Almost Time For the NFL Draft

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?

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

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

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.