country and one's fellow citizen that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Generation uniquely understood. Governing is honorable. But only when honorable men and women are governing. And that's a lesson we all can take to heart on this Fourth of July.

Tim Russert

2008-06-13T20:50:00.003-04:00

Over the past, oh, year (and longer than that really) there is probably nothing I have done more then watch MSNBC. The primaries, the election news, every debate, every primary night. And there was Tim Russert. We lost Tim Russert today, and I say "we" not because I knew Tim, but because the collective "we" as a country lost an irreplaceable voice today.

I don't remember a death of somebody famous touching me so much as Tim's death. Partly because it was so stunning in its suddenness and unexpectedness, but partly because it had become second nature watching him, all the time, as I have the past year. Meet The Press, Morning Joe, NBC Nightly News, The Tim Russert Show, the weekly MSNBC primary nights where Tim was a dominant and invaluable presence. I have become so invested in this election and this Democratic primary, and watching Tim was an almost daily ritual.

A lot of people may have watched Tim Russert, but I don't think anyone truly new how large of an impact he had on this country. It is not an exaggeration or hyperbole to say that if you were a politician, and you could not pass the Russert Test, if you could not make it through a one-hour grilling on Meet The Press, you had little future in national politics, much less any chance of being President. There has been a lot of controversy about the "vetters" Barack Obama has tapped to lead his search for a Vice President. Tim Russert was America's vetter. And there was nobody better at holding those in power accountable, and there was nobody better at asking the tough, but always fair, question.

It seems too cruel that now that the Democratic Primary is over, and one of the most important Presidential elections in a generation is about to take place, Tim Russert won't be here to see it, to vet it for us, to comment on it.

Tim was a lawyer, a journalist, a former political operative. A man who loved his hometown of Buffalo and his love of city matched by his love of the Buffalo Bills. And, of course, the love of his family, both his wife and son, and his extended NBC News family. America has lost one of its most important voices today, and only in the weeks and months ahead, when we look to Meet the Press to vet the next generation of political leaders, will we truly understand just what a loss to the country this is.

Hockeytown, Again

2008-06-04T23:48:00.002-04:00

It's so gratifying to see your hometown team win a championship. Obviously, as a fan, you haven't gone through the hardships and pain and the long season the players do, but you feel like you have, and you celebrate the championship all the same. In my lifetime, the Detroit Tigers have won a World Series, the Detroit Pistons have won three NBA Titles, the Michigan Wolverines and Michigan State Spartans have won NCAA Basketball titles, the Wolverines captured a football national title, and of course, the Detroit Red Wings have won four Stanley Cups, the most recent tonight against the Pittsburgh Penguins.

There are so many people to feel happy for tonight, Chris Osgood an Dallas Drake at the top of the list. Osgood was never good enough for the fans of Detroit, even after he helped this generation win their first Cup in 1997 and led the team to their second in 1998. Osgood left Detroit, but General Manager Kenny Holland brought him back, and Osgood was awesome this playoff run, finally getting the respect he has deserved for a long, long time. And then there's Dallas Drake, who started his career with the Wings, but who in 16 seasons never made it to the Stanley Cup Finals. Knowing his team needed more grit and toughness, Holland brought Drake back to Detroit this season, and Drake was an integral part of the Wings' fourth cup.

There is no sports town in America like Detroit. We are so lucky here (even with the Lions) to have such great teams and see so many championships. And each is unique and special and seeing Nick Lidstrom lift the Cup tonight, it was a great feeling for all Detroiters. There's no city in America, sports wise, like Detroit, and tonight was as good of an example of that as ever.

McAuliffe on Today: No Convention Fight

2008-06-03T07:11:00.002-04:00

Very interesting morning already. While yesterday the Clinton campaign seemed ready to fight on, even if Barack Obama claimed victory tonight, the chairman of the Hillary Clinton campaign, Terry McAuliffe, on the Today Show this morning, was striking a much different, and much more conciliatory tone.

He said that Hillary Clinton would likely not be going to the convention to fight over "four" delegates, and talked much more about coming together then continuing the fight, and he even acknowledged that if Obama reached the "magic" number (though he did not say what he considered that number to be) that Hillary would declare him the nominee and drop out of the race.

We may get an ending to this campaign which unifies the party after all.

Fighting Conventional Wisdom

2008-06-02T20:28:00.002-04:00

Conventional wisdom says the fight for the Democratic nomination for President is over. Barack Obama is under 40 delegate votes away from the "magic" number of 2,118, and with him guaranteed to gain at least 15 tomorrow (and likely closer to 17), 34 House members set to endorse him by Wednesday, and at least 15 Senators ready to endorse as well, the nomination battle is over. We have our winner, and our winner be Obama.

So, as conventional wisdom goes, Senator Clinton is wrapping up her campaign. Inviting donors to her speech in, where else, her home state of New York (while Obama's speech tomorrow is in the general election battleground and home of the Republican Convention, St. Paul, Minnesota). Telling her staff to go home, but to get their receipts in before they leave. After all, Senator Clinton is a "realist" they say, and she's always pledged to leave the race as soon as that magic number is reached and the Democrats have a nominee.

So why do I feel so nervous about tomorrow? And it's not nervousness about whether Senator Obama will have enough Super Delegates endorse him during the day so he can claim the nomination after the polls close in Montana tomorrow. It's worry over what Hillary will do, because despite the conventional wisdom, I don't think she's going anywhere.

Even after the national networks declare Obama the victor, and even after the flood of Super Delegates which will surely come by Wednesday afternoon, I can see Senator Clinton fighting. Saying that she won the popular vote (even though to do so she has to count Puerto Rico, but not count the Virgin Island, Guam, and American Samoa, and count Michigan, but not give Obama any votes from Michigan, and not count a group of caucus states which went overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, like Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, and Washington. As I've been saying, if you have to explain HOW you are leading in the popular vote, that's probably a pretty good hint you aren't leading in the popular vote). She'll say Super Delegates can always change their mind, and that she needs to fight for the people of Michigan (who, by the way, are just fine thank you with the compromise the state itself asked for, and received, on Saturday). And at that point, there is no end point. Why would she ever get out before the convention? If the argument is, and Hillary herself made it yesterday, Super Delegates are always free to change their mind, then she has no reason to get out before the Convention, even if she falls behind by an overwhelming margin.

So where does that leave us? The Democratic Leadership (Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Gore) will likely give Clinton a few days to decide, but if she keeps fighting, I'd look for those four to start campaigning with Obama. But, until Hillary Clinton drops out, endorses Obama, and starts campaigning herself for Obama, the Democratic party will never come together. She has to not just endorse Obama and campaign for him, she has to do so soon because her supporters are very angry right now, and if she waits until the Convention, claims a fictional popular vote lead all summer, and loses (as she undoubtedly would) at the Convention in late August, her supporters won't have enough grieving time (for lack of a better word) to come around to unite the party. Instead, they will be even more resolute then they are today, and the Democrats are finished in November.

I hope for the sake of the Democratic Party, and for our country (which would be much better served by a President Obama than a President McCain, despite the latter's status as a genuine American hero) that I am wrong and conventional wisdom is right. But if we have learned anything over this long, long primary campaign, it's that conventional wisdom is rarely, if ever, correct.

All You Need To Know About The Clinton and Obama Campaigns

2008-05-31T20:16:00.002-04:00

Some fascinating and really revealing information from NBC's great Chuck Todd. Chuck reports that Barack Obama actually HAD the votes to split the Michigan delegation 50-50 and completely throw out the primary results from Michigan's unsanctioned and flawed primary. His supporters, though, refused to take that hard of a line, even though he would have WON because they wanted a greater consensus in the interest of party unity, thus, the 69-59 split. Instead of compromising, like Obama did, and accepting the will of the Michigan Democratic Party, and instead of bringing the party together, the Clinton campaign called the move a "hijacking" and is now threatening to drag the campaign through August, which would mean no endorsement of Obama by Clinton, no bringing of the party together, and no chance to win in the fall, all over a net of four delegates. It could have been much worse for the Clinton campaign had the Obama supporters not been magnanimous and went even further than they needed to in order to bring the party together.

And Hillary Clinton somehow thinks that after costing the Democrats the election in 2008, the party is going to come back on their hands and knees to her in 2012? She's not just ending any chance Barack Obama has of becoming President, she's ending her own political future. How she doesn't see that is amazing to me.

The Obama campaign compromised even after they won. And the Clinton campaign refused to budge even an inch, even after Obama won, and then extended a further olive branch to the Clintons. It's unbelievable, and it's not good for the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton MUST End Her Supporters Before it is Too Late

2008-05-31T19:18:00.003-04:00

The Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee gave the states of Michigan and Florida what they wanted. But the Hillary Clinton campaign has taken a hard line over the allocation of FOUR Michigan delegates. They wanted the Michigan delegation apportioned 73-55, a net gain of 9 after the delegates were halved. The end result was 69-59, a net gain of five for Clinton. So Harold Ickes is going to destroy any chance of Democratic unity, any chance of a Democrat winning in the fall, by fighting to the convention over FOUR DELEGATES which will make no difference on the overall vote totals.

And to use the word "hijack" after what happened on September 11 is no less offensive than had he used the word "lynched" or any similar variation. He continually talked about the election being "hijacked" because Senator Clinton lost four delegates. Senator Clinton, as senator from New York, should know almost better than anybody what the word "hijack" means in 2008 and the images the word "hijack" brings up.

The Michigan and Florida delegates are seated. The state parties are happy. The party, though, is not unified, and we saw a clear example of that today. Not just Harold Ickes offensive language, but also the protesters outside. In the interest of party unity, the Obama campaign specifically told their supporters not to protest. We got no similar class or interest in party above candidate from Senator Clinton. Her supporters almost singlehandedly derailed the vote with their protests, and it shows how divided the Democrats are. If we do not come together as a party, the chance of winning in the fall falls almost to zero.

Hillary Clinton is the only person right now who can unite the party. She will not be the nominee for President from the Democratic Party. That is very clear after today. What's left, is for her to do what's in the best interest of the party, and convince her supporters to rally behind Barack Obama. Today, though, despite Obama working towards a compromise, her campaign has been unwilling to do the same, and with their offensive and dangerous rhetoric, they are so close to ensuring this party will never unify. Hillary Clinton must come out tonight and endorse these comprised measures which were approved by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. She must be the bigger person and put party above her own self interest. And if she doesn't, then we all know where she stands, and that she values her own interests above that of the Democratic Party. And if that's where we end up, that is a very sad result for the Clintons, for Democratic Party, and for the country.

Watching this Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting...

2008-05-31T13:28:00.004-04:00

Two things become obvious:

1) Senator Carl Levin does not like the state of New Hampshire holding their primary first every year.

2) The best thing I think Barack Obama could do right now, is if David Bonior came out and said "We accept the Michigan proposal to split the delegates 69/59 which also acknowledges that the popular vote in that state was flawed." This accomplishes two goals. First, with Clinton taking such a hard line (Zero delegates for Obama from Michigan, no accounting for those who didn't vote, had write-in votes, and voted for Republicans because their candidates were not on the ballot) it makes Obama look very conciliatory, like a leader, and like someone who is willing to compromise, not fight. Two, it doesn't hurt Obama at all (10 delegates, in the grand scheme of thing, is meaningless) and it makes sure Clinton can't use Michigan's totals in her popular vote argument. Obama can come out and say "We were with both Florida and Michigan, endorsed their proposals, and the Clinton campaign refused to budge even an inch."

I don't think that's what they'll do. Plans are for Bonior to argue for a 50/50 split of the delegates, which I understand, because the primary did not reflect the will of the voters, but I think the Obama campaign misses an opportunity to paint Clinton into a real corner, with no real damage to the campaign, if they do not endorse the Michigan proposal.

3) Another thing. Harold Ickes argues against the reliability of exit polls. Yet, Hillary Clinton, in her OWN words, says her electability argument is that she appeals, and Barack Obama does not, to working class WHITE voters. And how does she know this? EXIT POLLS. The contradictory nature of the Clinton argument is mind-boggoling sometimes.

4) Another another. Great retort by Senator Levin to Ickes when he said it would never be a fair reflection to seat delegates from a flawed primary. Amen.

What Hillary Clinton Wants From The Rules and Bylaws Committee: Chaos

2008-05-30T18:20:00.003-04:00

Tomorrow morning, the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet, and will hear arguments about what to do with the rogue, unsanctioned, and illegitimate primaries of Michigan and Florida. And it has become clear that the Clinton campaign wants one thing and one thing only from the meeting: Chaos. What is equally as clear that they do not want: Any sort of resolution or compromise.

While Barack Obama's campaign has continually tried to reach a compromise with the Clinton campaign over the seating of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, at a net loss of delegates to his campaign. He would agree to seating the Florida delegation in full, and in accordance with the January primary results (even though he did not campaign in the state and undoubtedly would have faired better than he did had he been able to campaign there) so long as each delegate gets only half a vote. This would punish Florida for moving up their primary (and potentially prevent other states from doing the same in the future) and would make the delegate split closer to how it may have turned out had a real campaign taken place. In Michigan, Obama's willing to take a loss in delegates too.

But, Clinton is taking the hardest of hard lines. According to her campaign, Obama should get zero delegates from Michigan, not even those who had voted for "uncommitted." This a a ludicrous position, and shows the Clinton campaign is unwilling to make any compromise at all. It shows they don't want a solution, they want an excuse to carry on the campaign through the Democratic convention in late August.

And so they can claim a popular vote win? It's crazy anyway (how many people didn't vote in Michigan because the primary was outlawed? Hundreds of thousands, and I'm one of them. And to not give Obama any of the uncommitted vote in a popular vote tally and then claim to be the popular vote leader is intellectually dishonest). And what does a popular vote win get Hillary Clinton? The nomination? No. But it gives her a hook to have her supporters not support Obama in the fall, which opens up 2012 for another Hillary Clinton run for the White House. It's why the Clinton campaign is organizing a protest tomorrow, while the Obama campaign has urged their supporters to not follow suit, in the interest of party unity. One campaign is interested in bringing the party together. The other wants to continue fighting and continue to charge up their supporters against the other candidate. And Hillary Clinton wonders why people want her to end her campaign.

Hopefully, this won't matter. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will, in all likelihood, recommend that Michigan and Florida be seated tomorrow, but with some punishment. It will be seen as a compromise which favors the Clinton campaign. When she turns it down as "unreasonable" she'll look, well, unreasonable. And if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who continue to say they want to end this race after the final primary on June 3rd, have any power, they'll get enough Super Delegates to put Obama over the top, no matter Clinton's protests.

It would be nice to see a compromise tomorrow, but with the Clinton campaign digging its heels in, even though Clinton may gain as many as 20 net delegates, this fight will continue on, to the detriment of Barack Obama's chances this fall, and to the detriment of the Democratic Party Hillary Clinton claims to represent.

The Detroit Red Wings Are Two Games Away From The Stanley Cup

2008-05-26T23:08:00.002-04:00

But first, some quick notes on the Pistons game. Haven't seen a player will his team to victory quite like Antonio McDyess did tonight. That man wants to win a championship, and if the rest of the Pistons had half his hunger, they'd be unstoppable. And the team's inconsistency is so frustrating. Had they played the way they did in the first quarter on Saturday, this series would be 3-1 going back to Boston right now. And had they continued to play with that intensity, they would have never had to claw to keep their lead in the fourth quarter. This team, other than McDyess, and the young kids like Jason Maxiell and Rodney Stuckey, is just not hungry enough.

This post, though, focuses on the positive, and that's the Detroit Red Wings second consecutive shutout of the Pittsburgh Penguins, putting them within reach of a fourth Stanley Cup in a eleven years. The Red Wings continued to be on their game, and despite the Penguins doing their best to get under the Wings skin, nothing seemed to phase the men wearing the winged wheel. Johan Franzen looked good after missing almost two weeks with concussion-like symptoms, and Valtteri Filppula scored what was one of the prettiest goals you'll see while being dragged to the ice.

And what can you say about goalie Chris Osgood? Two consecutive shutouts, becoming one of only four goalies in NHL history to start off the Stanley Cup Finals by blanking his opponent. And it's not as if Pittsburgh lacks fire power. But Osgood, and the Wings stifling defense, are making Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin look downright ordinary, after their dominant run through the Eastern Conference. I was really looking forward to watching Crosby and Malkin and seeing if they lived up to the hype (thanks to the great NHL schedulers, we didn't get a chance to see Pittsburgh at all this season) and so far, you can hardly tell when the two are on the ice. No spectacular plays, no highlight reel scoring chances.

The Wings offense, on the other hand, continues to hum right along. And with the return of Franzen, the Wings get only more dangerous heading into Games three and four in Pittsburgh. Now, the Wings, despite their 4-0 and 3-0 wins at Joe Louis, cannot start to take the Pens lightly. Pittsburgh has not lost at home in almost two months time, and there's no question the intensity level will be ratcheted up for Crosby, Malkin, and rest of the Penguins. But what the Red Wings have shown this off-season is that they can withstand the best their opponents have to offer, and if the Wings can steal one in Pittsburgh, this series could be over in five, if not sooner.

What I'm Watching - HBO's Recount

2008-05-26T00:41:00.003-04:00

HBO is really on a roll right now (though, I guess the question is, when are they not?). After the incredibly good John Adams mini-series, HBO took a look at a much more recent period in our political history, the Florida recount which decided the 2000 Presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.

I'll always remember that night. The satisfaction when the networks called Florida for Gore. The bewilderment when they took it back. The frustration when it looked like Bush was pulling ahead for good. I remember late into the night, continually refreshing CNN.com's election site, looking at the county-by-county returns as they came in, in real-time, keeping track of Bush and Gore's votes (and the changes as new votes were reported) on a blank piece of printer paper next to my computer. I stayed up as long as I could that night, waiting for word on who won the election. And the country stayed waiting a lot longer than that. If I end up working in politics one day (or, perhaps a better word is when) I'll probably look back on that night, and the night I found out I passed the Bar Exam (where instead of going out and celebrating, I was watching MSNBC's coverage of the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic Primaries until after 1:00 a.m. waiting for results from Gary, Indiana to come in to see if Barack Obama had swept the night, and swept out Hillary Clinton from the Democratic nomination fight) as nights where it was clearest to me that more than sports and more than almost anything else, politics was what was in my blood.

HBO's Recount, staring the great Kevin Spacey as Al Gore's former Chief of Staff and Florida recount, premiered tonight, and it captured the tension, and the spectacle, and the over-the-top nature of the characters and caricatures which made up the Florida recount. Despite knowing how it was going to end (as my buddy Dave, who was watching the movie pointed out, the movie was like watching 'Titanic,' we all knew the unfortunate fate awaiting the Gore team in the end) the movie was full of tension and great performances. Tom Wilkinson, who was was exceptional as Benjamin Franklin in the John Adams miniseries was equally as brilliant in Recount as George W. Bush's Recount leader, James Baker. And Laura Dern disappeared into her role as Katherine Harris, which may be the biggest compliment you can pay an actor or actress. She completely became Kathrine Harris, and played her perfectly. The rest of the cast was phenomenal as well.

And while the movie may have had a slight Democratic slant (the main character, after all, was Al Gore's former Chief of Staff), it was fair to the story I thought, and presented both sides. Some of the moments were over the top, but so was the real life recount. HBO has done another great job with another terrific cast, and if you have a chance to catch what I'm sure will be the first of many re showings Monday night at 9:00, check it out. Especially with another close election upcoming (and another between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton which won't seem to end) we cannot forget about the lessons of the past, and through HBO's Recount, we never will.

The Detroit Pistons Are Just So Frustrating

2008-05-24T23:00:00.002-04:00

This had all the makings of a classic night in Detroit sports history. The Detroit Tigers awaken from their season-long hibernation and put up 19 runs against the Minnesota Twins. The Detroit Red Wings open up the Stanley Cup Finals with a 4-0 shellacking of the Pittsburgh Penguins. And the Detroit Pistons, of course they would take care of the Boston Celtics in Game Three of the Eastern Conference Finals. They had just stolen Game Two in Boston, and of course, the Celtics had yet to win a road playoff game this season.

What do the Pistons do? They decide to do what they have done all season, and that's show up for one quarter. Unfortunately for the Pistons, they were already down 24 points when they decided, "Hey, we should probably show up tonight." If the Pistons were a young team, learning how to win, learning how to play in big games, then inconsistent performances would be acceptable, even expected. But, this is a team that has been to six straight Eastern Conference Finals. Their play is simply inexcusable. Playing hard when you feel like it, playing hard only when you feel like you need to, that's not what a championship team does. And it's why the Detroit Pistons are destined to lose to the Boston Celtics and fall short of the NBA Finals yet again.

One thing we have learned this series so far is that Rodney Stuckey is going to be a star. So much so, that if I were Joe Dumars, I would think seriously, really seriously, about blowing this team up. The Pistons, in their current form, with their current core, have gotten content with winning 50-plus regular season games, sleep-walking through the playoffs, and getting close, but not close enough. Putting the same pieces together again next year and hoping they don't put their game on cruise control is not how to win another NBA Championship.

Putting the same team back together for another run is what's easy. It's the safe course. Joe Dumars, though, should take a risk. He should take a step back in 2009 because it could mean a huge step forward in 2010. Trade Chauncey Billups. Drop Rasheed Wallace. Move Jason Maxiell and Rodney Stuckey into the starting lineup. Oh, and fire Flip Saunders and get a new coach, with some new ideas, and most importantly, some new motivational techniques, in the building.

This current iteration of the Pistons have given us some great memories, and an NBA Title. But it's over. We aren't going to win another NBA Championship with this current team, and keeping them together, while it may make town feel good with their 50-win seasons and constant trips to the Eastern Conference Finals, will not win another ring in its current form. And it's time we stop pretending that they will, realize that we have some very impressive young players, and give them the change to succeed or fail, and hopefully, change the face of the Pistons franchise once again, brining a hunger and determination which the Pistons just simply does not have right now.

My Problem With Hillary Clinton's Explanation About Her RFK Assassination Comments: She's Lying

2008-05-23T17:48:00.002-04:00

By now, most have probably heard about Hillary Clinton's offensive comments earlier today referencing Robert Kennedy's assassination while trying to defend why she has not dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination. Now, I don't think she meant to say "I'm staying in because Barack Obama may get killed" and I do think she really meant that "Look, primary campaigns have gone on until June before" but the comment was incredibly ill-advised. There are plenty of other primary fights she could have referenced, and talking the way she did about the assassination of one of our country's great leaders, even if not ill-willed, was still offensive. But what was even more offensive was her defense of the comments.

The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.

The problem? She's lying. Again. She didn't make the Bobby Kennedy reference because Ted Kennedy was on her mind. How do I know this? Because she's made the assassination comparison before, multiple times, before Ted Kennedy took ill. This is a theme with Hillary Clinton, a repeated one, and not an analogy which happened to be in her head because of Ted Kennedy's illness.

In fact, to use Ted Kennedy's illness as political cover for her remarks is even more offensive than the remarks themselves. As I said, I really believe that her original comments today were inarticulately delivered, and it is a fact that political nomination fights have gone late into the summer before (most times, though, to the detriment of the party fighting, but that's another argument). But her excuse of "Oh, the Kennedy's were on my mind" that wasn't a slip of the tongue or a off-the-cuff remark. It was a prepared justification for her original comments, and it was specifically chosen to give her a justifiable excuse for her comments. And had she not made the comments before, maybe she could get the benefit of the doubt, but knowing that she hasn't, the excuse is worse than the original comments.

Barack Obama Brings Out Over 75,000 People in Oregon

2008-05-18T22:25:00.003-04:00

In some ways, there is a real risk in overstating the "Barack Obama mania" that has spread throughout the United States during the fight for the Democratic nomination. While many members of "Obama-Nation" have instantly taken to the Senator and his message, Obama is still unknown to much of the country. He has, after all, only been on the national stage for less than four years, making his debut at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. And as the results from West Virginia showed, where he doesn't spend a lot of time introducing himself to voters, they still are very unfamiliar with him, and aren't willing to take a leap of faith based on the rave reviews the rest of the country has given Obama. And while it might seem contradictory that some can both believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim (at least 10% of the country according to recent polling) and at the same time think that he shares the views of radical former Pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, many voters do not see the inconsistency (one, , Ben Smith at Politico first noticed).

Then there are days like today, when Barack Obama brings out over 75,000 people in Oregon. No, I didn't add a zero accidentally, he really did have, at least, seventy-five thousand people attend a speech in Oregon. That's beyond incredible for a person who nobody knew outside of Chicago just four years ago, and who hasn't even officially won his party's nomination for the Presidency yet, much less been sworn in and taken over the Oval Office.

The reason why Obama is so exciting as a candidate, and why he can win where other Democrats couldn't, is because he expands the electoral map by creating so much excitement that 75,000 people take their Sunday to come see him speak. As Obama has constantly said, getting elected means nothing if you don't have a mandate to get things done. In order to solve the problems we fight about year after year, you need more than to win an election, you need to build a broad coalition of citizens who will demand nothing less than universal health care, an end to the war in Iraq, and energy policy which saves the planet and ends our dependence on foreign oil, and saves Social Security for my generation (and more importantly my kids and grandkids generation).

Early in the campaign, when Obama was trying to build up his name recognition in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Dakota, he drew tens of thousands of people to rallies. But that was because Oprah Winfrey was introducing him. Just five months later, though, whether its in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia or in Portland, Oregon, Obama is drawing 75,000 people to hear him speak. It's a level of political engagement and interest we have not seen in perhaps a generation. And it's one that should excite all Americans, because even if you don't agree with what Obama stands for, there's no doubt, anything or anybody who engages the citizenry to care about, and participate in the political process, now that's something, or in this case, somebody with a special gift.

The Detroit Tigers Are Just Not Fun To Watch

2008-05-17T00:02:00.002-04:00

It probably does not come as a shock that I consider myself a Detroit Lions and Detroit Tigers fan first and foremost (I do write a Detroit Tigers blog for MLive.com after all). Don't get me wrong, I love all the Detroit and Michigan sports teams, and choosing between them isn't easy, but if I had to choose, I'd put football and baseball just a bit ahead of hockey and basketball. Just a bit. So I have watched at least 100 Detroit Tigers game a year the past, oh I don't know, the past seven or eight years. It certainly was not a new phenomenon when the Tigers got good three seasons ago. God knows I watched a lot of bad baseball, but throughout high school and undergrad, if I was home, I was watching the Tigers every night during the summer.

This season though, I haven't watched nearly as many games as I have in the past. And it's not because I'm working and am not home and it's not even that I'm watching the Wings and Pistons playoff runs instead (although I am, and certainly I have seen a considerable up-tic in my MSNBC-watching as compared to past years, but with my Slingbox, I could be watching the Tigers at the same time if I really wanted). It's just the Detroit Tigers are not fun to watch, in a way that even the embarrassing and laughable 2004 team did not turn me off as a fan. When the Tigers were the doormat of Major League Baseball, in a strange way, it was okay, because, they weren't even trying. But this season, with expectations high, and excitement palpable because of the trades for Edgar Renteria and Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis, for the Tigers to be the worst team in baseball through just over 40 games (or second worse team in baseball to be completely fair) is beyond appalling.

Take tonight's great effort (sarcasm intended) against the Arizona Diamondbacks. Fresh off yet another sweep by the Kansas City Royals, the Tigers started interleague play, and most nights, Dan Haren versus Jeremy Bonderman, I'm in. Instead though, I fell asleep on my couch and made no real effort to make sure I was awake for the 9:40 first pitch. When I did awake from my slumber, I turned on the game. And what did I see almost immediately upon waking up? Carlos Guillen committing yet another costly error at third base, this time throwing what should have been the third out of the seventh inning into the dirt, and allowing what would be the winning run to score. I quickly learned the Detroit Tigers had given up three runs in the seventh, blowing a 3-1 lead (and Jeremy Bonderman's best performance of the year) and they never recovered. Guillen's making a habit of committing game changing errors at third base, a position he was moved to only because he couldn't learn how to play first base, and the Tigers $157 million man, Miguel Cabrera, couldn't play third anymore.

Honestly, the way this season has gone, blowing tonight's game was not a surprise. Every game, you almost just wait for the team to blow it somehow. The team is just not fun to watch. And that's so disappointing given how excited I was and frankly everyone was heading into this season. I don't know what the Tigers can do to turn their season around, but another lineup shakeup is in order. Brandon Inge, almost by default, is going to have be named the everyday third baseman at some point in the near future, and Carlos Guillen is going to have to become the everyday DH. And if Gary Sheffield isn't healthy enough to play the outfield, maybe he needs to sit out. But the Tigers must do something to improve their porous defense. How many games can Jim Leyland let his defense blow while having a potential Gold Glove third baseman sit on his bench? I don't care that Inge can't hit. Neither can most of the other Tigers right now. So at least Inge will provide you a dependable glove at third base.

I wrote over a month ago that the Detroit Tigers slow start wasn't cute anymore. Now, it's simply unacceptable. And while we as Detroit Sports fans can tolerate it for a bit longer because of the great runs the Red Wings and Pistons are on which are taking up most of our attention at the moment, soon the spotlight will be solely on Comerica Park and the Detroit Tigers. And if the Tigers cannot figure out what's wrong with their team, it might just be too bright for some in the Tigers lineup or coaching staff to survive.

The Real Political Victor Tonight: Travis Childers

2008-05-13T22:25:00.003-04:00

Yes, Hillary Clinton won a blowout victory in West Virginia tonight Yawn. Next week, in Oregon, Barack Obama will wrap up a majority of pledged delegates, and having recently taken the lead in Super Delegates, the race is in all but name, over. While Hillary will now try to get Michigan and Florida seated (despite herself saying in October that Michigan was "not going to count for anything") and while Hillary Clinton now saying that one needs 2209 delegates to win (despite herself saying the number was 2,025, the delegates without Florida and Michigan, as recently as last month) Michigan and Florida will not be seated fully, that we know for a fact. Even if they were, she'd still be down almost 100 total delegates (assuming, of course, the "uncommitted" delegates are apportioned to Obama) so then the popular vote matters. Except, if Florida and Michigan are seated at half-strength, delegate wise, how can Hillary claim a full popular vote from those states, especially when she gives Obama zero votes from Michigan because he wasn't on the ballot? So, rant over, it's over, and in early June, Hillary needs to bow out gracefully, and allow the Democrats to rally around our nominee.

The real winner tonight though, was not Hillary Clinton, but the Democratic Party and Travis Childers. Who is Travis Childers you ask? He's the newest member of Congress, the third Democrat to be elected in a Special Election this year, and the third in an overwhelmingly Republican district in an overwhelmingly Republican state, Mississippi. President Bush won Childers' district with over 60% of the vote, the seat was in Republican hands since 1994, and the Republicans did everything they could to hold on to that seat, a seat they had no business losing. They had Dick Cheney come out to the District, they spent millions of dollars, and they ran television advertisements tying Childers to Barack Obama and Rev. Wright. And yet, they still lost. If the Republicans cannot win in the First Congressional District of Mississippi, where on earth can Republicans win this fall? They can't win their own seats, much less swing districts, or poaching Democratic seats. MSNBC described the win as seismic, and the fact that Barack Obama was not a drag on Childers in the reddest of red-state America shows what a force he will be on the top of the Democratic ticket. And it shows how strong a position the Democrats will be in this fall, assuming of course, Hillary Clinton doesn't sink the party by fighting all the way to the convention in Denver.

The Detroit Red Wings Are Playing Some Incredible Hockey Right Now

2008-05-12T23:05:00.002-04:00

After a brief blog hiatus, Quo Vadimus is back with regular posts starting tonight, and I'm still in practical disbelief about how great the Detroit Red Wings are playing hockey right now. I have watched the Red Wings for a long time, and in my lifetime, I have seen three Stanley Cups, so many President's Cups (for the best regular season record) I have lost count, and teams with Hall of Fame players from top to bottom. And, yet, I don't think I have ever seen the Wings play as well as they have this playoff run.

Colorado, the once vaunted foe of the Wings, were nothing more than an afterthought. And, yes, part of that was due to injuries which decimated the Avs, but the Wings have kept the pressure on against Dallas, winning the first three games of the Western Conference Finals quite convincingly, and winning the last two games, including tonight's game three, without star-in-the-making Johan Franzen. No worries, Pavel Datsyuk simply scored a hat trick (the first of his career, which is a pretty amazing stat itself) as he and linemate Henrik Zetterberg continue to dominate games.

We're really spoiled here in Detroit. I don't think we really appreciate how great Datsyuk and Zetterberg really are. Some of their goals this post-season, the incredible skating and passing and shooting, have been nothing short of breathtaking. They just make it look so easy.

And goalie Chris Osgood cannot get enough credit for his play. The first 10 minutes of tonight's Game Three was Dallas' chance at surviving and making a real comeback against Detroit. The crowd was into it, Dallas' players were pumped up, and they put the pressure on the Wings and on Osgood. But Ozzie was more than up to the task, and the Wings jumped out to a 1-0 lead. Dallas tied it up (and tied it 2-2) but Ozzie and the Wings defense shut the Stars down after that, and with a 3-0 series lead, the Wings may have back-to-back sweeps ushering them into the Stanley Cup Finals.

And that is just what a starving Hockeytown needed to fall in love all over again with a team which despite its star power and regular season successes, had lost its luster among Detroit sports fans in recent years. Maybe it was the explosion of the Tigers, the tough economy, the strike, or the retirement of Steve Yzerman. For whatever reason, the Wings, despite their star power, were in a rut. Well, the team is now one game away from the Stanley Cup Finals.

About time.

Detroit Lions Make Crucial Mistake in Round Two of NFL Draft

2008-04-26T20:26:00.003-04:00

Using their second round pick to address their glaring need at linebacker, the Detroit Lions selected Jordon Dizon, a very productive linebacker from Colorado. And I'll leave the debate over whether Penn State's Dan Connor would have been a better fit for another day, because honestly, I don't know which of the two would have been best, and I'll take the Lions coaching staff and scouting department's view that Dizon fits their scheme best.

But the big mistake was not trading back into Round 2 and picking up running back Ray Rice. Rice would have filled a desperate need for them and is an all around back who could have stated from day one for the Lions. And the Lions have extra picks (the third rounder they picked up in the Shaun Rogers trade and the fifth they got today from Kansas City) they could have used to move up. Instead, they sat back, and now who knows which running back will be available when they pick tomorrow. They could have come out of today with a starting offensive tackle, starting linebacker, and starting running back. They failed at getting a running back, and whether Dizon will be good enough to start right away is a serious question.

This was not what the Lions needed coming out of Day One.

First Round Could Not Go Worse For Lions

2008-04-26T16:31:00.003-04:00

You can't blame Matt Millen for this one. The Detroit Lions did not get the player they needed or the player they wanted with their first round pick, but it has nothing to do with Matt Millen's incompetence. It was a confluence of events which could only happen to the Detroit Lions, taking any chance the Lions had of getting the starter they needed away.

It started going bad when the New England Patriots traded down from 7 to 10, because you had to know that they were targeting the Lions dream pick, inside linebacker Jared Mayo, and 10 was a much better spot to take him at than 7. Then Carolina moved way up to take defensive lineman Derrick Harvey (the other dream pick for the Lions). And in between, Keith Rivers was taken by the Bengals. Absolutely screwed on defense.

So let's take Jonathan Stewart, the running back the Lions really liked. Nope, he was gone too.

So they did the best they could with a trade down, moving down two spots with Kansas City, picking up an extra fifth round pick and moving up 10 spots in the third round in the process.

And for the pick itself, they took an offensive tackle, and some guy, I'll be honest, I've never heard of. Gosder Cherilus. He was a first round talent (apparently) but who knows. If they were going to take an offensive tackle, I would have almost rather seen them take Alberts, the guard who is converting to tackle in the NFL. Yes, offensive line, and tackle especially, was a need for them, but running back and linebacker were bigger needs and they have no help there right now.

Almost Time For the NFL Draft

2008-04-25T23:25:00.002-04:00

This is perhaps my favorite weekend of the year (and we'll ignore for the moment the Detroit Pistons trying to ruin it by sleepwalking through Philadelphia -- Like the Tigers 0-7 start, I'm not upset or panicked because I just can't see the Pistons losing to Philadelphia in the long run, but if they play like they did Friday night, it'll be over, and not in a good way, by this time next week. Okay, speech over.) The NFL Draft, and even though the format has been tweaked a bit (Rounds 1 and 2 start 3:00 Saturday, Rounds 3-7 start bright and early at 10:00 Sunday) and the Detroit Lions, for once, aren't drafting in the Top 10, it's still veyr exciting.

And very nerve-wracking at the same time. This time last year, the debate was whether the Lions would stay where they were and take Georgia Tech wide receiver Calvin Johnson (or even perhaps offensive lineman Joe Thomas) or trade down and take defensive end Gaines Adams or linebacker Patrick Willis. My top choice, at the time, was to trade down and take Willis who was a monster of a linebacker coming out of college. The Lions chose not to do that, Johnson was injured most of his rookie year with a back problem, and Willis won Defensive Rookie of the Year and was everything people thought he was and more. And linebacker continued to be a glaring need for the Lions.

Which is why the Lions can't make the same mistake again. If Keith Rivers or Jared Mayo are still on the board when the Lions draft at 15, unless Florida defensive end Derrick Harvey is too, you can't pass either one of those two players up. Yes, the Lions need help on the offensive line and a running back would be a sexier pick, but I'm so tired of the Lions drafting offensive skill players in the first round. I don't think it's a coincidence that Matt Millen's only successful first round draft pick (okay - Maybe Roy Williams should count as "successful") was a defensive standout, linebacker Ernie Sims. Paring Sims with either Rivers or Mayo would put bite into a Lions defense which really needs the help right now.

And thus we get to why I'm worried. While the Lions top choice, the aforementioned Derrick Harvey, is almost certain to be gone, and Rivers is too, Mayo seemed like a sure bet for the Lions at 15. Plus, because he's the better middle linebacker prospect, which is a more valuable position in the "Tampa 2" he may even fit the Lions scheme better. But, in recent days, as some players tend to do, Mayo has shot up the draft boards, and some have him now going in the Top 10 picks. It's very possible that Harvey, Rivers, and Mayo will all be gone by the time the Lions pick. And it's not like taking one of the better offensive lineman in the draft would be all bad (we do need a right tackle) or a running back (otherwise, as it stands now, Tatum Bell will be our starter, which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence) but we need such help on defense, it's imperative that Harvey, Rivers, or Mayo slide to 15 or the Lions consider trading up. To get Harvey, we'd only have to jump up 3 or 4 spots (he's likely going to Carolina at 13, two picks ahead of us) so maybe we can trade the third round pick we got in the Shaun Rogers trade, and slide up a few picks.

In the first three rounds, the Lions have four picks, and I would select Linebacker, Defensive End, Running Back, and Offensive Tackle, in that order. And if any other position is drafted in the first four picks, even cornerback, it's a mistake. LB, DE, RB, OT. Those positions have to be filled and have to be filled with players who can play.

Will the Lions do it, or will they take another wide receiver? In just over twelve hours we'll find out.

Are The Democrats Asking The Wrong Question?

2008-04-22T18:49:00.002-04:00

The more I think about the current campaign between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the more I become convinced that Democrats may be asking the wrong question when it comes to weighing which candidate is more electable in the fall.

The main storyline, despite Obama's large delegate and popular vote lead, is can he win blue collar white males? Will white women vote for John McCain or not vote if Hillary is denied the nomination? These are the questions everybody has been looking at. And with the exit polling from the various states, especially in the South, showing Obama having a very hard time with these voters, it's a legitmate quesiton.

But, at what point does the question change to, if Hillary Clinton somehow gets the nomination, can she win the votes of African Americans? While white males almost always vote for the Republicans in the Presidential election anyway (so how useful it is a measure in the primary is dubious at best) Democrats absolutely cannot win without a large turnout from African Americans, who vote some 90% (or higher) for Democratic presidential candidates. And while there is a lot of hand wringing about how Obama can't seem to break 40% with white voters, what about the fact that Barack Obama continues to pound Hillary Clinton among black voters with some 90% of the vote? Early exits tonight in Pennsylvania show that Obama is winning 92% of the black vote.

And it's too easy to say "well, he's black, of course he's going to get 90% of the black vote." After all, Obama started behind, some 20-points among black voters at the start of the campaign. He worked hard for their votes (as he has for all votes) and the Clintons did themselves no favors with their numerous racially-tinted statements.

And so the question needs to be asked, will these voters come back to Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee? Especially when taking the nomination away from Obama will be so controversial. And if the answer is no, then the Democrats are doomed if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

It's Official: Democratic Campaign Now Bad For The Party

2008-04-20T14:59:00.002-04:00

Despite worries from Democratic operatives and predictions from the media that the long Democratic campaign was going to tear the party apart, I never really bought into that completely. John McCain has been unable to get any real media coverage while the Democrats fight it out, and by spending millions of dollars in Pennsylvania and other states, the Democrats have really been putting a down payment down on the general election. They've gotten people excited in states which they would have never even visited had the primary campaign ended months ago, and because Clinton and Obama are such different candidates, it would force McCain to run a vastly different campaign against the eventual Democratic nominee, both message wise and geographically. Against Clinton, he runs as the Maverick/change candidate focusing on picking off previous Democratic strongholds like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon, while fighting strong Hillary charges in Ohio and Florida; Against Obama he's the experienced steady hand trying to hold on to Republican strongholds like Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, and Iowa but with little fear of losing Florida, and a better chance to hold on to Ohio. So, keeping McCain off-balance, without knowing which persona to create, and which states to focus on, is not all bad.

Those were my thoughts. Until today. Part of the reason I didn't have a problem with the Democratic race continuing was because the tone, for the most part, was very civil between the candidates. Yes, there have been sharp differences between the candidates, and the daily campaign conference calls and press releases and memos have been sometimes scalding, on television, and in public, the candidates have not gone for the kill. Negative advertising, aside from some Clinton advertisements in Wisconsin accusing Obama of ducking debates, have almost entirely been focused on issues, and aside from some personal attacks in one debate (You were on Wal-Mart's Board! You represented a slumlord in Chicago!) the campaign has been mostly substantive. And especially compared to past contests, which have gotten extremly personal (like George W. Bush's despicable campaign against John McCain to win the Republican South Carolina Primary in 2000 or how the Republicans, to defeat Senator Max Cleeland in Georgia, called the Vietnam veteran and triple amputee as a result un-American) this has been very tame in comparison.

But now, as we head into the home stretch in Pennsylvania, negative ads are flying from both campaigns. Hillary Clinton may have started it (a 527 group supporting Clinton re-opened the health care debate and her own campaign released an ad attacking Obama for an ad in which he said he didn't take money from oil companies or lobbyists) but in being forced to respond, Obama's ads not only attack Clinton for going negative, but attack Clinton for taking money from lobbyists and for forcing people to buy health care even if they can't afford. it. This Hillary Clinton ad, in response to Obama's response to another extraordinarily negative ad, may be the most brutal and hard-hitting of the campaign.

Obama, no doubt, will respond with an ad of his own, like this spot:

This is not good for the Democratic Party. Voters are not going to respond well to these attack ads, and are going to be turned off from both Clinton and Obama. If this campaign has taught us anything, it's that when Clinton attacks, she may hurt Obama, but she hurts herself even more. And she's already fighting off polls which show as many as 60% of voters believe she is not trustworthy. That's an incredible negative. And Obama abandons the premise of his campaign every time he responds to a Clinton attack ad with one of his own.

So what can Obama do? He can't stay silent, and let Clinton's ads dominate the storyline and be the only thing voters see. For one, negative ads, for whatever reason, have a history of being successful. And for another, he has to show Super Delegates and voters that he will respond to these kinds of attacks coming from Republicans, and that he won't be swift-boated. So, I like running ads comparing Clinton to the "old politics" and saying that her negative attacks are desperate and show that she doesn't understand that her ads are exactly what voters want a change from. But, then going further, and attacking Clinton for taking lobbyist money, or forcing people to buy health care, while they may be legitimate points, drags Obama into a fight which even if he wins, will damage him.

That's why this campaign has officially reached its tipping point. The onslaught of negativity today, and negative ads which Pennsylvanians will see for the next 72-hours until the election concludes Sunday night, will harm both Senators Clinton and Obama. And for the Democrats, in a state they must hold on to in the fall campaign, this isn't good for either of them.

And if this is what the campaign will look like until the end of the primary season in early June, John McCain may as well start writing his inaugural address today.

ABC Owes the People of Pennsylvania an Apology

2008-04-16T20:55:00.002-04:00

52 minutes into the ABC Clinton-Obama debate. That's how long it took to get a real policy question. 52 minutes. The first hour almost was spent entirely on silly, trivial issues which have ZERO impact on people's daily lives. Bittergate, Rev. Wright, the Weather Underground, Bosnia, and flag pins. I swear, Sean Hannity was feeding ABC the questions. Every question, except the Bosnia one, was attacking Obama for something. His association with Wright and the people from Weather Underground, his statements about bitter small town people, why he doesn't wear a flag pin. No substantive questions, or questions at all on the environment, Iraq, the economy, the housing crisis, poverty, health care, nada. Not a single issue question for almost an hour in a 90 minute debate.

That's inexcusable.

John McCain Does the Hardball College Tour

2008-04-15T22:25:00.002-04:00

This is not going to be an easy election. That's an obvious point. But after watching John McCain on the Hardball College Tour tonight, it's very obvious that John McCain, especially against Hillary Clinton, could really run the table. He's fiercely independent, heroic, and even if you disagree with him on Iraq or Iran, unlike the current President, you at least know he's knowledgeable about the issues and even if he disagrees with you, he'll honestly listen to your point of view. He sounds like Al Gore when talking about the environment, he's against pork-barrel Congressional spending, and he's anti torture. Somehow, someway the Republicans, in a year they should get absolutely annihilated at the polls, and in spite of themselves due to their own misgivings about McCain, may have nominated the one Republican in the entire country that could win this year.

I watched the Barack Obama Hardball College Tour last week and I have to be honest, I think McCain came off better. He definitely seemed more presidential. When the debates come this fall, there's no telling how they are going to turn out, completely ignoring the actual content. Either John McCain is going to look really old next to Obama, or Obama is going to seem completely green next to the vastly more experienced McCain. No other Republican could appeal to middle-of-the-road voters like McCain, especially those who are bound to be disillusioned after this long Democratic primary race.

McCain, of course, has his problems. While cutting the summer gas tax is one of those campaign promises which sounds great, the money has to be made up somewhere. And he still has severe problems when it comes to foreign policy. The "100 year" comment may have been stretched beyond its intended meaning, but there's no questioning McCain would keep us involved in the Middle East for years to come. And no matter how much he tries to compare our role in Iraq to our role in Japan, Germany, or South Korea, he has no plan to eliminate the casualties in Iraq which would allow him to keep a peaceful force in the region. And add in a potential war with Iran, which would really be the start of Would War III because there's likely no question Iran would use an American attack as an excuse to attack Israel, which would respond and likely get the other countries in the region involved to some extent, McCain's policy positions are problematic.

But tonight, despite those problems, McCain showed why he's such a formidable and tough candidate for Democrats.

At Some Point, This Detroit Tigers Start Stops Being Cute

2008-04-13T15:06:00.004-04:00

Okay. Okay. I have refused to panic despite the embarrassing and inexcusable start by the Detroit Tigers to the 2008 Major League Baseball season. Despite the 0-7 start, I wasn't calling for the Tigers to make a major trade or fire Jim Leyland or anything extreme (aside, of course, from believing the Tigers should let phenom Rick Porcello replace Dontrelle Willis for two starts while Willis is on the Disabled List). After all, the Tigers will turn it around because they will start hitting. These players are too good not to hit. And everyone is banged up a bit, from Placido Poloanco's back to Miguel Cabrera's quadriceps, to Gary Sheffield's finger to Dontrelle Willis' knee to Carlos Guillen's hamstring.

But, at some point, this stops being cute. At some point this stops being a slow start, and turns into a lost season. At some point, the Tigers need to, you know, win. I just turned off the Tigers after they have fallen behind 5-0 to Chicago thanks to a third inning grand slam by Paul Konerko. Nothing is going right for the Tigers right now, but who cares that Kenny Rogers just gave up a grand slam because one run is enough to beat the Tigers right now. The team was shut out three times all of last season. They've already met that mark through just 12 games. And let's not get started on the almost 20 double plays the team has already hit into, almost a half dozen of which have been with the bases loaded.

I still don't want to panic. We still have only played 13 games which in a 162-contest season is practically nothing. But what is so worrisome is that the Tigers are showing no signs of breaking out of their so far season-long funk. And if they don't soon, this season will be too far gone for any late season surge to save them.

4:00 Update: So, having turned off the Tigers game to watch The Masters, I missed the second Chicago White Sox grand slam of the game, which now puts them up 11-0 over the Tigers. Two grand slams in three innings. Wow. And the Tigers still don't have a run. And apparently, Miguel Cabrera botched another play at third base, tripping over the umpire while allowing a pop-up to fall into fair territory. I'm almost at a loss for words at this point.

McCarty Scores For Wings, Who Take 2-0 Series Lead

2008-04-13T13:29:00.003-04:00

Good for Darren McCarty.

The Detroit Red Wings took a 2-0 series lead over the Nashville Predators on Saturday and if one just looked at the box score, it would be easy to confuse this Wings team with the title team in 2002. Dominik Hasek made 25 saves. Your goal scorers? Darren McCarty, Nick Lidstrom, Kris Draper, and Thomas Holmstrom. And why is it not a surprise that McCarty was the first Wing to get on the scoreboard?

McCarty, who put the Red Wings on the road to their long-awaited Stanley Cup victory in 1997 by famously pummeling Wings arch-nemesis Claude Lemieux, always seems to be in the right place at the right time during the playoffs (who could forget his goal against the Philadelphia Flyers in the 1997 Stanley Cup Finals or his hat trick against Patrick Roy in the 2002 Western Conference Finals?) and Saturday was no difference, picking up a rebound and easily finding a practically empty-net. And what vindication for McCarty who may have been hurt by the 2004 NHL lockout more than any other player.

The lockout forced the Wings to buy-out McCarty's contract and despite singing with the Calgary Flames, McCarty never regained the magic he had in Detroit. He suffered both professionally and personally (due to a battle with alcoholism) and found himself out of the NHL at the start of this season. But McCarty never gave up, and worked his way back into shape and back on the ice, first with the Flint Generals of the International Hockey League (who are, not coincidentally, owned by former McCarty line-mate Kris Draper) and then, towards the end of the regular season, back with the Wings. And there he was Saturday, putting Detroit on the board early, exciting the Joe Louis Arena crowd just as he used to back in the late 1990s.

And this is not the first time the Wings have found success bringing back an old favorite. During their first cup runs a decade ago, the Wings were aided by another former bruiser who returned to Detroit, Joe Kocur. Kocur was rescued from the "beer leagues" by Steve Yzerman, and he was an important part of both the 1997 and 1998 Cup championship teams. The Wings hope that McCarty will play a similar role this season, and so far, the addition is paying quick dividends.

The Predators aren't out of this series, despite being down 2-0, but the Wings have played good, smart hockey (well, mostly...Anytime Hasek decides to leave the goal crease, it gets a little hairy as we saw yesterday) and if they continue to do so, they shouldn't have any problem wrapping up this series by this time next week (if not sooner). And given the way the Tigers are playing, and their high payroll, owner Mike Ilitch is going to need a long playoff run from the Wings this season.

If Willis Moves Onto DL: Tigers Should Call Up Porcello

2008-04-11T21:29:00.002-04:00

The Detroit Tigers (who as of this writing are actually winning, 3-2, over the Chicago White Sox) need not panic or make any major moves because of their incredibly horrendous and embarrassing start to the season. Yes, the bullpen may need a tune-up or two, but the offense will come around (eventually).

One move the Tigers may be forced to make though, is to call up a pitcher from the minor leagues to replace Dontrelle Willis, who left to tonight's game with a hyper-extended knee. And even though they probably won't, the Detroit Tigers should call up phenom Rick Porcello to take his place.

With all of the moves the Tigers have made the past two years (trades for Gary Sheffield, Edgar Renteria, Miguel Cabrera, and Willis) no part of the Tigers farm system has suffered more than the starting pitching depth. Humberto Sanchez, Jair Jurrjens, Andrew Miller, Dallas Trahern, Burke Badenhop, others, are all gone. As

As for current Tigers who may be able to replace Willis, Jordan Tata himself is on the Disabled List after struggling this spring and taking his frustrations out on a steel door. The only real option in either AAA or AA is Virgil Vasquez, and while Vasquez is decent, and has started a few games for Detroit before, he's very bland. And if there's something the Tigers need right now to snap them out of think funk they have started the season in, it won't be found with Virgil Vasquez.

But it may be found in the phenom Rick Porcello, who many believe, despite not yet turning 20, could be a successful major league pitcher. In two starts in Class A Lakeland, Porcello has yet to surrender an earned run (he gave up four unearned runs in his last start) and has struck out 7 in 10 innings while walking only two. And this would be very much unlike the call up of Andrew Miller a few seasons back. Porcello would know, no matter how well he pitched, he was going back to Class A as soon as Willis was healthy. This would allow him to gain some invaluable experience without any real pressure.

And who knows, maybe he can provide the Tigers a spark. And besides all of that, he may, honestly, be the Tigers best minor league pitcher right now. The most capable of being successful in the major leagues. And while that may not be a great sign for the Tigers farm system at the moment, it should not be ignored by Jim Leyland when he considers whether Porcello or Vasquez should get the call should Willis be placed on the Disabled List.

Thinking About Condoleezza Rice John McCain's Vice President

2008-04-06T19:52:00.004-04:00

The big headline on the Drudge Report tonight is "Vice President Rice" in reference to the growing chatter that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has an interest in joining John McCain on the Republican ticket this fall. While Rice has continually said she has no interest in becoming an elected politician, her recent moves (such as speaking in front of fiscally conservative groups, like Americans for Tax Reform, which have little to do with her role as chief foreign policy adviser to President Bush) have raised the suspicions of political reporters.

“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

According to Senor, Rice has been cozying up to the Republican elite.

“There's this ritual in Washington: The Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders -- about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor said. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- the first time a secretary of state has visited the Wednesday meeting.”

Rice is a very intriguing choice as Vice President for a number of reasons. First, there's the obvious. One of two politically powerful and critical groups of voters will be very disaffected by the result of the Democratic primary. If Barack Obama wins the nomination, women may recoil, and may reconsider voting for the Democratic nominee. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, especially if she wins by use of Super Delegates, African Americans could bolt the party as well. Rice's addition to the ticket would make McCain much more palatable to either of those groups than he would be otherwise.

But her gender and ethnicity are just a bonus, made more relevant because of the strife within the Democratic Party. She's a strong candidate regardless of whom the Democrats nominate because she's very bright, well-regarded (despite her connection to President Bush and the Iraq War), and in a "change" election, certainly would be a nice complement to the Washington-insider McCain. And if McCain didn't have a big enough advantage among neo-conservatives and war hawks, Rice doubles down that bet.

But, that's also her biggest weakness. Rice, more than almost any other Vice Presidential nominee, would make this election even more about the Iraq War than we previously thought possible, and that's not a smart battle, especially against Barack Obama, who so eloquently and almost eerily predicted the chaos the Iraq would would bring in a 2002 speech where he proclaimed that he was "not against all wars" simply against "dumb wars." Rice's closeness with President Bush and the Iraq War, with both so unpopular heading into the 2008 election, may sink McCain's candiancy.

Rice has other negatives as well. While she has incredible national security and foreign policy bonafides, that's not exactly an area John McCain needs help with. Rice also brings nothing to the table as it regards the electoral college, as she is not a big enough star to bring her home state of California into the Republican ranks, and she no pull in other states. And in an election focusing more and more on the economy, and away from foreign policy, she doesn't help McCain in that regard either.

Now, compare her to Mitt Romney. Romney has gotten a lot of attention lately, as despite his ice-cold relationship with McCain during the Republican nomination fight, Romney has raised money for McCain and has done everything possible since dropping out of the race to make himself an attractive VP candidate. And he brings a lot to the table. While many have said his Mormonism may be a negative, in crucial swing states in the fall, like Nevada and Colorado, Romney's popularity and religion may push McCain over the finish line, especially against Barack Obama, whose electoral strategy relies much more heavily on non-traditional Democratic states like Colorado and Nevada than on the traditional swing-states of Florida and Ohio. He also puts Michigan in play, because of his family history in the state, and may aide McCain in New Hampshire, neighbor to Romney's home state of Massachusetts. Plus, who better to balance McCain's foreign policy knowledge with a mastery of the economy than a former financial guru who made hundreds of millions of dollars on Wall Street. For the same reason Michael Bloomberg makes a lot of sense for Barack Obama, Romney makes a lot of sense for McCain.

And McCain has to think about the Republican Party too. If McCain, 71, plans on only serving one term because of his age, his choice of Vice President has to be somebody who can win in 2012. Can Rice? Can Romney? Or would somebody like Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty make more sense as a natural successor?

In the end, while Rice is a very attractive VP candidate because of both her tangibles and intangibles, I don't think she makes a lot of sense for McCain. Doubling down on the Iraq War, when the county wants out, and when the economy and the financial crisis is ever deepening doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But, her selection certainly would shake-up the 2008 election, and may help ensure Hillary Clinton is on the Democratic ticket, in one position or another.

The Lighting Round: 21, Detroit Tigers, and More

2008-04-05T14:50:00.002-04:00

So you start a new job, in the real world, after four years of undergrad followed immediately by three years of law school, and suddenly you lose track of your blog. Well, let's not make that a habit. So let's catch up on what I've missed.

* 21: The Movie - Good but not great * Last weekend I went and checked out the new movie, 21 based on the great and best selling book Bringing Down The House. For those unfamiliar, the movie, based largely on the book, follows a group of MIT whizkids who, with some help from one of their professors, put together a very successful card-counting operation which make them hundreds of thousands of dollars before the Vegas establishment catches on. The movie, staring Kevin Spacey as the morally suspect ringleader/professor, was good, and exciting, but could not hold up to the greatness of the book. And maybe I have been spoiled by NBC's great Las Vegas so casino-themed movies have a hard time measuring up. Las Vegas did such a great job of capturing the casino and Vegas atmosphere, I almost walked out of 21 thinking that had the TV show done a mini-movie with the same storyline, it would have been much better. That said, it was still a good movie, maybe a bit long, and yet with some storylines not fully fleshed out as they could have been (which probably tells you there's a bit of dead time in the movie which could have been better spent elsewhere) but in the end, worth seeing.

* Detroit Tigers start 2008 season 0-4 * Well, at least Jason Grilli is in mid-season form, giving up three straight hits in the seventh inning of yesterday's game against the Chicago White Sox including the game winning three-run home-run dropping the Tigers to 0-4. Obviously, this is not how the Tigers, who have the second highest payroll in baseball, and who have expectations through the roof, wanted to start the year. I refuse to panic though. Even though Nate Robertson struggled yesterday, for the most part, the problem has been the offense, and the slow start Miguel Cabrera, Magglio Ordonez, Gary Shef...Well, everyone has gotten off to except for Clete Thomas, the kid who never played above AA before Curtis Granderson got hurt. The offense is too good to not turn around. So, let's not panic and get concerned. We'll turn it around. A month from now, if we are 5, 6, 7 games under .500, then we can talk, otherwise...

* NFL Draft Coming Up * I had a dream the other night (I wish I weren't kidding) that I missed the NFL Draft (which would never happen in real life) and as I was struggling with my cell phone to find out who the Lions drafted, I found out they traded up to the #2 pick in the draft to take some running back I had never heard of. I remember being so furious. Then I woke up, thankfully. The Draft is less than a month away, and I keep hoping the Lions don't waste their first round pick on another offensive skill player. Yes, we need a running back. But we need linebackers and defensive lineman and offensive lineman much more. I'm getting very nervous though it's going to be offense, offense, offense again.

* NHL and NBA Playoffs on the horizon * I haven't written much (if anything) about the Detroit Red Wings and Detroit Pistons in a long time, but now that the meaningless regular seasons are nearing their end-point, and the playoffs get ready to start, I'm excited to start really paying attention again and blogging again. Both teams have had great regular seasons, and the Pistons have really seen growth in their young stars, which has allowed them to rebuild without anybody noticing. It's amazing. But no matter how great the regular seasons were, if they don't win the playoffs, it won't matter at all.

And with that, time to see if the Tigers can win a game. Eventually we do, right?

Okay...My Fault

2008-03-31T15:22:00.000-04:00

So maybe mobile blogging was not such a great idea as since my last post the Royals have scored four runs, chased Verlander, and taken the lead.

I'll have more tonight but today really shows how vulnerabe the Tigers bullpen is. Instead of bringing Joel Zumaya in during the 7th inning we had to use three relievers including Jason Grilli and two runs scored. Ouch.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

Mobile Blogging Opening Day

2008-03-31T14:44:00.001-04:00

Live from Comerica Park - So far so good for the Tigers who lead 2-0....Make that 3-0 after Miguel Cabrera blasted a home run to start the fifth inning. A great start to his Tigers career (we'll just ignore the errir in the first inning). Tigersd have eight hits through five innings so offense looks good, and Brandon Inge has looked good too.

Justin Verlander is on his A game today looking very much the part of the Opening Day starter. Mixing pitches well and keeping KC off balance.

So far so good from Comerica Park.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

You Have to Love Opening Day

2008-03-31T08:43:00.004-04:00

Opening Day 2008, and aside from NFL Draft Day, possibly my favorite day of the year. Everything is new and exciting and especially this year with the Detroit Tigers, with expectations so high and the ability to see such an incredible lineup with Miguel Cabrera, Edgar Renteria, and a healthy Gary Sheffield.

So long as it doesn't rain of course. See, I will be at Comerica Park this afternoon for Opening Day but I can't afford a rainout because I start work tomorrow, and skipping out on my first day to catch a rescheduled Opening Day probably wouldn't go over very well.

The Detroit Tigers are in an interesting position heading into the 2008 season. In 2006, nothing was expected, and Tigers fans were rewarded with a trip to the World Series. In 2007, a repeat was expected, but injuries to Kenny Rogers, Joel Zumaya, and Gary Sheffield derailed the Tigers season and the team finished second in the American League Central and missed the post-season. Now, though, with the additions of Cabrera, Renteria, Jacque Jones, and Dontrelle Willis, expectations are higher than at any point since the mid 1980s. It is not going to be match what everyone expects, especially when the Tigers bullpen is so questionable (Zumaya and Fernando Rodney are starting the season on the Disabled List; and Yorman Bazardo and Aquilino Lopez are starting the season in the 'pen, which is all you really need to know). But with an offense which should put up historic numbers, and hopefully a healthy bullpen later in the season, when it will really matter, this has all the makings of a legendary season for the team which dons the 'Old English D.' And if any manager will be able to keep a lid on the team's own, internal expectations, and keep the team full of superstars and Hall of Famers in line, it's Jim Leyland.

I'm happy it's Opening Day for another reason, because it will bring me back to blogging about sports here again. Since early December I have been writing so much about the 2008 political nomination battles, I really haven't spent time writing about the Pistons or Red Wings, or Tigers spring training. With the Major League Baseball season starting though, the NBA and NHL playoffs around the corner, and the NFL Draft only a month away, sports will take back some airtime in the blog. Let's just hope Detroit teams are a little more like Barack Obama and a little less like Hillary Clinton, and their successes out number their failures (what -- You thought I'd abandon politics completely? Not yet.)

Rasmussen, Gallup Show Democratic Race Heading in Opposite Directions

2008-03-22T13:57:00.003-04:00

If there is one thing I have learned from following the race for the Democratic nomination for President as closely as I have is that polls are, for the most part, worthless. Certainly we learned that in New Hampshire, and really in every case since. And there is no better evidence of that then what we have seen from both the Gallup and Rasmussen "Tracking Polls" which are taken daily and try to give people a sense of the race and how voter preferences react to news events. Certainly with the controversy over Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's speech on race Tuesday, and Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement Friday, there has been a lot for voters to digest. So how have they reacted? Well, that all depends on which pollster you put your faith in, Rasmussen or Gallup. Because the polls show the race moving in two opposite directions (one in Clinton's favor, one in Obama's) and it's not clear which to believe.

First, some background. Tracking polls are polls that are taken over a period of days. The sample size on each individual day is small, but when combined with previous days sample, it allows for a view of the race over time. As Rasmussen explains:

Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. The general election sample is currently based upon interviews with 1,600 Likely Voters. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

So how did the Wright story and Obama's response play in these polls? Not well, initially, in both polls. According to Rasmussen, before the Wright story hit, Obama led Clinton by 8 points, 50-42, on March 14. The next day though, as the Wright controversy hit full tilt, Obama's lead collapsed, and he led Clinton by a statistically insignificant one-point margin, 46-45 on March 15. Now remember, the Tracking Polls weight four days of polling, so for Obama to fall that dramatically in one day's results showed how much ground he really lost, and how quickly, to Senator Clinton. In the Rasmussen poll, though, Obama never fell behind Clinton. He rebounded to a 3-point edge on March 16, and a 5 point advantage on March 19 (47-42), the day after his speech on race.

Gallup, on the other hand, showed a much steeper decline for Obama. Despite leading Clinton 50-44 before the Wright scandal, Obama, unlike with Rasmussen, quickly fell below Clinton. On March 16, Clinton moved ahead of Obama, 47-45. And two days later, on March 19, before Gallup had factored in Obama's Tuesday speech on race in America, Clinton her largest lead in weeks, a 49-42 advantage. So, while Rasmussen showed Obama recovering, and building his lead back to 5 points over Senator Clinton, Gallup had Obama bleeding heavily, moving from a six-point edge before Wright to a seven-point deficit after.

Given how wildly different these polls were, it probably is no surprise that since Obama's speech, the two polls continue to wildly differ on how Americans have responded. Rasmussen, which showed Obama maintain strength after the initial Wright flurry, has shown a new fall for Obama since his well-received (at least in the media) speech on Tuesday. Despite leading Clinton by 3 points (46-43) two days ago, and one-point yesterday, today's newest poll shows Clinton leading 46-44, her first lead since March 9. Gallup, on the other hand, has shown an incredible Obama resurgence since his speech. Trailing 49-42 just four days ago, today, Gallup reports Obama has re-taken the lead, and has a three-point advantage over Senator Clinton, 48-45, regaining almost all of the support he lost in the initial wake of the Wright controversy.

The differences between the polls are striking, and they show the foolishness of radio hosts, television hosts, and even the campaigns who treat these polls like the gospel. I love Joe Scarborough and his Morning Joe show on MSNBC, but he continually talked this week about Obama's collapse in the Gallup Tracking Poll. And I kept thinking "But he's still up in Rasmussen's Daily Tracking Poll." And now that Obama's fallen off by Rasmussen's tally, but fully recovered by Gallup's, I don't know what to think. Which probably tells me that I, and everyone else, shouldn't think much about these polls.

Washington Post: Hillary Clinton Misleads Public on Balkin Trip

2008-03-21T13:03:00.004-04:00

I'm currently watching Bill Richardson's effusive endorsement of Barack Obama, essentially saying that Obama's historic speech on race in America given this Tuesday pushed him over the edge and convinced him to enthusiastically endorse Obama, despite his ties to the Clinton family, of whom he served twice (as Energy Secretary and Ambassador to the United Nations) in the Clnton White House. It's a huge endorsement for Obama, not just because of Richardson's stature, but because it ends the week for Obama on a positive note, after a very rough news cycle.

But I am almost more interested in a Washington Post story which I first read about on Ben Smith's blog over at Politico.. Earlier in the campaign, Hillary Clinton, trying to show her extensive foreign policy experience, talked about running from gunfire during a trip to the Balkins in 1996.

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

The only problem? According to the Washington Post Clinton's story is nothing more than fiction. In fact, there's a photograph of Clinton at the runway greeting ceremony where bullets were supposedly flying.

Doesn't appear Clinton appears too concerned about her well-being or that of her daughter or the young girl in the photograph. The Post, in fact, gives Clinton "Four Pinocchios" which means the statement not just contains "significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions" but is a real "whopper" (their words, not mine.).

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

Among the U.S. officials on hand to greet Clinton at the airport was Maj. Gen. William Nash, the commander of U.S. troops in Bosnia. Nash told me that he was unaware of any security threat to Clinton during her eight-hour stay in Tuzla. He said, however, that Clinton had a "busy schedule" and may have got the impression that she was being hurried on her way.

According to Sinbad, who provided entertainment on the trip along with the singer Sheryl Crow, the "scariest" part was deciding where to eat. As he told Mary Ann Akers of The Post, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'" Sinbad questioned the premise behind the Clinton version of events. "What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

This is not the only example of Hillary over-stating her foreign policy or executive experience. Her role in helping craft peace in Northern Ireland has been severely questioned and her recently released schedules shed no light on any substantive foreign policy experience she obtained in the Clinton White House. This continues to be a real question for Hillary Clinton. Not only does it mean that she does not have significantly more experience than Obama, it goes to her character and honesty with the American people. And according to the Washington Post, at least here, Clinton has been anything but honest.

What I'm Watching - A Lot of Movies

2008-03-19T23:40:00.003-04:00

It's been a nice period during the past few weeks, relaxing, watching a lot of Hardball and Countdown (and the new David Gregory MSNBC show, Race for the White House, which I'll post on in a few days) and even checking out Hannity and Colmes to see how badly the right is slandering Obama, but I think I may stop because it just raises my blood pressure and no good comes of watching it. Tonight, Hannity attacked Obama because some Super Delegate who has no connection to the Obama campaign said some outlandish things. I'm waiting for the exclusive on the racist tendency's of Obama's mailman next week and why this should force Obama to resign from office.

But this post is not about politics, it's about movies, because aside from the political nonsense, and the occasional Pistons and Wings games, I've been catching up on a lot of movies in the past few weeks. With a new Blu Ray DVD player and DirecTV providing me all of the movie channels free for three months, I've been filling my DVR with every HD movie I haven't seen yet (and even some I have). So what have I watched so far?

Michael Clayton (Blu Ray)- After finishing up Damages on Blu Ray (which I wrote about last week) I moved on to another legal drama short on the law on the new high-definition DVD format, the Oscar nominated and critically acclaimed Michael Clayton. And I was, well, pretty underwhelmed. It was good, don't get me wrong, but it didn't blow me away like I thought it was going to. I was surprised at how small a role Tilda Swinton had, especially after she won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, and while George Clooney was good, and the supporting cast was good, I don't know, maybe my expectations were too high. There were some great scenes, especially the final "negotiation" (not that you can really call it that) between Swinton and Clayton, but overall, I wasn't a huge fan. I do have to say though, Blu Ray DVDs are pretty amazing. The picture and audio quality just blows everything else out of the water.

Gattaca (Blu Ray) - I've said a few times before in the blog that I don't consider myself a "Sci-Fi Guy." I never got into Star Trek, never watched the Star Wars movies, but there are a lot of science-fiction movies and television shows I like, and Gattaca is near the top of the list. The mid 1990s thriller featuring Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law, is a story about overcoming the odds and perseverance as much as it is about genetic engineering and what life could be like in the "near future." Gattaca has always been one of my favorite movies (it's probably in my Top 5 with Field of Dreams, Almost Famous, The Fugitive, and maybe Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) and when the new version was released on Blu Ray this week, I jumped at the chance to add it to my collection. And with superior picture and sound (as mentioned above) you can't go wrong.

Deja Vu- I love having the movie channels and being able to DVR all sorts of films I never saw and watch them in HD whenever I feel like it. I watched Deja Vu yesterday, and for those unfamiliar, it stars Denzel Washington as an ATF Agent who uses new government technology to first investigate, then travel back in time to try to stop, a murder and terrorist attack by Jim Caviezel. Time travel movies usually make my head hurt, because of the logical problems time travel always presents, but unlike a lot of reviews of the movie, which were pretty harsh, but I liked this a lot. The ending, which I won't ruin, was both frustrating but somewhat logical. There were a lot of things which could have been done better, but overall, unlike many, I really liked Deja Vu and would recommend it.

Thank You For Smoking- I was really looking forward to this movie. It got great reviews, it was about Washington lobbying, had an all-star cast including William H. Macy, Rob Lowe, Katie Holmes and Mario Bello. And I hated it. Well, maybe hate is too strong. I thought it was over the top, too cute for its own good, and many of the characters were not characters at all but caricatures. And maybe that was the point because this movie was supposed to be a satire of lobbying, but, I just didn't find it very entertaining. Maybe that speaks more to me not enjoying satires, I don't know. But William H. Macy's character was a cartoon character, the great Mario Bello, whom I loved in The Cooler, was completely wasted in a nothing role, and that was basically it.

Stranger Than Fiction- Now here was a good movie. I'll be the first to admit I am not a huge Will Ferrell fan. I know most people are, but I just don't find his brand of humor entertaining. I have a similar view of most of Jim Carrey's most successful and well received comedies. And just as I loved Carrey in some of his more serious roles (like The Truman Show, which I am a big fan of) I really liked Ferrell in this more serious movie that still has a more understated humor which shines through. Dustin Hoffman is good here as well, and the story keeps you engaged from start to finish. You really don't know how the story is going to end until it does, and it keeps you guessing. Makes you wish Ferrell took on more semi-serious roles instead of the next sports-satire that he's gotten into a loop of doing, because somewhat surprisingly, he was very very good here.

So what's next, with time running down before I start work in April? I have I-Robot on Blu Ray, which I was told is quickly becoming the "demo disc" to use to really show off the power of the Blu Ray players. And I have a few other movies left on the DVR, but at least for the next few days, movies (and politics for that matter) take a back seat to basketball, as the NCAA Tournament starts up (BTW -- North Carolina over UCLA in the finals).

If Real Life Were The West Wing, Barack Obama Would Win The Presidency During His Speech on Race Tomorrow

2008-03-17T16:01:00.003-04:00

If Aaron Sorkin was penning the script for the race for the Democratic nomination for President, tomorrow morning, when Barack Obama speaks in the shadows of the city which helped create this country more than three hundred years ago, the race would be over.

After weeks of hostilities between not the candidates but their surrogates, after comments with racial undertones and blatant racism, deplorable comments and resignations, from both sides, it all my end tomorrow when Barack Obama gives a landmark speech in Philadelphia on race in the race for the White House. Barack Obama, the first African American with a legitimate chance to become President, has tried to stay above the racial divisions which still plague this country. But have it be the racial rhetoric from Bill Clinton or Geraldine Ferraro or the despicable, unforgivable statements and actions taken by Obama's own Reverend, Jeremiah Wright and the church Obama belongs to, he has been unable to stay above the conflict without becoming dragged into it. The son of a Kenyan student and a white Kansan, raised by his mother, by an Indonesian step-father and party by his two white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama's story and his rise to the precipice of the Presidency is uniquely and proudly American.

Every week, campaigns send out press releases and hold conference calls, trying to "set the agenda" for the day or the week. And they hold big speeches on the economy and Iraq and say to the media, "Hillary Clinton is giving a major address on Iraq today" or "Barack Obama is giving a major address on the economy tomorrow." Most of the time, despite the public claiming they want to hear about the issues and not the partisan bickering, and despite the media claiming the grit their teeth as they have yet another Democratic "strategist" come on to talk about the latest gaffe or misstep in the horse race instead of spending time discussing what really matters to Americans in their every day lives, it are these policy speeches which are left unaried and unheard by the vast majority of the American public. Was Hillary Clinton's major address on Iraq covered by all the major cable news outlets today? No. But comments by Barack Obama's church were covered from every angle, multiple times. The same ground trodden over and over again.

Tomorrow's speech should be different. Barack Obama speaking on race on our country and our politics. It could be a monumental day as this is not an ordinary speech. It could be the speech which marginalizes Obama as the "black candidate." The candidate who wins Alabama and Georgia and Mississippi despite receiving only a quarter of the white vote becuase he wins 90% of the black vote. Or it could be the speech that shows America that Obama is more than what he appears to be from the outside looking in and more than what his church says or his pastor does. The candidate that won overwhelmingly in Iowa and Utah and everywhere in between, attracting votes of people of all races and ethnicities.

You can almost hear the music from W.G. Sunffy Walden, the roar of the crowd, the feeling that one speech can move a nation and while it won't solve the problems of race in society, unlike the continued taunts of the Clinton campaign, words do matter. Words move people, words affect people. The words Barack Obama chooses tomorrow may very well decide whether he is the next President of the United States, and more than that, whether he can bring the country together, not just Republican and Democrat and Independent, not just rich and poor, but Black and White and Asian and Hispanic, and every ethnicity and religion and culture.

It is not an easy task, it is a high bar that would take somebody, some person, to reach. But nobody told Barack Obama this was going to be easy. He is not lucky to be who he is, he has worked for where he is, and if there is any politician that can inspire and lead a nation with his words, yes, just words, there is no question there is no better person in this country today to do so than Barack Obama. Maybe his speech tomorrow will be forgotten as soon as its given, as the 24-hour-news-cycle moves to some other scandal, some other campaign storyline. Or maybe it will win Barack Obama the Presidency, put the racial divisiveness of this campaign behind us , and convince Democrats that the only way to win in the fall is not continue to fight amongst ourselves, but to come together, and there is no way to do that, unfortunately, without addressing the racial tones which have dominated the campaign for the past two weeks.

I'd watch the speech tomorrow, something tells me we may see something truly special. If West Wing is any guide, tomorrow Barack Obama will win the Presidency.

Clinton Campaign Once Again Shows They Don't Understand The Delegate Process

2008-03-16T12:00:00.003-04:00

If one needed any further proof that one campaign understands what it means to be in a race for delegates and another campaign thinks they can win the nomination without the support of the majority of the delegates, there is no better example than what happened last night in Iowa.

While the country, and the Clinton campaign, is focused on the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania, the Obama campaign focused their attention on Iowa. While Iowa was the first state to hold a primary or caucus this year, the fight for delegates in Iowa did not end with Obama's victory on election night back in January (wow, does that seem like a long time ago). That's because while Iowa did apportion delegates on that night, those delegates were for county conventions. At the county conventions (which took place yesterday) delegates to the state convention were selected. And at the state convention, then delegates to the national Democratic convention will be elected. If it sounds confusing, don't worry, it's obvious the Clinton campaign doesn't understand the process either.

Here's where it gets interesting (at least for political geeks and junkies like myself, and where it should get interesting for anyone following the fight for delegates). In January, John Edwards finished in second place ahead of Hillary Clinton and was awarded 14 delegates. Well, since Edwards has now dropped out of the race, at the county convention, those 14 delegates were up for grabs. And while some Edwards supporters continued to vote for their candidate, and six of Edwards fourteen delegates remain with him, eight were lost. All eight went to Barack Obama. And elsewhere in the voting, one Hillary Clinton delegate defected to Obama's camp, giving Barack Obama, when practically nobody was looking, a net gain of 10 delegates last night.

So while Hillary Clinton netted 9 delegates out of Ohio, Obama netted more from last night's Iowa county conventions. That's remarkable, especially because Hillary likely won't gain more than 10 or 15 delegates from Pennsylvania in late April. How behind can the Clinton campaign continue to fall while still having a legitimate argument they should be the Democratic nominee? Every delegate is crucial right now, and the Obama campaign, despite being ahead over 150 pledged delegates, understands that, and takes no delegate for granted. The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, puts down the caucus system, which as NBC's Chuck Todd rightly points out is going to haunt Hillary through these county conventions and they continue to lose massive amounts of delegates making it impossible for them to overcome the pledged delegate lead Obama has.

And unless the Clinton campaign realizes how important actually gaining delegates is, instead of meaningless "momentum" or "talking points," they will continue to fall further and further behind Obama, even if their rhetoric tries to convince the world (and, most importantly, the remaining unpledged Super Delegates) the opposite is really true.

Lions Cut Kevin Jones and Kalimba Edwards; Another Proud Day in the Millen Regime

2008-03-13T16:25:00.003-04:00

It's another proud day in the Matt Millen regime as leader of the Detroit Lions as two more of his top draft picks have been cut from the Lions as the team has announced that both defensive end Kalimba Edwards (who just last season signed a lucrative extension with the team) and running back Kevin Jones are no longer part of the Lions team. While Jones may come back at a reduced salary, that isn't looking incredibly likely at this point, and Edwards won't be back.

Excellent. More top draft picks gone. So aside from Ernie Sims, Roy Williams (who himself isn't likely to be with the team past this season), Jeff Backus, and Calvin Johnson, is anyone left? Daniel Bullocks and Gerald Alexander I guess. Now, cutting Kalimba Edwards, I understand. He has consistently underperformed, he'd never lived up to expectations, and if Rod Marinelli, a defensive-line specialist, can't get anything out of you, it doesn't make much sense to keep you around.

Now Kevin Jones, that I don't understand. Yes, he's been injured. He missed most of the start of last season with a Lisfranc fracture and he tore his ACL near the end of the last season. But from all reports, he was ahead of schedule on his rehab and was all set to be ready for training camp. He and the Lions even just recently agreed that he'd be doing the rest of his rehab here in Detroit. Now, suddenly, he's gone. When healthy last season, Jones was very productive, and he's been productive his whole career when he's been healthy. And with the loss of TJ Duckett earlier this off-season, Jones was key to the Lions offense going into the 2008 season. Now he's gone, leaving the Lions with Tatum Bell, Aveion Cason, and Brain Calhoun (who spends more time on the injured list than Jones).

Which means the Lions will likely spend their first round pick on a running back in this April's draft, which is no less than disastrous. The Detroit Lions have so many holes in key positions (right tackle, defensive end, middle linebacker, outside linebacker) the last thing they need to do is spend ANOTHER first round draft pick on an offensive skill player. Matt Millen has already spent the majority of our first round picks on offensive skill players (Charles Rogers, Joey Harrington, Roy Williams, Mike Williams, Kevin Jones, and Calvin Johnson) and only two remain with the team, and Roy Williams isn't likely to be with the Lions past this season. The only first round draft pick who has made a real impact (okay, maybe Roy Williams has too) is Ernie Sims, who not coincidentally is the only defensive player Millen has chosen in the first round. Wasting another draft pick on a running back when Kevin Jones would have been fine if supplemented with a third round running back is another in a long line of failures by the Detroit Lions.

If we didn't have so many other needs, then maybe. But with the way the team stands now? What a disaster.

Why Bill Foster's Victory Tonight Was So Important For Barack Obama

2008-03-09T03:16:00.003-04:00

Something pretty extraordinary happened tonight, and not just Barack Obama winning the state of Wyoming by a 61-38 margin. In a special election to fill the seat in the United States House of Representatives vacated by former Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, a seat in a very Republican area of Illinois, in a District Hastert has won overwhelmingly since entering Congress in the 1980s, Democrat Bill Foster has become the newest member of Congress. Foster, endorsed by Barack Obama (Obama even cut a TV spot for Foster), despite not being a career politician, withstood a multi-million dollar effort from the Republican Party to hold the seat (and even overcome John McCain campaigning for his opponent).

This is great news for Democrats, as it continues to show that when given the choice between Republicans and Democrats, even in previously Republican areas, the country keeps trending Democratic, which bodes for well for picking up House and Senate seats in the fall and increasing our majorities in both houses of Congress.

But even more than that, tonight was a huge victory for Barack Obama, and not just because he gained Foster's Super Delegate vote tonight. One of the biggest advantages of Obama, and one of the biggest fears about Hillary Clinton, is that Obama is bringing so many new people to the Democratic party, and attracting so many independents and even Republicans in some areas of the country, that he'll be able to not just ensure victory for himself in November, but help even more Democrats win down the ballot. People coming out for Obama will likely vote for Democrats in House and Senate races and state races as well. Obama has done extraordinarily well in Republican states, and even if he can't win them in the fall, he'll force John McCain to spend time and to spend money in states that Republicans usually take for granted. Instead of concentrating his efforts on Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, McCain will have to spend precious resources in places like Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado.

And Obama's appeal has an added benefit to Democrats running in these Republican states. Even if Obama can't pull out a state himself, he may draw enough turnout to win a few House races otherwise unreachable. One of the biggest fears of Democrats in "red" states is that having Hillary Clinton at the front of the ticket will be an anchor which will sink the Democrats' chances to pick up crucial Congressional seats in swing and leaning-Republican districts. And when Super Delegates make their decision on whom to support, this downstream, down-ballot impact is going to be very important in their decision making. And having Obama's imprimatur certainly pushed Bill Foster over the edge, and it could push many other Democrats to victory as well. So Obama had a very, very good night tonight, because with Bill Foster's victory in the reddest of red areas of Illinois, it shows the power Obama can have leading the Democratic Party in 2008, and that's a lesson Super Delegates are not likely to soon forget.

Detroit Lions Take Step in Right Direction, Sign Cornerback Brian Kelly

2008-03-08T16:18:00.002-05:00

The Detroit Lions took a step in the right direction on Saturday, as both ESPN and NFL.com reported that the team had reached a three year deal with veteran cornerback Brian Kelly. Kelly, a longtime mainstay in the Tampa Bay secondary, became another in a lengthening list of former Bucs to join up with their former head coach Rod Marinelli this off-season. Already safetys Dwight Smith and Kalvin Pearson and defensive tackle Chuck Darby have joined the Lions, and Kelly is a key addition.

One of the weakest parts of the Lions defense the past, well, forever, has been their secondary. And after trading away Dre Bly before last season, and cutting Fernando Bryant this off-season, it was looking like another lost year for the Lions secondary. But after acquiring a young ballhawk of a cornerback in Leigh Bodden in the Shaun Rogers trade, and signing veterans like Smith, Pearson, and now Kelly, who have extensive experience not just with the Lions defensive scheme but with the Lions defensive coaching staff, it's a net plus for the Lions. The team is now stacked at defensive back, with five quality safetys (although veteran Kenoy Kennedy likely won't be with the team next season), two new starting corners (Bodden and Kelly) and decent nickel and dime backs (the team re-signed both Keith Smith and Travis Fisher, and the underachieving but still learning Stanley Wilson will be back). That's a step in the right direction.

Now I know that this post has a different sound and a more upbeat feel to it as compared to yesterday's post criticizing the Lions free agent moves thus far this off-season but Kelly is a big addition at a key area of need. Since that post we also signed defensive tackle Chuck Darby, who while not nearly as talented as Shaun Rogers, brings a work ethic far superior to anything Rogers brought to the table. That's not to say I'm now thrilled with the Lions off-season, because I'm not. We still need a running back and an offensive tackle, and it looks more and more as if one of those two positions will be filled in the first round of the draft, something I wish wouldn't happen because of our past draft history and are desperate needs on defense. We still need at least one defensive end, a middle linebacker, at least one outsider linebacker, and probably another defensive tackle for good measure. This team still has a lot of holes, and needs a lot of improvement. But I always get sucked in to being bullish on the Lions chances.

As much as I love to complain about their coaching staff and their personnel moves, I'm an optimist at heart when it comes to the Lions, which I realize, given their history, is beyond silly. I always end up seeing the positive in the Lions moves, and see big things in their future. I feel that way today with how we've solidified our secondary and turned one of the biggest weaknesses on the team into one of the biggest strengths. There's a long way to go, but at least for one weekend day, it was a good day at Ford Field.

What I'm Watching and Reading -- Damages and John Adams

2008-03-08T09:32:00.003-05:00

With the Bar Exam behind me, and with moving into my new place pretty much complete, I've settled into a nice pattern of doing nothing as I try to recharge and get ready to start work and the real world in April. I wake up, watch Morning Joe that I DVR, eat lunch, read books and watch my DirecTV and newly growing collection of Blu Ray DVDs, I watch Hardball, and well, life is good.

So what have I been watching and reading (aside, of course, from MSNBC political coverage)? Mainly one set of DVDs and one biography, at least for now. First with the DVDs, I've started watching Damages, the FX show about a cut-throat (literally as well as figuratively) law firm run by Glen Close. Close's firm is running a hundred-million dollar class action lawsuit against a crooked CEO played by Ted Danson, and the show is told from the perspective of the firm's newest associate, who may have only been hired because of her connection to a key witness in the case. The show flashes back and forth from the present time to the past (where the bulk of the story takes place) as the viewer tries to piece together why things did not turn out so well for the young associate (being arrested for murdering your fiancée is never a good ending). The cast is great (and has anybody ever realized that Tate Donovan, who plays Close's confidant, looks like a twin brother of former DNC Chairman and current Hillary Clinton campaign chair Terry Mcauliffe?) and the show is very addicting. I've been hooked on the episodes and I may finish blowing through them this weekend (there are only 13). Great show, well worth checking out. Sort of like The Firm on steroids.

Damages has been so addicting, I've fallen behind in reading, and getting through a fair number of books this month was a key goal of mine. Instead of continuing and trying to finish one of the numerous books I'm in the middle of (I read through half of Bill Clinton's My Life before law school started and never finished it, and there are numerous sports books, including Mark Frost's The Greatest Game Ever Played I'm partway through) I started reading David McCullough's biography of our second, and mostly overlooked President, John Adams. While Washington and Jefferson get most of the headlines in the history books, Adams was no less important, and HBO, next week, will begin airing a multi-part mini-series) based on McCullough's book starting Paul Giamatti as Adams and the great Laura Linney as his wife Abagail. I'm about 100 pages in right now, and as to be expected from a McCullough biography, it's a great read. I was hoping to have the 400-page-plus tome finished by the premiere on March 16, but that's looking less and less likely by the day, but I'm going to try.

Underwhelmed by the Detroit Lions in Free Agency

2008-03-07T09:27:00.003-05:00

We all knew the Detroit Lions were not going to be extraordinarily active in free agency. MLive.com's Tom Kowalski told us that weeks ago. A combination of a salary-cap crunch and the Lions not being thrilled with the players out there led to that, but so far, the Detroit Lions now have far more holes than they had a week ago, and for a team that wasn't very good to begin with, this is not good news.

We've lost both Boss Bailey (Denver) and Teddy Lehman (Tampa Bay) leaving us with who again at linebacker? The perpetually disappointing Paris Lenin and the oft-injured Alex Lewis. And Donte Curry, maybe? Of course we have Ernie Sims, but that's it. Now, yes, Bailey has never lived up to his potential, and Denver gave him a lot of money, and Lehman was also constantly injured, but still, it is not as if linebacker was a position of strength for the team where we had a lot of depth. Perhaps the theory is to draft a middle linebacker and shift Lenin to the outside, but I'm not encouraged.

We also have yet to find a replacement for T.J. Duckett, who took off for Seattle. As Nick Cotsonika writes in the Detroit Free Pres if the season ended today, due to injuries to Kevin Jones and Brian Calhoun, your starting running back if the season ended today would be Aveion Cason. And we wonder why the Lions are the way they are. Now, the Lions may draft a running back, but considering all the other needs we have, another top pick on an offensive player is the last thing the Lions should be doing. And for all the talk the Lions were going to sign Warrick Dunn, that seems more like wishful thinking than reality at this point.

We've also lost our starting right tackle (Damien Woody), cut our starting cornerback (Fernando Bryant), and traded away our Pro Bowl defensive tackle (Shaun Rogers). Now, that's not to say all these moved were bad. Rogers had more negative intangibles than positives he brought to the team, and I like the cornerback we acquired from Cleveland (Leigh Bodden). But our other additions? Two safetys (Dwight Smith and Kalvin Pearson) when safety is a position we were actually okay with (with two young players, Daniel Bullocks and Gerald Alexander, and a veteran Kenoy Kennedy) and a tight end (Michael Gains).

The Detroit Lions have a lot of work to do in the coming weeks and months. We need a running back, at least one offensive tackle, a defensive tackle (though rumors are we may sign Seattle's Chuck Darby to fill Shaun Rogers' shoes), at least one defensive end, probably two linebackers (at least), another cornerback. And the problem is, most of these are starters we need, not depth positions. And given how free agency has gone so far, I can't see the Lions being too successful in filling these holes.

There is No Such Thing as Momentum in Democratic Primary Politics

2008-03-05T09:32:00.002-05:00

It's "momentum" versus the "math" or so the media would lead viewers to believe. Barack Obama's momentum was snapped after twelve consecutive victories yesterday and Hillary Clinton has the momentum today. Hillary Clinton is "putting her coalition together" (white women over 45, those making under $50,000 a year, and Catholics). Voters are having "buyers remorse" about Barack Obama.

None of these things are true (as Chris Matthews pointed out on MSNBC's coverage of the primary last night). Here's what is true. Hillary Clinton had a very good night last night. She outperformed in Ohio, she won Texas, she picked up some delegates, and she likely froze in place the mass roll-out of Super Delegates for Barack Obama. But her victories last night had nothing to do with buyers remorse or momentum.

We look at exit polls and we say "the coalition is coming back to Hillary Clinton" but that's a complete fallacy. These voters have never left Hillary Clinton. White women over 45 in Ohio are not the same as white women over 45 in Wisconsin or white women over 45 in Virginia or Maryland or Washington state. Just because this demographic voted one way in one state doesn't mean the same demographic group will vote the same way in a different state. Citizens of Ohio and Texas have different concerns than voters in Virginia and Maryland. They aren't fungible, they aren't the same.

As Chris Matthews pointed out last night, you can't have buyer's remorse if you haven't bought anything, and these are all new voters, new states. It's not as if the voters in Virginia and Maryland and Washington state which gave Obama 20, 25-point wins have jumped ship. Voters in different states will vote different ways because they aren't the same.

For the same reason, momentum is simply illusory. The candidates are tied to the DNC nominating calender and what we see as momentum is really just individual states voting the way the those states are going to vote. Whether Ohio was on Super Tuesday or on March 4th, it was likely going to be a good state for Senator Clinton. Whether Louisiana was on Super Tuesday or February 9th, it was going to be a good state for Senator Obama. Yes, Barack won 11 contests in a row, but that was because he had a good run of states which favored him either because of demographics (high African American populations and/or large pockets of highly educated, wealthy voters) the nature of the process (caucuses), or the individual circumstances of certain states (states like Washington and Virginia have not been hurt economically like Ohio). It had nothing to do with momentum. So, now, similarly, Senator Clinton has no real momentum.

And the easiest proof of that is the next two contests. On Saturday, there is a caucus in Wyoming. On Tuesday, there is a primary in Mississippi. Barack Obama should win both by double digits, and potentially by 20+ points. So does that give him the momentum back? Of course not. That's because the results in Wyoming and Mississippi are not at all dependent on how Ohio or Texas or Rhode Island voted.

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have legitimate claims to certain "talking points." She's won the big states like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio (though I do get incredibly frustrated every time she mentions Michigan and Florida in that list). But unlike Clinton's claims to the contrary, Obama has won big states too, like Illinois, Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. He's won Colorado and Washington state, she's won Texas. The bottom line is, he's won more states, more delegates, and more votes. And her taking away the nomination at the convention is my biggest fear, not because I think she'd be a bad President, but because doing so would mean tearing the party apart, and would mean that African Americans and young voters, whom Obama has energized like never before, would abandon the party, and would guarantee defeat in the fall.

So we don't know what will happen next. Obama will likely gain back any delegates he lost yesterday in Mississippi and Wyoming. And Pennsylvania will have a six-week run up to the primary which will make Iowa look like child's play. And he still leads in delegates. And Michigan and Florida will likely have to re-vote at some point.

What we do know though is that all this talk about "momentum" and "buyers remorse" is nonsense. And don't let the media or the campaigns try to tell you any differently.

Super Tuesday II Predictions

2008-03-04T11:12:00.002-05:00

I continue to be very pessimistic today about Barack Obama's chances in Texas and Ohio, especially as Zogby has Clinton erasing a three-point Texas deficit overnight, and has her now leading by 3 in the Lone Star State.

My predictions? Clinton by 6 in Ohio, by 4 in Texas (but he'll win more delegates in Texas), by 5 in Rhode Island, and Obama by 20 in Vermont. At the end of the night, Obama will have netted more total delegates than Clinton (thanks to a big win in Vermont, close losses in Rhode Island and Ohio, and a delegate, but not popular vote, win in Texas) and this race is back to square one. Obama will win Wyoming and Mississippi in the next 10 days and then we'll have a six week blitz in Pennsylvania leading up to April 22. If Obama can win there, it's over. If he loses, then we have a fight over Michigan, Florida, and Super Delegates, and the party is ripped apart, and the Republicans win in November.

But tonight, it's going to be Hillary Clinton's night. Even if she ends up losing more delegates than she wins.

I Just Have a Bad Feeling About Tomorrow

2008-03-03T12:08:00.002-05:00

I just have a bad feeling about tomorrow.

Hillary Clinton is gaining fast on Barack Obama and I continually get a worse and worse feeling about tomorrow night. As I wrote yesterday Barack Obama has let expectations way out of control for tomorrow, and despite being down nearly 20 points in both Ohio and Texas as early as two weeks ago, he surged to such an extent that two close losses tomorrow could be devastating. And you have to give the Clinton campaign credit. From leaking the picture of Obama in African tribal dress and hedging on Obama's religion (there's no question, as we saw on 60 Minutes last night, that these rumors of Obama's religion have taken on a life of their own, and Clinton herself refusing last night to unequivocally say Obama is not a Muslim was very telling) to hitting him on experience and the "red phone ad" in Texas and NAFTA and this Canadian meeting where an Obama adviser praised NAFTA in Ohio, the Clinton campaign has stopped Obama's momentum in his tracks. Some of it is fear-mongering and some of it (the religion hedge) is offensive, but there's no question it's working. Hillary has re-taken the lad in Rasmussen's daily tracking poll, and she's widening her lead in Ohio in all but John Zogby's latest poll (and we all know how well Zogby did when he called a big Obama win in California) and closing fast in Texas after falling behind earlier in the week.

I just do not have a good feeling about tomorrow. I think there's almost no question Clinton wins Ohio, and it could be by a larger margin than people think. And Obama may be able to hold on in Texas, but it really depends on the African American and Hispanic turnout.

Clinton, even with victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, would still be 150 pledged delegates behind and 100 total delegates behind on Wednesday, and there's a good chance even if she wins the popular vote in Texas, she'll lose the delegate count. We forget that Clinton was supposed to win these states going away. Now, squeaking by may be a mortal blow to Obama's coronation. And the more I look at the numbers and watch MSNBC, the more I think tomorrow will be Clinton's night, in Ohio and Texas, and that the entire national storyline will change to Clinton once again being considered the front-runner. And all this despite an almost insurmountable delegate lead for Obama.

I just have a bad feeling about tomorrow.

Barack Obama and the Expectations Problem

2008-03-01T23:09:00.002-05:00

In many ways Barack Obama has run an incredible campaign. He faced off against the Clinton machine, a veteran of three national races (one Democratic primary in 1992 and Presidential races in 1992 and 1996), with a team that could raise more money than anyone, and with connections in more places than anyone running for President. And he's a one-term Senator, who nobody knew before 2004. Yet, despite the advantages of the Clintons, and Obama's lack of experience with national races, he has, in almost every way, run a far superior campaign than Hillary Clinton. He's raised more money from more people (over 1,000,000 donors, an amazing figure). He's won twice as many states, won more votes, many more delegates. And he had the foresight to organize in the caucus states and to prepare for a long race which would last far past February 5th.

But Barack Obama has not run a perfect campaign. Almost every time he has Clinton on the ropes, he can't put her away, in large part because his campaign fails to properly keep expectations low. After his stunning 9-point victory in Iowa, everyone had him dominating in New Hampshire, where he perpetually trailed. And when he lost by 2-points it may have well been 20. On Super Tuesday, Obama may have won more states and more delegates, but the states where he was on the rise, where the expectations got out of control, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, he lost, and in the case of Massachusetts, lost badly despite the support of both Democratic Senators (Ted Kennedy and John Kerry) and the Democratic Governor (Deval Patrick). So Super Tuesday was almost a net loss for Obama, despite being a great night overall because even though he badly trailed in New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts, he was rising so fast, the expectations got out of control.

The same thing is happening for "Junior Super Tuesday." Barack Obama, two weeks ago, was down almost 20-points in both Ohio and Texas. In that time, he has made an incredible run (as he does in every state he campaigns in -- Another reason why it is unfair to count Michigan and Florida) to cut the lead in Ohio to under 5, and to take the lead in Texas this week. And the stakes couldn't be higher. If Obama can win one, he all but eliminates Clinton. He wins both, and there's almost no question Clinton drops out of the race Wednesday morning.

The problem now is though, again, because Obama has risen so fast, and closed so quickly, and because his campaign has done a horrendous job of maintaining low expectations for the night, Hillary Clinton wins by practically showing up. Her campaign maintains that Obama must win all four states Tuesday, especially Texas and Ohio, or it shows that voters have lost faith in him. While that's not true, obviously, because both states were strongly in Clinton's column as recently as 10 days ago, it does not seem like such a sure thing anymore that Clinton will drop out if she loses Texas. Since Obama is now seen as the favorite in that state, if she wins, despite her huge lead two weeks ago, she's made a great comeback, and it will keep her in the race.

And there's evidence that the race in Texas is tightening. Zogby has the race down to 2 points from six yesterday. Other polls also show a Clinton rebound, which should continue after her tough national security ads in the state and her appearances on Saturday Night Live tonight and the Daily Show tomorrow, which should guarantee Hillary positive press coverage (and lots of free media) in the 48-hour run up to the primaries.

Maybe I'm just needlessly worried, especially so close to securing the nomination for Obama. But I really fear these expectations are almost unrealistic for Obama, and now, should he lose Texas, even by 2 or 3 points (and pick up more delegates in the process) it will be looked at as a loss, just like Super Tuesday was. And even though Obama has made up incredible ground among the Super Delegates, I can still see Clinton trying to wrestle this nomination away somehow, tearing the Democratic Party apart in the process, and making it impossible for us to win the fall.

So while Barack Obama may have run a great campaign, and a much superior campaign than Senator Clinton, it is not perfect, and his inability to keep expectations low have been a constant issue. I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt the campaign on March 4th.

Detroit Lions Trade Shaun Rogers

2008-03-01T08:41:00.002-05:00

So it figures that the first sports related post I have in a long time (too long really) relates to the Detroit Lions trading away one of their best players in the Matt Millen era. For all of Shaun Rogers' faults, and there were many, when he had his head on straight (which wasn't often) he was a dominating defensive tackle. Last season, when the Lions were winning and showing life, so was Rogers, and he was getting sacks, and blocking field goals, and even scoring a touchdown on a long run back. Then Rogers faded and likely not coincidentally, so did the Lions, and we were left without another lost season. So, after failing to convince Rogers to maintain his weight and his conditioning, the team did what they threatened to do years ago, and that was trade Big Baby away and get what they could for the former Pro Bowl player.

And the best they could do was a third round pick and cornerback Leigh Bodden from the Cleveland Browns. I actually much prefer this trade to the original swap with Cincinnati which would have netted the Lions only a third and fifth round draft pick. Here, we keep the early pick, and get a guy in Bodden who can step in and start at cornerback next year. Bodden, who is only 26, had what could be considered a career year last season, with six interceptions and 88 tackles. The Bengals Chad Johnson, who is loathe to give credit to an cornerback, once called Bodden the toughest defensive back he has to face, and given how much of a need the secondary was for the Lions, this was a big pickup. With the addition of safety Dwight Smith, the returning Daniel Bullocks (the young safety who missed all of last season with a knee injury), and the re-signing of Keith Smith, the Lions secondary actually doesn't look all that scary anymore. And considering the team will likely sign one more corner and draft at least one early on in the 2008 NFL Draft, there may actually be something to get encouraged about. Maybe.

Now the Lions still have a lot of holes to fill. Right tackle is a concern, though with the acquisition of Bodden, an offensive tackle in the first round of the draft may be more of a possibility than it was a week ago. Defensive tackle is also a concern now, as I'm not convinced Shaun Cody is ready to step in to a starting roll. And, of course, linebacker is a glaring weakness. Oft-injured Boss Bailey may join his brother in Denver, leaving the Lions without a strong-side linebacker and in desperate need of a middle linebacker, as I'm ready for the great Paris Lennon experience to end.

So, while the Lions may have done themselves well yesterday, acquiring Bodden, and adding him to Smith and Smith in the rebuilt Lions secondary, the team still has a looooooooong way to go to get back to respectability. But we already knew that, right?

No MSNBC At The Kellog Center...What Am I To Do?

2008-02-25T15:17:00.004-05:00

So I just got into the Kellogg Center for the two day gauntlet that is the Bar Exam, and I get into my room, and what do I find? No MSNBC. CNN, Fox News, Headline News, CNBC, even networks like G4, but no MSNBC. Which means, tonight, no Hardball. No Morning Joe tomorrow morning. No pre or post debate coverage. May be the best thing that ever happened to me (I can do my last second review of my hundreds of notecards without any distractions, and I can get to bed earlier than planned, but this is very distressing). How can there be no MSNBC? At least the debate will be streamed on MSNBC.com tomorrow night, but geez, this is a major disappointment.

I don't understand this.

Mike Huckabee on Saturday Night Live

2008-02-24T16:09:00.003-05:00

Blog posting has been a little light the last few days, but with a small break in the primary calendar (though with the debate last Thursday, Hillary's eruption over weeks-old mailers yesterday, and another debate Tuesday, it's not a real break) and the Bar Exam coming up on Tuesday and Wednesday (It may not be a good thing that I can tell you who Tim Pawlenty is but not recite the five-part test for the tort of negligent misrepresentation -- We'll see though) posting has slowed. But I'll pick back up on Wednesday night, and hopefully actually get back to talking about sports some. The Pistons have continued to play well, and the Wings have cooled off a bit, and before you know it the Detroit Lions' Super Bowl, the NFL Draft, will be here, so we'll pivot back to sports while hopefully celebrating Barack Obama's primary victory over Hillary Clinton (though if I've learned anything in life, it's not to count the Clinton's out of anything).

In the meantime, speaking of not counting somebody out of the Presidential race, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is still at it, still running for the Republican nomination against John McCain despite it being mathematically impossible for him to win (but, remember, he's in the miracle business, not the math business -- I wonder if that's better than the "solutions business" Hillary Clinton is in). And he did a guest spot on Saturday Night Live's weekend update Saturday, and as usual, it was a hilarious performance. If nothing else, Huckabee should get a prime time cable news show out of this run, and it would probably be a big success. If I were MSNBC, especially given the reputation it has as a liberal network, I'd put him on at 9:00 weeknights, and bump Dan Abrams back to 10:00. In any case, here's the video, good for a good laugh.

How Will Obama Run His White House? Just Look at His Campaign

2008-02-20T09:29:00.002-05:00

After another pair of double-digit victories last night for Barack Obama, a 17-point triumph in Clinton-friendly Wisconsin and a 50% victory in his native home of Hawaii, Barack Obama is now 10-0 since February 5th. It's pretty amazing actually. And a new Zogby poll not only has Obama leading Clinton by 14-points, but he has Obama up over McCain by 7, while McCain leads Clinton by almost double that amount. Ouch.

Hillary Clinton thought (and even said) that the campaign would be over on Super Tuesday, and her campaign had no plan, no organization, and no money to compete after that date. And Barack Obama did, and he's run up 10 straight double digit victories from Hawaii to the Virgin Islands to Maine and Washington and Louisana and everywhere in-between. That's what is amazing about Obama' run, it's not just that he's won 10 in a row, but he's won every contest by double-digits, most by 25-points or more, and has won in very region of the country. Wisconsin was perfect for Hillary Clinton demographic wise. A lot of working class white voters, lots of Catholic voters which support her (or, did before last night), and very few African Americans. Yet, she still lost by 17-points. Just incredible. And this was despite a barrage of negative ads run by the Clintons and a 48-hour news cycle which was very negative on Obama (his dust up with Deval Patrick's language and Michelle Obama's words about being "proud" of the country for the first time in her adult life).

One thing mentioned on Morning Joe this morning on MSNBC which I think was a great point. Hillary Clinton has constantly harped on the media coverage of the campaign, saying that the media is giving Obama a free ride and is overly critical of her campaign. But as was pointed out this morning, if Barack Obama had lost 10 races in a row, and lost them all by double digits, he'd be finished. This race would be over without question. All the pundits and party big-wigs would be urging Obama to get out for the good of the party, just as people are doing with Mike Huckabee on the Republican side. Yet, that isn't happening because the media, rightfully, is giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. But how often can the Clinton campaign say that states don't count because they vote for Obama, or because they lean Republican, or because they have caucuses? As has been pointed out before, it's hard to run for President when you've told half the country their voices aren't important, and that the only states which matter are California, New York, and New Jersey.

And another great point was brought up in MSNBC's First Read was that maybe you can see how Barack Obama would run his White House by looking at his campaign. As opposed to Clinton, he has been fiscally disciplined, he has competed everywhere and been prepared everywhere, and for all the talk that he has no experience, and he certainly has no experience running a national campaign (unlike the Clintons which have been through this three times before, with Bill's first Presidential primary fight and his two national elections).

The Clinton campaign has been surprisingly unprepared for the long haul. Remember when Clinton herself said the contest would be over February 5? This is the only way to explain the consistent caucus beat-down they take and the lack of preparation for Wisconsin. It's the Obama campaign that's doing the little things tactically. At some point, one has to wonder if Obama will start using the organizational success he's had in this campaign as a talking point about his own preparation to run the White House. After all, this is the largest organization either Clinton or Obama has run.

It's a powerful point. Obviously Clinton wasn't fully prepared to be a candidate on "Day One" so why would we think she would be ready to be President on "Day One?"

The only good news for the Clinton campaign? A disastrous appearance on MSNBC's coverage last night by a Barack Obama supporter, a state Senator from Texas, who was stumped by Chris Matthews when asked a simple question: "Can you name any of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments?" He was completely stumped and unable to come up with a single thing to say specifically. Now, Obama does have legislative accomplishments. He passed ethics reform in Congress. He passed health care in Illinois. He reformed the Illinois death-penalty system. But, this was a bad moment for this guy, Kirk Watson, and I don't think he'll be doing any more interviews for the campaign. It's must-see video and I've embedded it below.

I Don't Understand the Clinton Campaign's Wisconsin Strategy

2008-02-16T16:12:00.002-05:00

I'm at a loss to describe Hillary Clinton's campaign in the state of Wisconsin, one of two states holding their nominating process (Hawaii's caucuses being the other) on Tuesday. Today is her first day in the state, after Obama has spent nearly a week there, and According to the Milwauke Journal Sentinel she's leaving a day earlier than planned, taking off on Monday morning instead of Tuesday. So, in a state she really needs to win to break Obama's current momentum, where there are a lot of working class, lower-to-middle-class voters which she does very well with, and a state with a very small African American population, Clinton's strategy is to spend less than 48 hours in the state campaigning. Am I missing something here?

Whatever marginal gains Clinton will make by spending an extra day or two in Texas and Ohio as she has the past week will be dwarfed by the change in momentum that would come with a Clinton victory Tuesday night in the Badger State. And it's well within her grasp. Rasmussen had Obama's lead only 4%, 47-43 practically within the margin-of-error. Two other polls shown at Real Clear Politics have Obama up 4 and 5 respectively. If she could win Wisconsin, the media, which loves a comeback story, and loves a horse-race, and would like nothing better than for the Democratic race to go on forever, would flood the airwaves and newspaper front-pages with the story of Hillary's great comeback and how this would catapult her to victory in Ohio and Texas on March 4th. There is plenty of time to campaign in those states, Clinton should have been in Wisconsin days ago, and she certainly shouldn't be cutting back her stay with the polls so close. It's almost baffling. Clinton, even if she is raising $1 million a day online as her campaign says, couldn't buy all the positive and free media she would get from stopping Obama's momentum in Wisconsin. This is a critical error.

And instead of appearing in Wisconsin herself, Clinton instead is running the first negative campaign ads of the campaign, bashing Obama for not agreeing to debate, and then adding on some policy distinctions (or, depending on your take, distortions). But, as Wisconsin Governor and Obama supporter Jim Doyle has said, it's very disingenuous to attack a candidate for not debating in Wisconsin because it doesn't give Wisconsin voters a chance to compare the candidates, when the candidate running that ad isn't even campaigning in Wisconsin. How could Obama agree to a debate? Clinton is literally in the state, campaigning, for less than a weekend. To knock Obama for not giving Wisconsin voters a chance to see the candidates when Clinton herself is spending no more than 48-hours in the state takes a lot of chutzpah.

And because I think the Obama response ad is so well done, I've embedded both the second Clinton attack ad, and the second Obama response below. Judge for yourself which has the stronger message.

This Is Why Super Delegates Shouldn't Be Counted -- Yet

2008-02-11T22:00:00.000-05:00

Every news organization, have it be the Associated Press, or CBS News, or NBC, or the New York Times, has their own calculation of the delegate fight between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Some of the discrepancy is because somehow many of the states that have already voted have yet to finish allocating their delegates, many from states Barack Obama won, like Colorado and Illinois, and even Senator Clinton's win from California has yet to be fully reported. New Mexico hasn't even figured out who won that state's popular vote yet, and they voted over a week ago. But, the big reason why CBS News has Obama winning the delegate race 1134-1131 while most other news organizations have Clinton slightly ahead is because these networks are counting these uncommitted Super Delegates. No network has the same list of supposedly pledged Super Delegates and even 2008 Democratic Convention Watch an invaluable blog covering these Super Delegates is having a hard time keeping it straight. Tonight the site posted an "Ultimate Delegate Tracker" which showed that none of the major news networks can arrive at anywhere near a consensus on whose up and whose down. All they can agree on, apparently, is that it's close. Barack Obama's official "Results Center has him leading 1031-944, but that doesn't include the Super Delegates, and it includes projections of delegate allocations which the news networks have not yet added into their tallies.

The biggest problem, though, is the networks shouldn't be counting the Super Delegates at all in their reporting. And I'm not just saying that because currently Senator Clinton has anywhere from a 75-100 lead among those Super Delegates (almost mirroring Obama's lead in the pledged delegates). First, the media has been talking about how if Barack Obama wins the most pledged delegates, but loses the nomination fight because of these Super Delegates, the party will fracture. And that's probably right, but only if people understand that the election is being taken away from him. By reporting the inflated Super Delegate numbers, it appears Obama has been fighting from behind, when in truth, he's never trailed among pledged delegates. He started ahead in Iowa, and has never trailed, not one day of this primary campaign.

But the real reason I have such a problem with counting Super Delegates is they are uncommitted and change their mind at any time, for any reason. Tuesday's New York Times has a story about how Hillary Clinton supporters believe she must win both Texas and Ohio on March 4th to remain a viable candidate. And it quotes some of her Super Delegates as considering bolting and moving their support to Barack Obama.

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.

Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately “go with the flow,” in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.

These Super Delegates are so uncommitted and so free to change their minds at any time, there is no credibility in any tally of Super Delegates. Just because Super Delegate X tells NBC she's supporting Hillary Clinton on Monday doesn't mean she won't tell CNN she's supporting Barack Obama on Wednesday and tell the Associated Press she's undecided on Friday. There's a reason these numbers aren't consistent, because the Super Delegates themselves have no obligation to be consistent, and can change their mind up until they vote (if they do) at the Democratic Convention.

So to keep reporting this facade of Super Delegate support, which at best is a rough estimate subject to wild swings in support, and at worst is a misleading total which causes average observers to believe in a lead which is only on paper, and which isn't inductive of anything other than how the morning went for any particular Super Delegate, is pretty irresponsible. Reporting on the Super Delegates is necessary, and important, but to include them in the totals which news networks report as the current delegate count isn't right, especially given these comments in the New York Times that the delegates aren't even fully committed to the candidate they claim they are for. NBC News does not include Super Delegates in their calculations (their current count is Obama 959, Clinton 905) and other networks should follow their lead.

And a quick aside, how impressive is Michelle Obama? A lights-out performance on Larry King tonight, showing that she's every bit as smooth and solid as her husband is, if not more-so. As Clinton supporter Paul Begala said afterwards, Obama should be wearing a "I'm Michelle's husband" button when he campaigns. You really get the feeling like we saw in the 1990s with Hillary Clinton, if Michelle wanted a future in politics, it would suit here just as well as it does Barack.

Obama Increases Pledged Delegate Lead With Saturday Sweep

2008-02-09T22:22:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama, after winning more states and more delegates on Super Tuesday, increased his pledged delegate lead, and cut in half Hillary Clinton's lead among all delegates (including those uncommitted and unknowable Super Delegates) by going 4-4 with dominating victories in Washington, Nebraska, Louisana, and the Virgin Islands.

In Washington and Nebraska, two caucus states, Obama won with 67% of the vote in each state, and in the Virgin Island, Obama won by an overwhelming 90-7 tally, and that's no misprint, as Obama earned 1772 votes to Hillary's 149. Ouch. It was closer in Louisiana, but Obama, with over 50% of the vote in, held a 53-37 edge. All in all, Obama may gain upwards of 35 or 40 pledged delegates today, adding to 30+ delegate lead coming into tonight, giving him 20 victories in states and territories in 30 contests, an absolutely impressive number.

What is most impressive about Obama's victories is not just their breadth, but how he wins all over the country. Where 50% of the voters were black (Lousiana) and where hardly any black voters live (like Iowa and Utah and Idaho). Could you get three different states than Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska? And Obama won all three going away. Add in the Virgin Islands, and it was a pretty good night for the Obama campaign.

Interesting on the Republican side with Conservatives shunning John McCain and giving Mike Huckabee some victories tonight despite the Republican race being all but wrapped up for McCain. Just incredible. Republicans eating their young. With the Democrats headed for a vicious and possibly forever damaging convention fight, you'd think the Republicans would put whatever small differences they have aside and unite behind one candidate to give the party the best chance to beat either Hillary or Barack come the fall. Guess not.

11:15 Update: And Mike Huckabee continues to lead both in Washington and Louisiana, which along with his big win in Kansas earlier in the day, may give him, as well as Obama, a clean sweep over John McCain. Just stunning the contempt the right has for their presumptive nominee. And I just love Mike Huckabee's comment to CPAC today. He said that even though some have said that it is mathematically impossible for him to catch McCain, he "didn't major in math, [he] majored in miracles and [he] still believes in them." Might be the best line of the campaign, maybe second to Barack Obama's line about John McCain and the "wheels falling off the Straight Talk Express."

A Significant Democratic Super Delegate Concern

2008-02-08T23:00:00.000-05:00

By now, most everyone who has heard about or has followed or has even read a newspaper knows about the problem the Democrats are currently having with these so-called "Super Delegates." Basically, along with thousands of "pledged" delegates coming from the primary and caucuses across the country, which are apportioned based on the popular vote in a given state and/or Congressional district, the Democrats have over 700 "Super Delegates" who each get one vote in the primary fight. These delegates have never been relevant before, but with the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going down to the wire before, and it looking like neither candidate may have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination without the Super Delegates, this is a rising concern for Democratic voters.

The most likely scenario, at the moment, is that Barack Obama will win more states, more pledged delegates, and perhaps even more popular votes than Hillary Clinton, but that Clinton will use her and her husband's influence, power, and legacy to lock-up enough Super Delegates to, if you are a Clinton supporter, win, or if you are an Obama supporter, steal, the nomination. Who are these Super Delegates? Every current Democratic Congressman, Senator, Governor, former President and Vice Presidential candidates, former Speakers of the House and Senate Majority Leaders, and then, and here's where it gets troubling, hundreds of members of the Democratic National Committee.

This is where the real problem is, with the DNC Super Delegates. I have no doubt that DNC Chairman Howard Dean deserves to be a Super Delegate, but what about the 400 others? Who even are some of these people? And right now, it's these unknown, unaccountable, mysterious DNC Super Delegates that are deciding this race. According to 2008 Democratic Convention Watch, a must visit website which tracks Super Delegates, Hillary Clinton currently has the support of 111 of these DNC Super Delegates to Barack Obama's 46. And while Obama currently leads in pledged delegates, Hillary Clinton has the overall delegate lead almost exclusively because of these DNC Super Delegates. Obama and Clinton each have the support of 10 Democratic Governors, and while Clinton has an 87-66 lead among elected Congressmen and Senators, it's the DNC Super Delegates giving her the lead at the moment.

It would be awful enough for Democratic Congressmen and Senators to swing the election away from the result of the pledged delegates, but at least those Super Delegates are accountable to their constituents. But what if Hillary Clinton's margin of victory is due entirely to these DNC Super Delegates who are accountable to nobody at all? That is an even bigger mess and larger concern than anything the DNC is currently looking at.

As Bradley Whitford's character on West Wing said, when in the season finale of the sixth-season the Democrats faced a similar fight at the convention, picking the next leader of the free world was not exactaly in the job description of these "Super Delegates."

Josh (referring to Democratic delegates): "They are only here to grunt, cheer, and stomp their feet at every cheap applause line.

[. . . ]

Rhonna: So you don't think they are qualified to do the job?

Josh: The job as previously constituted was to clap and wave noisemakers for five hours straight.

Rhonna: So the Delegates sole purpose is to pick our party's nominee [. . .] and we selected them with no regard for their ability to perform that job?

Josh: Did I mention we have a helluva balloon drop planned for Thursday?

Clinton Campaign: Obama Dodging Debates

2008-02-07T08:27:00.000-05:00

In an effort to move past the storyline of the day, which is Hillary Clinton's cash crunch which forced her to loan $5 million to her campaign last month and now has many of her top people working without pay, her chief pollster Mark Penn was on Morning Joe this morning (it was Penn's consulting company which apparently is being paid millions by the Clinton campaign, so maybe that's why Clinton is burning through cash at an alarming rate) and he tried to change the story away from "Hillary is broke" to "Obama is scared to debate."

An old political axiom says you don't challenge your challenger to a debate unless you think you are behind and before Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign challenged Barack Obama to an ambitious series of debates in February, with at least one a week, and sometimes more. Obama, at a press conference yesterday, demurred, saying he was more interested in meeting voters one-on-one instead of in a debate setting, and besides, we've already had 18 debates already, the most of any campaign.

The Clinton campaign strategy, though, is very smart politically on a variety of levels:

1) First, it forces Obama, if he accepts, to take part in debates which Clinton tends to do very well in. Obama is a much better stump speaker than debater (Clinton is opposite and loves and does well in debates) and thus more debates would likely favor Hillary.

2) It forces Obama off the campaign trial. One thing is clear from Super Tuesday and the results of the campaign so far: The more time Obama spends in a state giving speeches, holding rallies, and meeting voters, the better he does. His rallies are inspirational and voters like him the more they see him. As Obama explained yesterday, his biggest problem is voters still don't know him very well. We assume everyone has been paying attention to the campaign, but truth is, people know Hillary Clinton and who she is, what she's done, and what she stands for, but Obama is still a relative unknown to a lot of voters. He needs that one-on-one voter contact to get people in his camp. The longer Clinton can keep Obama off the trial, and in debate prep and traveling to and from debates, the better for her campaign.

3) It allows her, if Obama declines to debate, to paint him as scared and not willing to let the voters compare the candidates directly.

It's a great strategy by the Clinton campaign and it's a tough spot for Obama. He needs that voter contact, and he needs to keep holding rallies and meeting voters in more intimate settings. Debates won't allow that, and spending a day preparing, and another half a day traveling could really throw Obama off his game and play right into the Clinton's hands. But he can't duck all these debate challenges either. It's a tough situation to be in for the Obama campaign.

Obama Maintains Pledged Delegate Lead

2008-02-06T12:14:00.000-05:00

We don't know a lot coming out of Super Tuesday, like whom the Democratic nominee will be, but we do know some things. First, heading into the night, Barack Obama had more pledged delegates (due to his convincing wins in Iowa and South Carolina, his delegate tie in New Hampshire (despite losing the popular vote), and his delegate win in Nevada (again, despite the loss in popular vote)). We also know he ended the night with a bigger pledged delegate lead than he started with due to winning more states and more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton did.

The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.

NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.

In a "battle for delegates" and in a campaign where the Clinton campaigns own Communications Director Howard Wolfson has said only delegates matter, the fact that Obama not only won more states (13-8 with a possibility a win in still-counting-votes New Mexico, where with 98% of the vote counted, Obama was leading by less than 100 votes) but more pledged delegates is a big win for him. And that's despite Hillary Clinton's wins in population centers like California and New York. How did that happen? Obama won much bigger margins than Clinton did across the country. She only won by 17% in her home state of New York. He won by 32% in his home state of Illinois. She won by 10% in California and New Jersey and Arizona. He won by 50% in Alaska, 35% in Colorado, 36% in Georgia, a whopping 62% in Idaho, 48% in Kansas, and 35% in Minnesota (and to be fair, Clinton had a huge margin of victory in her former home of Arkansas). He also won the close battles, like Connecticut (51-47 victory) and Missouri (49-48). And at the end of the day, he won more delegates, and thus is in a better position today to win the Democratic nomination than he was yesterday.

So what to do about those Super Delegates? Clinton's lead on the Democratic nomination right now is 100% due to her pre-committed Super Delegates, who, of course, are not committed at all, and could abandon Clinton at any time. As Barack Obama said today at a news conference if he enters the convention having won more states and more pledged delegates from those states, it is going to be very difficult for those Super Delegates to take that victory away because the Democrats around the United States will have spoken and their candidate would be Obama. And then there was this nugget from a very insightful column by Politico's Roger Simon. Maybe the Super Delegates won't even get seated at the convention if Obama has the pledged delegate lead.

But what happens if the margin of victory at the convention is the superdelegates. Is that the the way the party really will choose a nominee?

By letting the big-shots pick the winner?

Instead, there could be a huge floor flight. The convention can make whatever rules it wants, and I am guessing there would be a fight to bar the superdelegates and accept the votes of only the pledged delegates.

So maybe the people will speak. But, this only becomes relevant of course if Obama or Clinton fight all the way to the convention and Obama has the pledged delegate lead but not the Super Delegate lead. Which means Obama still has work to do, especially in Ohio and Texas. But if he can win the next six or seven primaries and caucuses (Louisana, Washington state, Nebraska, and Maine this weekend, Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland a week from yesterday, and Hawaii and Wisconsin a week from Saturday) he will erase Clinton's delegate lead, Super or not. But if he can't split the Ohio-Texas "mini Super Tuesday" on March 4th, it may not matter at all.

Wrapping up Super Tuesday: Obama Wins More States, Likely More Delegates

2008-02-06T01:00:00.000-05:00

So, it's 1:00 on Super, well, now Wednesday, and do we know anything more than we did before the voting started? Well, according to NBC, Barack Obama will likely end the night with more delegates won tonight than Hillary Clinton. He won many more states (13) than Clinton did (8) including Connecticut, which was unlikely, and Missouri, which is a big victory even though it was only by roughly 5,000 votes.

The problem for Obama? Clinton won California. And despite momentum being on Obama's side, she held on in New Jersey and won big in Massachusetts. Even though Hillary was leading by double digits in those states, because of Obama's recent surge, his losses though look much worse than they would have otherwise.

The other problem is the calculation of delegates. The Obama campaign claims they will have the most delegates at the end of the night, and NBC's Chuck Todd agrees, but other networks have Clinton with an edge. I trust Chuck Todd, who had the delegates within 5 or 6 of each other, a virtual tie even though Hillary won the big states (New York and California).

Overall though, this was a big night for Obama. 13 wins for Obama, likely/possibly more delegates, and maintain their overall lead in pledged delegates (though we likely have to wait until tomorrow to find that out for sure). And the upcoming states favor Obama like Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Washington D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.

It's still anybody's race, and if the delegates stay in Obama's favor, that's a big, big victory.

Final Zogby Poll: Obama Up 13 In California, Clinton Gaining Elsewhere

2008-02-05T01:42:00.000-05:00

With just hours to go before voting starts in Super Tuesday states across the country (and don't forget about American Samoa), Barack Obama is gaining steam in California, while Hillary Clinton is re-gaining ground in former strongholds like New Jersey and Missouri. According to Pollster John Zogby's final tracking polls, Obama now enjoys a 13-point led in California, a remarkable accomplishment if accurate, but he now trails by 5 in New Jersey (after being tied yesterday, signaling a strong move towards Clinton in the past day or so) and his five-point Missouri lead has been cut to 3, just outside the polls margin-of-error.

n California, which alone provides more than one-fifth of the Democratic delegates needed for the nomination, Obama led Clinton by 49 percent to 36 percent, the poll found. The margin of error was 3.3 percentage points.

Clinton pulled into a 5-point lead in New Jersey, 46 percent to 41 percent, after being tied on Monday. Obama held a 45 percent to 42 percent edge on Clinton in Missouri. Both polls had a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.

Obama had a 20-point edge in Georgia, aided by a more than 3-to-1 lead among black voters.

The New Jersey lead by Clinton is also evident in the final Rasmussen poll where she leads 49-43. Not a surprise really given that New Jersey is part of the New York media market and is basically Clinton's home turf being Senator from neighboring New York. The fact that he was close at all there was stunning. The move back to the middle in Missouri is troubling though, as Obama really needs a win there, especially because it will likely be hours before the results of California are known, and with early newspaper deadlines across the country and the expectations to meet on cable and network coverage of Super Tuesday, Missouri will be looked at as a big determinate of how the evening is going. Clinton gaining ground there could be troubling news, especially if she wins.

Overall, especially because of how California seems to be surging for Obama, the Zogby numbers are good news, but may feel a bit more comfortable if the lead in California was a bit smaller and the lead in Missouri was a bit larger. We'll see how it all plays out in a few hours.

Obama Inches Ahead in Massachusetts Thanks To Ted Kennedy

2008-02-04T13:12:00.001-05:00

Momentum really seems to be swinging Barack Obama's way at the moment, with a new poll out this afternoon giving Obama the lead in Massachusetts, once considered safely in the Clintons (I'm using the plural for a reason) column. The Real Clear Politics average lead for Clinton in the state, averaging the most recent polling data, is 17.5 points, but the Boston Globe is reporting this afternoon that Obama now has a statistically insignificant 2 point advantage, but a lead is a lead, especially in a race which was a 20-point gap 10 days ago. And the reason? Ted Kennedy's endorsement.

Obama has 46 percent to Clinton's 44 percent, while 7 percent of Democratic and independent voters likely to vote in the Democratic primary were undecided.

The endorsement last week by Senator Edward M. Kennedy for Obama is a key factor. Asked to size up the impact of three endorsements for Obama and Clinton, 43 percent of Democratic respondents cited Kennedy's endorsement as the most influential, followed by Bill Clinton's of his wife (23 percent) and Oprah Winfrey's of Obama (9 percent).

"The Bay State's senior senator Ted Kennedy clearly has more clout in Massachusetts than the popular former president, Bill Clinton," said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University. "Add to that the backing of Senator Kerry and Governor Patrick, with the resonant message of change as well as the Kennedy call for 'a new generation of leadership' and you have the reason why what was once Clinton country has become an Obama opportunity – and a political choice between the nostalgic and the new."

Obama has the support of all the major Democratic leaders in Massachusetts (Edwards, Senator John Kerry, and Governor Deval Patrick) but the state has long been considered safe for the Clinton campaign. Not anyomore. Like New Jersey, which pollster John Zogby has a 43-43 dead heat, Clinton may not have the firewall on the East Coast like she may have assumed. And given softening poll numbers in California and Missouri, it is a tight race. Although, this does get back to the expectations problem for Obama, where before, coming close in California would have been a victory. MSNBC's First Read points out though, now, the pressure may be on Obama to win California which is going to be tough despite his newfound support, thanks in large part to early voting which took place while Clinton had her 20-point advantage. Still, while NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd explains in his appearance on the Today show below, previewing Super Tuesday, that the Obama campaign may want a few more days to gather momentum, I almost wish the election were already here, because there may never be a time Obama is higher than right now.

Maria Shriver Appears at Obama Rally, Endorses Barack's Campaign

2008-02-03T18:05:00.000-05:00

Joining her cousin Caroline Kennedy, Oprah Winfrey, and Michelle Obama (and after watching her speak, you really understand just how impressive she is, she's every-bit as charismatic and impressive as her husband is), the First Lady of California, Maria Shriver made a surprising appearance and speech at UCLA this afternoon, praising Obama (saying that if he were a state, he'd be California) and giving a rousing speech in support of Obama's campaign and urging people to vote and talk to the friends who may undecided and convince them to vote for Obama. With recent polls showing Obama not just gaining on Hillary Clinton in California, but taking the lead, with every vote counting and every vote mattering, Shriver's endorsement and appearance could be very important.

I had a disagreement with my friend Jared about that, but my point is, not that Shriver will change a lot of minds, but her appearance should get a lot of play throughout California television newscasts and newspapers. And in a state like California, which is so large, and so expensive, where you can't be everywhere or advertise everywhere (even if you do raise over $1 million a day), that free media is priceless. And who knows how important Shriver's endorsement and appearance will be among undecided women. The appearance wasn't to get my vote, or Jared's, but to get women's votes in California, and she may have succeeded in that regard.

And I'm more convinced than ever Obama needs to make a cross-country visit to California on February 5th. Neither he nor Hillary Clinton can put this election away on Super Tuesday, but if he can win California, where Clinton was up almost 20 points less than two weeks ago, he goes a long way to winning the nomination. And it's in his grasp, he has it. He has a midnight rally on February 4th/February 5th, and every local California morning show has video of thousands of people turning out for Obama, that could tip the balance. Now's not the time to do everything in your power to win. A trip to California might just get it done.

Obama "Yes We Can" Music Video

2008-02-03T04:19:00.001-05:00

In one of the cooler bits of, I don't even know what to call it, art I guess, Will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas has put together a video combining Obama's "Yes We Can" speech, I think from the night of the New Hampshire primary (although I could be wrong on that -- And as a quick aside, I feel that was his best public speech of the entire campaign, even better the post-Iowa and post-South Carolina speeches), put it to music, added in a bunch of musicians and actors (like Scarlett Johansson and Grey's Anatomy's Kate Walsh) and other Obama supporters (like Hall of Fame basketball star Kareem Abdul Jabbar) speaking and singing along with the Senator. What results is an incredibly inspirational message of hope, exactaly what the Obama campaign is going for, which is probably why the video is now embedded on the campaign homepage. It's really well produced from a technical standpoint, and inspiring from a, well, inspirational standpoint. I almost wish Obama could run it on the air. Buy 4:00 worth of airtime in the Super Tuesday states Monday night and air it. You watch that, and it's so well done, and well produced, you can't help but get inspired by it.

Zogby: Obama Up 4 In California, 20 in Georgia

2008-02-03T04:00:00.000-05:00

There's a good reason why I set my alarm for 2:45 this morning (and even then, I still actually wasn't able to pull myself out of bed until close to 4:00). That's because pollster John Zogby was releasing his new Super Tuesday tracking polls overnight, and what we saw, at least for supporters of Barack Obama, was better than anything we could have imagined.

Zogby's latest polls show the race between Obama and Clinton as close as it comes, and for the first time in a major poll, Obama leads in California (and outside the margin of error to boot), has a gigantic lead in Georgia, and is within a hair in Missouri and New Jersey, the former a key battleground and "swing" state not just in the general election but in this primary race, the latter being Clinton's de-facto home turf.

"It looks like we have some serious horse races going on with Clinton and Obama," said pollster John Zogby said. "However it turns out, we can be pretty sure it is too close to be resolved on Tuesday."

Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, has a comfortable 20-point lead in Georgia fueled by a more than 3-to-1 advantage over Clinton among black voters.

In California, the poll found Obama led Clinton by 45 percent to 41 percent, with a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points. Clinton held statistically insignificant 1-point leads on Obama in New Jersey and Missouri, well within the margin of error of 3.4 percentage points in both surveys.

If Obama has a chance to grab California (and remember, he has a rally scheduled for today with his wife Michelle, Caroline Kennedy, and Oprah, really going for the women's vote to try to pull even closer to, or further ahead of, Clinton) you almost wish he wasn't spending the last days before Super Tuesday on the East Coast. After spending Saturday in Idaho, Minnesota, and Missouri, Obama spends Sunday in Delaware, and Monday in New Jersey and Massachusetts, where he ends his Super Tuesday campaigning with an 8:00 rally in Boston with Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. You almost wish he could get to California one last time, and a red-eye flight out there for some quick appearances on the day of Super Tuesday, which while exhausting and taxing, may just put him over the edge in that state, and may win him the nomination, no matter how the delegates turn out. And if Obama can win in New Jersey? That's a devastating blow to Clinton as well.

Obama supporters, though, also need to not take anything for granted. Clinton padded her lead by 4 points in the latest Gallup national tracking poll, and she added 2 points in Rasmussen's latest numbers. Rasmussen also has Clinton leading in most Super Tuesday states including Alabama (a close to must-win for Obama), Arizona (a brand new poll shows her up only 5 in the state), California (3 points but almost a week old at this point, a lifetime in politics), Massachusetts, Missouri (where Obama has halved an 18 point lead in only a week), New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee. So, even with Zogby's numbers, this is still an uphill fight. But, I'm feeling much better than I did when my alarm went off in the middle of the night, and it's not just because now that I looked at the numbers and wrote this blog entry, I can get back to bed for a few hours before my Bar Review class Sunday.

Does Arnold Schwarzenegger's Endorsement of McCain Mean No Bloomberg?

2008-01-31T00:08:00.000-05:00

One of the biggest questions remaining in the Presidential campaign, aside from whom the candidates on the Democratic and Republican sides will be of course, is whether billionaire New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg will enter the Presidential race. Conventional wisdom said that had the Presidential race been say between Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton, there would be a fertile middle ground full of independents and moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats who would find Bloomberg's socially liberal, fiscally conservative approach. But with John McCain, a very popular moderate figure (more popular among moderates than members of his own party probably) likely getting the Republican nomination, that middle ground may be occupied (especially if McCain is joined by Barack Obama).

And to the end, I think we got a big foreshadowing of Bloomberg's ultimate decision, whether to run, or not, today when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he was endorsing John McCain. Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg are very close (they shared a cover of Time earlier this year) and Bloomberg was just in California a few weeks holding a press conference with Arnold. The two share a lot of policy issues, including the fight against Global Warming, and you have to figure that if Bloomberg were to run, and were he to win, he would have to win California, and Arnold Schwarzenegger would be his biggest ace-in-the-hole there. But with Schwarzenegger endorsing McCain, I really think that signals that Bloomberg is going to sit this one out. Maybe I'm reading too much into the Schwarzenegger-Bloomberg relationship, but I don't think so.

And speaking of reading too much into things, Barack Obama has no campaign stops scheduled for Saturday, February 1st. Tomorrow (Friday), of course is the Democratic Debate in California, and Sunday Obama will hit Boise, Idaho, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and St. Louis, Missouri. But the day before? Not one stop scheduled yet. Leaving the date open for an Edwards endorsement perhaps? It would be perfect timing to get prominent, front-page coverage on Sunday newspapers across the country and to get talked about on all the Sunday political talk shows. Now, I know every media report has Edwards not yet deciding whether he's going to endorse, much less who it's going to be, and when, but you don't take a day off from campaigning this close to Super Tuesday. It's probably just a matter of campaign scheduling, but maybe, just maybe, that date is open for a reason.

Thank You John

2008-01-30T12:54:00.000-05:00

I was a big supporter of John Edwards in 2004. I took my time that year, and did not support any Democratic candidate at the start of the primary campaign. I liked Howard Dean but wasn't sold (in large part because unlike his public image as extraordinarily liberal, I wasn't sold on his more conservative positions on issues like gun control). After a watching a few of the debates, I quickly gravitated towards John Edwards. He was sharp, passionate, and a great candidate. He had a booklet he published explaining each of his policy positions, what he planned to do, and how he planned to pay for it.

I always thought he would have been a much stronger Presidential candidate than John Kerry (The young, energetic, exciting Edwards with the veteran experienced war hero Kerry as his VP always made more sense to me) and while I didn't support him this time around, I still respected his positions and always thought he, in many ways, had the best debates of any of the candidates throughout this process.

John Edwards, despite some of the negative things said about him and his profession, cares deeply about the poor and the underrepresented even if that didn't get him any votes. He cares deeply against fighting against corporate interests and lobbyists even if that prevented him from raising the kind of money you unfortunately need to compete for the Presidency.

Thank you John.

Charlie Crist Delivers Florida For John McCain

2008-01-29T21:48:00.001-05:00

John McCain got a BIG win in Florida tonight (and one that actually counts) and as he gives his victory speech, I'm struck by the only person in camera shot behind McCain: Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Crist is extraordinarily popular in Florida and it looked as if he was going to stay neutral in the Republican race. But with Mitt Romney gaining a lot of steam in Florida, spending millions of his own money on television ads, and building a lead in most polls, Crist changed course, and on Saturday night, as Barack Obama was basking in the glory of his 28-point South Carolina victory, he endorsed McCain. Since then, he has traveled the state stumping for McCain, and the polls immediately turned around (the endorsement of Senator Mel Martinez helped too).

It's no accident McCain has Crist standing behind him tonight, as it was Crist who delivered Florida for McCain, and just may have won him the Republican nomination for President. So, it shouldn't be a surprise this summer when McCain announces Crist as his running mate. Southern Governor of perhaps the biggest swing state in the entire country, and one beloved by the Republican base which doesn't yet (and may never) fully trust McCain. It's a pick that makes sense and after tonight, after what Crist has been able to do for McCain, it's the least John McCain could do.

All I Have To Say About Florida: Hillary Wins Because of Early Voting

2008-01-29T20:44:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton trying to turn Florida into a victory is really grasping at straws and momentum, but all the cable networks are showing her victory rally and I'm sure she'll get some good headlines tomorrow, so the media allows her to gain some momentum back.

But let's look into the numbers, in the only words I'll have to say about Florida. Fist, Florida had a ton of early/absentee ballots cast, some speculated that it was over one-third. According to MSNBC's Exit Poll, of those early voters, Hillary Clinton won 49-29. Among those who decided whom they were going to vote for over a month ago or more, Clinton won 64-25. But, then look closer.

Voters who decided within the last month? 46-42 Obama. In the last week? 38-31. In the last 3 days? 45-40 Obama. Clinton won those choosing a candidate today, but she was in Florida yesterday, and in Florida today, the only candidate there (breaking the early pledge to stay away in spirit if not reality) .

One other interesting number? Most times, voters say endorsements don't matter in their vote. Even if they really do, people are recluctant to admit their vote could be swayed by a political endorsement. 25% of Florida voters though said Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama was "very important" to their vote, and among those voters, Obama won 58-32.

And with that, Florida is irrelevant, over, and shouldn't be talked about anymore.

ABC News: Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama; Also: Explaining The Problem With Florida

2008-01-27T12:34:00.001-05:00

After a stirring 28% victory in South Carolina, where Barack Obama not only won 80% of the votes of African Americans, but showed he could win the votes of white voters as well (as he proved by convincingly winning in Iowa and coming in a close second in New Hampshire, states with a 95%-plus white population) as he tied Hillary Clinton among white men and won over 50% of the vote from white voters under 30, the Obama campaign is showing strong momentum going into February 5th when 23-states have caucuses and primaries. And his support among white men and young white voters shows that no matter how the Clinton campaign or others try to characterize Obama's blowout victory, this was no Jesse Jackson, one-dimensional victory. It was a broad base of support among both white and black voters, a coming together like we saw in Iowa, and like we may see across the country in the next few weeks. And today, rumors are rumbling of a possible giant endorsement coming Barack Obama's way: Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the largest Democratic figures in the country who has yet to endorse a candidate (former Vice President Al Gore remains on the sidelines, likely tepid after his endorsement of Howard Dean in 2004 failed).

First, though, Obama received a stirring and powerful endorsement this morning in the New York Times in a beautifully written editorial by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the former President. In it she passes the Kennedy torch to Obama, writing about how Obama inspires the country, just as many say her father did in the 1960s.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

And now, Kennedy's uncle, Ted, may be joining the Obama team as well. Just last night, on MSNBC's always suburb primary coverage, Newsweek's Howard Fineman said he expected Kennedy to remain on the sideline, waiting in the wings to re-unite the Democratic party, should, as is increasingly possible, this battle between Clinton and Obama (and Edwards) goes to the convention. Yet, Time.com's Mark Halperin leaked word this morning that Kennedy was leaning towards an Obama endorsement (a notion not denied by Obama this morning on ABC's This Week) and ABC News is now reporting that Kennedy will in fact endorse Obama tomorrow in Washington D.C. in a rally before George W. Bush's State of the Union Address. The endorsement, in many ways, is huge for Obama. It gives him the full backing of the Kennedy family, and adds further fuel to the narrative that he is in the mold of both John and Bobby Kennedy and is a unifying force like both brothers Kennedy. It also provides him with the seal of approval from another senior statesman of the Democratic Party (to go along with John Kerry, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and current Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy).

And according to the Boston Globe, Kennedy will do more than simply endorse Obama, he plans to campaign hard for Obama up and through February 5th.

Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama's call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.

While polls show Clinton ahead in some large states, including her home state of New York and delegate-rich California, the Kennedy endorsement gives Obama a stamp of approval among key constituencies in the Democratic party that could make Super Tuesday more competitive.

Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico.

It's hard to go after Obama's inexperience with such powerful and experienced people backing his candidacy, giving Obama much needed credibility going into states where he is not nearly as well known as Clinton.

And it's that name recognition factor which is why I've been so angry with the Clintons for turning Florida into more than what it should be and for claiming victory in Michigan where she was the only candidate on the ballot. I've again and again on my frustration with Clintons (and I use the plural form for a reason) instance that Florida count for anything. Now, those Clinton supporters will claim that if Obama were up in the polls in Florida I'd feel different, and that the voices of Floridans should be heard. And I agree that the voices of voters in both Florida and Michigan are important, but the reason why the media should ignore these contests (and they have ignored Michigan for the most part) and why I get so agitated when I read Clinton is going to Florida Tuesday night for a victory speech (designed, no doubt, to get media coverage of her "victory" there to blunt Obama's momentum heading into Super Tuesday) is because they are nothing more than contests over name recognition.

There is no question, none, that everyone, whether they follow the primaries or not, whether they read the newspaper or not, knows who Hillary Clinton is. Or, the the very least, they know who her husband is, and they take their feelings of him and impute them on her. Barack Obama, on the other hand, is not very well known. I think being in this primary bubble and watching MSNBC everyday and following this race non-stop we forget that Obama is a one-term Senator from Illinois, and while that is used as a weapon against him by the Clintons, it's important in another way, because a lot of voters don't know anything about Obama. So when they take a poll or vote in a primary where Obama has agreed not to campaign, they have no frame of reference to support him, no views or knowledge of who he is or what his vision for America is. We think everyone pays attention to Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina. Truth is, people, for the most part, don't. So voters don't know Obama, so of course they are going to gravitate towards somebody they do know, like Hillary Clinton, when given that option. That's why Florida doesn't matter. It's not that Floridians don't matter, it's that their voices, as reflected in whatever the vote totals are on Tuesday night, are not an indication of anything about whether Floridians, allowed to have a full campaign, would still support Clinton in the numbers that will be shown on Tuesday. It's all about name ID and Clinton certainly has a monumental edge, still, over Obama in that category.

That's the problem with Florida.

Barack Obama Wins South Carolina; Bill Clinton Tries to Marginalize Obama By Comparing Him To Jesse Jackson

2008-01-26T19:11:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama is a big winner tonight in South Carolina, winning the state in a big way, and in such a way that the networks could hardly even wait until 7:00 to call the primary in his favor. In today's day in age of caution with the use of exit polling and networks taking their time before declaring a race won, the fact that they called it immediately for Obama means this should be a huge victory for him, and one much needed to gain momentum going into February 5th.

What should be most concerning about today though, were comments made by former President Bill Clinton, as the Clinton campaign continues to try to marginalize Barack Obama as the "black" candidate. Their former adviser, and current nemesis, Dick Morris, has postulated that the Clinton's have tried to, through their comments on Obama's drug use, and drawing Obama in to a fight about race in America, have done that in order to scare off white voters from Obama, with the strategy being that if you can marginalize Obama as simply the "black candidate," white voters will abandon him and Clinton will win the nomination. And with pre-polling data showing that Obama had only 10% support in the white community, it seemed to have worked. Obama, though, according to the exit polls tonight, got 24% of the white vote, which while not great, is much better than anticipated, and will make it harder for the Clinton's to try to claim Obama only won because the votes of African Americans.

That doesn't stop the Clintons, and Bill specifically, from trying though. In what might be the most offensive comment yet from the Clintons, Bill tried explicitly tonight to get the word out that Obama was simply the "black" candidate. Asked a legitimate question about what it says about Obama that it took two Clintons to take him on, Bill's answer was a complete non-sequitor. He said "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 1988." It didn't answer the question, and even more so, it was an incredibly blatant attempt to say "South Carolina voters just vote for the black candidate so you shouldn't take what they say seriously." That's incredibly offensive. Yes, Jesse Jackson was a powerful candidate in the mid-1980s, but I think there's no dispute, Barack Obama is much different kind of candidate, and does have a broader appeal than Rev. Jackson. The fact that Bill Clinton would try to so explicitly to tie Obama to Jackson and in-so-doing raise the racial issue, especially after he went off on a reporter last week for even asking him about it, is amazing.

And obviously, the voters of South Carolina did not appreciate that kind of campaigning. The question is, how will the rest of the country feel?

Florida? American Samoa? Clinton Continues to Direct Media to Meaningless Contests

2008-01-26T19:06:00.000-05:00

In Hillary Clinton's "concession" e-mail she mentioned that she will now be turning her attention to American Samoa and Florida where no delegates are at stake. Ever since the state moved up its primary in violation of DNC rules and the candidates each agreed not to campaign there, Florida is and remains irrelevant to this contest for the Democratic nominee for President. Hillary Clinton continues to bring it up because Barack Obama can't campaign there so she feels she can pad her resume with that "victory" after getting trounced by 28% in South Carolina. I just hope the media does not let her get away with this and they ignore the race down there, as they should, as nothing more than a meaningless vote.

John Edwards' Hidden South Carolina Surge: The Problem With Tracking Polls

2008-01-24T12:45:00.000-05:00

I don't really understand the value of so called "tracking polls." These polls take three days worth of polling, average them together, and give you a view of what the electorate is thinking over time. It's a fine idea of in theory, but in practice, these polls are like glaciers, they are very slow moving and don't respond quickly to jolts in the system, like a 500-point drop in the Dow or a contentious debate among Democrats. Take John Zogby's current South Carolina tracking poll as a perfect example. By using a three-day weighted sample, and by using one day which was before the Democrats debate, which has, as proved by Zogby's numbers from days following the debate, shaken up the race, just looking at the totals Zogby reports doesn't tell you nearly the whole story. In the past two days, John Edwards has seen a surge in South Carolina and in fact has, according to Zogby, overtaken Hillary Clinton for second place in the final day (Wednesday) of Zogby's polling. But, because the polling includes Monday and Tuesday in his sample, the number reported by the mainstream media is the three-day sample number, which shows Edwards in third place, trailing Clinton by five-points for second place behind Barack Obama. Let's take a closer look at the numbers.

In the first report of the poll, which was taken from Sunday to Tuesday, and thus only accounted for one day of polling after Monday's furious and game-changing debate, Obama lead Clinton and Edwards 43-25-15. From Monday-Wednesday, including two days of post debate coverage, Obama fell 4 points, Clinton 1, and Edwards gained 4. A huge jump, but in fact, the leap is even larger. Look at Zogby's report about just looking at Wednesday's total:

Edwards, meanwhile, has had his second good day since the Monday night CNN debate, in which he delivered a strong performance. He hit 19% support on Tuesday alone and then 27% support on Wednesday alone. And, on Wednesday alone, he pulled ahead of Clinton overall. He has pulled ahead among whites. Could he pull ahead of Clinton and finish in second place? Even with a strong showing here, where does he go next to take advantage of the momentum?

So, Edwards is really at 27% as of Wednesday, but because the poll counts a day even before Monday's debate, the reported number has him at only 19%. This is completely missing Edwards surge, and the collapse of both Clinton and Obama (though Obama remains in first place). Hillary Clinton may finish in third place, her second such finish of the campaign. And Edwards may get his second "silver medal" as Mitt Romney would say. And while this may come to a shock to the national media, who may say they never saw this coming, it's entirely predictable based on Zogby's poll.

In this era of 24-hour-news-cycles and when events like Monday's debate or Tuesday's stock-market mini-crash (and later recovery) have such a profound effect on people's views and opinion is so fluid that what people think on Monday may not be what they think Monday night, much less Wednesday, I think we need to ask how helpful these tracking polls are. We all asked how the polls could be so wrong in New Hampshire when Hillary Clinton seemingly made up a double-digit deficit overnight. Well, by using tracking polls, even if Clinton's comeback began two days earlier, it wouldn't have really registered to the amount it was in reality. We get fooled by not looking at the internal numbers of these tracking polls and thinking that a huge jump by Edwards, like over 15 points in two days, isn't meaningful before 48-hours before the primary.

We need more day-to-day polls, those are the numbers which need to be released and reported upon. They are far less likely to miss these moves in public opinion and tell you where people stand today, not yesterday.

A New Respect For Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson

2008-01-22T18:59:00.000-05:00

I have a newfound respect for Hillary Clinton's Communications Director Howard Wolfson tonight. Over the past few months, I have come to loathe Wolfson in a very respectful way. For the kind of campaign Hillary Clinton is running, Wolfson is an incredible Communications Director, public advocate, and strategist. He has played a large role in helping Clinton overcome her defeat in Iowa, and he can get anyone off message and get anyone to believe practically anything he says (a trait all of the Clinton folks seem to be gifted with). He's exactaly the staunch advocate a candidate running a campaign like Senator Clinton is needs, and he deserves a lot of credit for what he's done for her and the campaign. Hence why he hasn't become one of my favorite political figures.

But, today, Reading Ben Smith's blog I came across this fact and story about Wolfson: The man doesn't fly. Well, that's not entirely true, he will fly on Air Force One, but that's about it, so as the Clinton campaign goes from Nevada to South Carolina to Iowa to New Hampshire (pretty much traveling the entire length of the continental United States) Mr. Wolfson has been following along by car.

“It’s all mishegoss—fear is not rational,” said Mr. Wolfson when asked to explain the root of his now decade-long aversion to air travel. “I could point to a couple of things but at the end of the day it just ascribes a level of rationality to it that doesn’t exist.”

He said the last time he was airborne was around the time of Mrs. Clinton’s 1999 Senate race, when he traveled on Air Force 1 and other military transports. When asked if he did so because those government planes seemed safer than commercial aviation, he said “That’s what makes sense to me,” but immediately added, “I want to make it very clear that I am not arguing for the rationality of any of this.”

Perhaps the gravest consequence of Mr. Wolfson’s fear of flying is that he has to spend hours and hours, and hours and hours, driving by himself.

“It’s usually alone,” he said. “There are not many other people willing to drive 17 hours.”

Wolfson echoes my sentiments exactaly. As I've written about before I have the same irrational fear, and like Howard, I try to skip planes when possible (although, unlike him, I would fly from Nevada to South Carolina, or, as I have in the past few years, from Detroit to Las Vegas and back) and I defend my avoidance of the air in a very similar way. I completely understand it's irrational and that I'm much safer in a plane than driving or taking Amtrack, but still, that doesn't make me feel any more secure once turbulence starts at 30,000 feet. I also think I too would fly on Air Force One because it would be presumably much much safer with much better pilots and failsafes than a normal plane.

Anyways, good for you Howard Wolfson, keep up the ground game.

Clinton Campaign Hypocritical on Florida Advertising Complaints

2008-01-21T17:13:00.000-05:00

So the latest storyline heading into tonight's Democratic debate in South Carolina has to do with another state: Florida. As Ben Smith has outlined at Politico.com, the problem has to do with a national ad campaign Barack Obama began today, with a one-minute ad running on CNN and MSNBC all across the county in all 50-states. That includes the state of Florida, which had its delegates stripped by the Democratic National Committee because it moved its primary up in the calender to January 29. As a result, each of the Democratic candidates have promised not to campaign in Florida, and they have each stayed away except for small fund raising activities.

Well, after learning that Obama's campaign reached all 50-states, which includes Florida, the Clinton campaign hastily got all indignant, held a conference call with reporters denouncing Obama's breaking of the non-campaign pledge, and now say "all options are all the table" involving Florida, including campaigning there.

There's a simple reason why the Clinton campaign is doing this: They lead in Florida because Obama has been unable to campaign there. The national media ignored Michigan (and we'll get to Michigan in a moment) and the Clinton campaign, which seems likely to lose South Carolina this week, would love nothing more than for the national media to treat Hillary Clinton's "victory" in the previously uncontested Florida race as a "momentum booster" going into Super Tuesday on February 5th. They are taking this opportunity to try to convince everyone Florida really is in play, so when they do win on January 29, it gets covered, talked about, and gets Clinton off the mat after her expected South Carolina defeat. Makes sense. Problem is, it's incredibly hypocritical.

First, this is not a Florida ad-buy, it's a national ad-buy. The Obama campaign inquired about excluding Florida from where the ads were run and were told by CNN and MSNBC that it was impossible to do so. Not only that, but they went to the South Carolina's Democratic National Committee representative herself and got permission from the South Carolina DNC Party Chair. If the South Carolina DNC chair had no problem with the ad-buy, why should the Clinton campaign?

Not only that, but their indignation is very peculiar given that as soon as Hillary Clinton "won" Michigan, her campaign sent out an e-mail claiming victory and she has mentioned her victory in Michigan in most press releases and other campaign memos I've seen. Well, Michigan, like Florida, doesn't count, there was no victory there, she picked up no delegates, and not only that, but she wasn't even opposed on the ballot, as Barack Obama and John Edwards, per DNC wishes, took their names off the Michigan ballot after they moved up their primary (the only reason they did not do so in Florida was because Florida law did not allow them to do so). And why is Clinton so upset now over this ad which is running all over the country, not just in Florida, when she herself did not follow the wishes of the DNC by removing her name from the Michigan ballot as the other candidates did. She kept her name on the ballot so she could run up the score in a state where there was no campaign, and she's trying to do the same in Florida.

It may be smart politics, but it's hypocritical, especially given the Clinton campaign's continuing trumpeting of their "win" in Michigan and the Obama campaign needs to come out strongly on this and not let the Clinton campaign, as they have ever since Iowa, win the "spin" war and let this story be covered on their terms.

Everyone Is Fighting For Change

2008-01-21T14:23:00.000-05:00

This YouTube video is hilarious, and as is custom online, when you see something this ingenuous you have to pass it on and make it known to as many people as possible. As anyone who has followed this Presidential primary season knows, if one word could describe the campaign, it would be change. Barack Obama started it, then John Edwards and Hillary Clinton jumped on the bandwagon, and even Mitt Romney on the Republican side has become an agent of "change." Well, a great video is now on YouTube taking all these mentions of "change" and put them to music, namely David Bowie's song "Change." The hilarity that ensues is a must-watch.

I Still Write About Sports...Occasionally...I Guess....

2008-01-20T23:26:00.000-05:00

Wow. I didn't really mean for Quo Vadimus to turn into all-politics, all the time, and certainly not into a de facto propaganda machine for the Obama campaign, but that's seemingly has been what has happened this month. I guess it makes some sense. Aside from studying for the Bar Exam, my time is pretty much spent watching MSNBC (Morning Joe and Hardball are daily rituals, and with all the extra debates and primary/caucus coverage, it adds up pretty fast) and sleeping, so it's little wonder that when I do find time to post, it's on politics and this fascinating race for both the Democratic and Republican nomination. And given my natural support for Obama, my posts tend to be (well, are) probably, well, a bit slanted. Let's try to change that a bit, both in terms of looking at the race a bit more objectively (we'll see how long that lasts, probably until the next Clinton attack, oh wait, there I go again) and instead focus on another of my passions: sports, which used to be the calling card of this young blog.

So the New England Patriots at 18-0 and going into the Super Bowl and I do have to admit I am a bit disappointed that it won't be Brett Favre and the Packers going up against Tom Brady's Patriots. To see Brady, perhaps the best quarterback of his generation, to potentially conquer Favre, perhaps the best quarterback ever, to give his team the Super Bowl and an undefeated season, that would have been something to watch. Instead we'll get Eli Manning on the Giants, the Manning that isn't funny and personable and isn't a big star (yet). But he's showing he has the talent to be known on his own regard and not just as Peyton's little brother. And you have to give the Giants credit. Winning at Tampa Bay, at Dallas, and at Green Bay was very impressive. Plaxico Burress is an incredible wide receiver and the Giants defense is strong. Strong enough to upend the Pats in two weeks? I doubt it. But stranger things have happened, and the Giants played the Patriots extraordinarily tough in Week 17, so we should see a good game at the very least.

What else is going on? The Red Wings and Pistons have cooled off a bit after incredible starts to the season, but honestly, I haven't blogged much (if anything) about them because no matter how well they play now, it's irrelevant if they falter in June. It's nice to Chris Osgood rejuvenate his career, and Henrik Zetterberg grow into one of the NHL's best and most exciting players, and it's great to see the Pistons bench (especially Jason Maxiell and rookie Rodney Stuckey) play so well and give the starting five some much needed and much deserved time off during the season, but all that matters is the post-season. So I'll watch a bit from the sidelines until then. The Tigers signed Nate Robertson to a contract extension last week, locking up 4 of their starters (all except for Kenny Rogers) for at least the next three years. Solid move. Now let's get Cabrera signed.

Barack Obama Wins Delegate Battle in Nevada, Loses Vote

2008-01-19T18:38:00.001-05:00

With Hillary Clinton's win in Nevada this afternoon, which as we now find out, may not be a win at all, today might be a perfect example of the power of the Hillary Clinton campaign to defeat Barack Obama in the "spin game" and the power of the media to control who actually wins and who actually loses based on how they report expectations going in, and even how votes are counted and delegates are awarded.

Confused? So are those in Nevada, but let's take a closer look. All afternoon, the media, and rightfully so based on the vote totals being reported by the Nevada Democratic Party, have reported that Hillary Clinton was the big winner in Nevada. A six-point win based on the latest results with a huge margin of victory among women and Latino voters. But, as Obama senior adviser David Axelrod just said on MSNBC's coverage of tonight's caucuses and the South Carolina primary, as it turns out, due to the weighting of rural counties, of which Obama won convincingly, he actually will leave Nevada with the most delegates (A fact later confirmed, somewhat, by a post by Ben Smith over at Politico.com). Obama picks up 13 delegates, Clinton will pick up 12, and Obama actually increases his lead so far to, well, two delegates (not counting, of course, the super-delegates which are non-binding and not all declared at the moment). And, as Axelrod also pointed out, the Clinton campaign has been continuously saying only delegates matter. If that's the case, Obama won tonight. Is that how it will be reported tomorrow? No. Will Clinton get a bump and momentum going forward because of her "win" tonight? Absolutely. But that's just because of how the vote was characterized tonight. The bottom line, as it turns out, is that in real terms, Obama leaves Nevada in better shape, in terms of delegate count, than he started with. He essentially lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college, to steal an analogy from the general election.

Now the test is, can the Obama campaign get the media to report that story? Going in to today's caucus, the Obama campaign was far outspun by the Clintons. The Clinton campaign did a masterful job as Chris Matthews has been saying all day of playing down expectations and talking about how biased the system was against them and how Obama had an edge going into today. The truth is, while Obama did have the powerful Culinary Union, Clinton had a 20-point lead in Nevada as early as two weeks ago and had all of the major Democratic establishment support, which gave her a far greater edge organizationally. And all those casino caucus sites that the Clintons complained about and which supporters of theirs tried to sue to stop, almost all went for Clinton, as did a significant portion of the Culinary Union's own membership.

Just as in New Hampshire, the Obama campaign did a horrible job of managing expectations and they can't allow that to happen in South Carolina next week. If they allow the Clintons to paint South Carolina as "unwinnable" for them because of the support of African American voters there who will support Obama, and Hillary comes even remotely close to winning, it's a loss. He can't let the Clintons continue to dictate the storyline of this campaign. If he does, he's lost it before he ever had a chance to win it at all.

Why I Would Like To See a Mitt Romney Victory Tonight

2008-01-15T18:55:00.001-05:00

In just over an hour polls close throughout Michigan (though, with turnout as low as has been reported, there may not be many more people left to vote) and I would just love to see a Mitt Romney victory tonight. Not just because he's a Michigan guy and I like to see those from our great state do well, and not just because it would help derail John McCain's campaign (while McCain is a patriot and a honorable man who would make a great President, because of these qualities, I don't want him anywhere near the nomination as he is the most, and likely only electable Republican candidate) but because it would throw the Republican race into complete chaos.

Should Romney win, we'd have three major primaries/caucuses (and a Romney win in Wyoming), and three different winners (Mike Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in New Hampshire, and Romney in Michigan) with South Carolina completely up for grabs and Rudy Giuliani waiting in Florida. Imagine Rudy does hold on and wins in the Sunshine State. That would be five big states and five different winners. On Super Tuesday, when over 20-states have primaries and caucuses, imagine would could happen. Mike Huckabee, the popular and gregarious former Baptist preacher could sweep the Bible Belt states. John McCain could do the same in the Southwest where he's a Senator (Arizona). Rudy could take the Northeast, including New York, splitting some with Romney, who could also do well in some of the Midwest states.

There is a growing chance, every day, especially if Romney wins tonight, of no nominee having enough delegates to win the nomination heading into the primary. It happened on West Wing during Season Six, and now, with life imitating art, it could actually happen again. If Romney loses tonight, conventional wisdom, which I agree with, has John McCain on a roll, having won two primaries in a row with a good chance to make it three in South Carolina on Saturday. He could be unstoppable at that point. But if he does get stopped tonight, then there's no telling what could happen, and from a (somewhat) neutral political observer, there's almost nothing better than that.