Unelectable.
Ok, so a one-word column might be a bit too neat. As conservative California friend 'John Wayne' points out, Hillary is a "30-percenter": 30 percent of the people are going to vote for her no matter what and 30 percent are going to vote against her no matter what. So on paper, Clinton needs to attract half out of the remaining 40 percent of the voters to win. But this is a more daunting task than it sounds.
On issues, Hillary certainly is not the classic liberal Democrat. She voted to approve the war in Iraq, supported some meaningful tax cuts, and has been more or less pro-business, at least with issues that impact cities in New York. On the other side, she also supports many traditional Democratic positions: support of Roe v. Wade, increasing the minimum wage, and her continued support for universal health care.
Yet it doesn't seem likely that her position on issues is what will sway potential voters to support her or not. Rather, it rests more on the questions of whether she can lead and if her intagibles weigh on the positive side of the scale or the negative.
Outside of New York, Hillary will be colored and judged by her years in the White House. She gets sympathy for the embarrasment we all assume she suffered when Bill admitted to the Lewinsky affair; she also gets positives for being a strong woman. Knocking those out, though, are the negatives:
-the botched and confusing attempt at universal health care
-her role in the Whitewater scandal
-Travelgate
-she is perceived as a power monger
-she comes off as having a cold, calculating public personality
One must also take into consideration that Clinton is only slightly more experienced at governing than Barack Obama. Until 2000 she never held elected office, and she has only been in the Senate, not in a mini-management office, such as mayor or governor, that might prove as a test case for the presidency. And having been First Lady is only going to carry so much weight, as observation doesn't count as much as experience.
Not to be overlooked is how Americans react to the prospect of our presidential lineage going Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Clinton II. My suspicion is: not favorably. (Thank God Jeb's not running in this election cycle or the country's collective head might just implode at the horror created by a Bush v. Clinton campaign.)
Whether her fault or not, Hillary seems to embody most of Bill Clinton's negatives without the benefit of his positives. This is almost insurmountable. It will be so easy for any opponent to remind potential voters of her image, and this could even happen as early as the Democratic primaries. Individual voters don't have to dislike her personally to believe that they'd be backing a loser to support her, and that's why Hillary has an almost impossible task ahead of her in trying to land the swing voters. She may have a chance to win the Democratic nomination, but she is unlectable as president unless the Republicans put up a candidate so repugnant that the voters have to hold their nose and vote for her. Hey...it's how she won the Senate in 2000, so it's not impossible. Ultimately, though, if she is the Democratic nominee the GOP has to trip over their own genitalia to lose.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
EXCORCISING DEMONS, PART 2 (of a 5-act play)
The Indianapolis Colts have wished for this for years: a home field playoff game to go to the Super Bowl against the New England Patriots. And now, their wish has been granted.
There are more angles for media stories to this one than an origami swan: Peyton Manning trying to win "the big one", Tony Dungy's playoff failures, the comparisons of Brady & Bellicheck to Montana & Walsh, Adam Viniateri now a Colt instead of a Patriot, a playoff game in Indy instead of Foxboro, etc.
Here's one I want to know: why do Patriots fans (and for that matter most of the northeast) hate Peyton and the Colts? Baltimore I can understand (although after stealing the Cleveland Browns their gripe is one of duplicitious hypocrisy), but Patriots fans? I mean the Pats have owned the Colts until recently, and went through the playoffs on Indy's backside. The national media certainly has annointed Brady as the superior QB, and why not? He's got 3 rings, Peyton hasn't even been in The Game. So what's to hate? The Colts are stocked full of classy players and coaches who's only sin with the media is generally not giving anything quotable or controversial.
Maybe it's because the northeast is so full of people who work in absolutes: the Yankees HATE the Red Sox and Boston HATES New York. Philadelphia HATES the Giants (and anything else that steps into their stadiums). Baltimore Ravens fans apparently just HATE. It's as if somehow those fans believe that their actual lives are bettered by their team beating another team, even though they neither know or control any of the players on the field. Or do they just have a deep-seated need to hate something?
Maybe that's it: they don't understand that in most of the midwest, people don't actually have a high culture of hate. They can love their team and passionately want to beat the opponent, but can also sit next to an opposing fan without coming to blows. Maybe Patriots fans think Indianapolis fans must be filled with hate and must be targeting it at the Patriots, so they have to defend themselves by sending that hate back.
If that is indeed true, then note to New England: the Colts aren't the Yankees and their fans aren't from New York. The Indianapolis fans aren't sending evil thoughts back at you or even your team.
If that's not it, then I'd love a better explanation than "Because I just hate Peyton Manning" or by listening to someone recount stats as an actual justification to hate another human being. Obviously, I've missed something.
Here's another question: just like the above seeming unending vile thrown from The Corridor in the general direction of Indiana, is there really a point where Manning can ever stop hearing the pundits trying to tear him apart? They've beaten the Patriot the past two games (both in Foxborough)...actually, they dismantled them...but still the story of the upcoming game is 'the Patriots have the Colts number.' Apparently, it's now just an ownership in the playoffs, so the other two games don't really count. If Peyton wins this game? 'Well, he hasn't won a Super Bowl.' If he wins the Super Bowl it's kind of hard to believe the next one won't be 'he's only won one' or if he doesn't throw for 300 yards with a QB rating of 135 it will be 'the Colts won in spite of Manning.' I guess if he wins 3, the critics will be spouting something like 'he didn't do it in a 4-year stretch.'
The only thing that the Colts in general and Peyton in particular can hope to put to rest with a win this Sunday is to exorcise the demons of New England once and for all. Nothing more. And they can do it if they remember one thing that San Diego apparently forgot: for all the hype and all the head games, Indianapolis is the better team. If Indianapolis plays with the fervor and passion they did last year in the Monday night drubbing of the Patriots they will go to their first Super Bowl. They will permanently end any talk about NE owning them on any level or at any venue. And really, there should be no additional pressure on Indy, because what if they lose? They simply are back to the same spot they've been for years. It doesn't get any worse.
It does kind of makes one wonder, though: if they can summon a bit of disgust and distaste for their opponent and the critics, just this once, perhaps it would be a good thing.
There are more angles for media stories to this one than an origami swan: Peyton Manning trying to win "the big one", Tony Dungy's playoff failures, the comparisons of Brady & Bellicheck to Montana & Walsh, Adam Viniateri now a Colt instead of a Patriot, a playoff game in Indy instead of Foxboro, etc.
Here's one I want to know: why do Patriots fans (and for that matter most of the northeast) hate Peyton and the Colts? Baltimore I can understand (although after stealing the Cleveland Browns their gripe is one of duplicitious hypocrisy), but Patriots fans? I mean the Pats have owned the Colts until recently, and went through the playoffs on Indy's backside. The national media certainly has annointed Brady as the superior QB, and why not? He's got 3 rings, Peyton hasn't even been in The Game. So what's to hate? The Colts are stocked full of classy players and coaches who's only sin with the media is generally not giving anything quotable or controversial.
Maybe it's because the northeast is so full of people who work in absolutes: the Yankees HATE the Red Sox and Boston HATES New York. Philadelphia HATES the Giants (and anything else that steps into their stadiums). Baltimore Ravens fans apparently just HATE. It's as if somehow those fans believe that their actual lives are bettered by their team beating another team, even though they neither know or control any of the players on the field. Or do they just have a deep-seated need to hate something?
Maybe that's it: they don't understand that in most of the midwest, people don't actually have a high culture of hate. They can love their team and passionately want to beat the opponent, but can also sit next to an opposing fan without coming to blows. Maybe Patriots fans think Indianapolis fans must be filled with hate and must be targeting it at the Patriots, so they have to defend themselves by sending that hate back.
If that is indeed true, then note to New England: the Colts aren't the Yankees and their fans aren't from New York. The Indianapolis fans aren't sending evil thoughts back at you or even your team.
If that's not it, then I'd love a better explanation than "Because I just hate Peyton Manning" or by listening to someone recount stats as an actual justification to hate another human being. Obviously, I've missed something.
Here's another question: just like the above seeming unending vile thrown from The Corridor in the general direction of Indiana, is there really a point where Manning can ever stop hearing the pundits trying to tear him apart? They've beaten the Patriot the past two games (both in Foxborough)...actually, they dismantled them...but still the story of the upcoming game is 'the Patriots have the Colts number.' Apparently, it's now just an ownership in the playoffs, so the other two games don't really count. If Peyton wins this game? 'Well, he hasn't won a Super Bowl.' If he wins the Super Bowl it's kind of hard to believe the next one won't be 'he's only won one' or if he doesn't throw for 300 yards with a QB rating of 135 it will be 'the Colts won in spite of Manning.' I guess if he wins 3, the critics will be spouting something like 'he didn't do it in a 4-year stretch.'
The only thing that the Colts in general and Peyton in particular can hope to put to rest with a win this Sunday is to exorcise the demons of New England once and for all. Nothing more. And they can do it if they remember one thing that San Diego apparently forgot: for all the hype and all the head games, Indianapolis is the better team. If Indianapolis plays with the fervor and passion they did last year in the Monday night drubbing of the Patriots they will go to their first Super Bowl. They will permanently end any talk about NE owning them on any level or at any venue. And really, there should be no additional pressure on Indy, because what if they lose? They simply are back to the same spot they've been for years. It doesn't get any worse.
It does kind of makes one wonder, though: if they can summon a bit of disgust and distaste for their opponent and the critics, just this once, perhaps it would be a good thing.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
OBAMA: LINCOLN, TRUMAN OR CARTER?
I'm more than halfway through Barack Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and it is some of the most compelling reading of any political manifesto in decades (unless you're firmly in the religious right/ultra-conservative/Atilla-the-Hun-was-a-wimp camp). He is articulate in the expressions of his views. He posesses great intellect; he thinks and speaks well on the fly. What is most compelling is that he shuns any sort of divisive qualities. He speaks well of George Bush the man, even as he disagrees with his policies. He bemoans his party's inability to find anything of value in Republican viewpoints, and praises those who find common ground. Even in his "rebuttal" interview after Bush's address about increasing troops in Iraq, Barack went out of his way to say that, even though he disagreed, the President was doing what he truly believed is the best for the country. He also singled out Republicans who feel as Obama does. He is charismatic, articulate, reasoned, and sincere. But...
Obama is also young, inexperienced, and what experience he has is a few years as a senator and a few more as a member of the Illinois state house. As my liberal Colorado friend says, that qualifies him membership in the world's greatest debating club, but it doesn't identify whether he has the credentials to be President. He's never held office as a mayor, governor, or any other political job that could be considered a sort of minor league proving ground for the presidency. So that begs the question: is he a modern day Abraham Lincoln, an erstwhile Harry Truman, or is he the next Jimmy Carter?
All three of these past presidents were radical politicians for the time, vastly different than their predecessors. They all posessed new approaches and fresh idea of how to shape the country, and all came to the office at a time of great turmoil and transition. They conveyed large amounts of charisma and were able to speak to the common man as a colleague. They also came from what is now referred to as flyover country (Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia). But their results were vastly different: one truly changed a nation for the better (albeit by fire), one was unpopular during most of his tenure, only years later being seen as a great president, and one was...well, let's say that Jimmy Carter wasn't much beloved for anything he ever did in office. And that's the dilemma of Obama: he could be anything from a presidential legend to a political disaster.
Obama has come out of academia, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Is someone who debates ethical questions about the Constitution with college students ready for the maniacal gloves-off fervor of someone who passionately believes differently, while also posessing a "damn the facts, I know what I believe" attitude? This same man was soundly defeated in a bid for a congressional representative seat, and were it not for Jack Ryan's sex club/swinging marriage fiasco would probably have been soundly defeated in his Senate race as well. And yet, Obama makes so much sense when you listen to him, and does so without defiling the opposition that it's no wonder that he is achieving rock star iconic status. He is a breath of fresh air, the voice of reason that has been so absent for 12 years or more. He represents both the fear of the unknown on one hand, the hope of a better brand of politics on the other. He is an idealist, and he is a blank slate.
Obama is the wild card this presidential season. He will likely run and he is the antithesis to Hillary Clinton, as well as to any jaded politicians. I don't agree with many of his positions, but who does jibe perfectly? He seems to have a moral compass and a grounded sense of self, with the capacity to listen and assimilate. Unlike how the right is likely to paint him, he does not come across as a left-wing liberal, but as someone who understands and fits more within the center. He may or may not get my vote, but he has my attention.
Obama is also young, inexperienced, and what experience he has is a few years as a senator and a few more as a member of the Illinois state house. As my liberal Colorado friend says, that qualifies him membership in the world's greatest debating club, but it doesn't identify whether he has the credentials to be President. He's never held office as a mayor, governor, or any other political job that could be considered a sort of minor league proving ground for the presidency. So that begs the question: is he a modern day Abraham Lincoln, an erstwhile Harry Truman, or is he the next Jimmy Carter?
All three of these past presidents were radical politicians for the time, vastly different than their predecessors. They all posessed new approaches and fresh idea of how to shape the country, and all came to the office at a time of great turmoil and transition. They conveyed large amounts of charisma and were able to speak to the common man as a colleague. They also came from what is now referred to as flyover country (Illinois, Missouri, and Georgia). But their results were vastly different: one truly changed a nation for the better (albeit by fire), one was unpopular during most of his tenure, only years later being seen as a great president, and one was...well, let's say that Jimmy Carter wasn't much beloved for anything he ever did in office. And that's the dilemma of Obama: he could be anything from a presidential legend to a political disaster.
Obama has come out of academia, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. Is someone who debates ethical questions about the Constitution with college students ready for the maniacal gloves-off fervor of someone who passionately believes differently, while also posessing a "damn the facts, I know what I believe" attitude? This same man was soundly defeated in a bid for a congressional representative seat, and were it not for Jack Ryan's sex club/swinging marriage fiasco would probably have been soundly defeated in his Senate race as well. And yet, Obama makes so much sense when you listen to him, and does so without defiling the opposition that it's no wonder that he is achieving rock star iconic status. He is a breath of fresh air, the voice of reason that has been so absent for 12 years or more. He represents both the fear of the unknown on one hand, the hope of a better brand of politics on the other. He is an idealist, and he is a blank slate.
Obama is the wild card this presidential season. He will likely run and he is the antithesis to Hillary Clinton, as well as to any jaded politicians. I don't agree with many of his positions, but who does jibe perfectly? He seems to have a moral compass and a grounded sense of self, with the capacity to listen and assimilate. Unlike how the right is likely to paint him, he does not come across as a left-wing liberal, but as someone who understands and fits more within the center. He may or may not get my vote, but he has my attention.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
THE COLTS AND INDY
Fond though I may be of the place, I have in many ways divorced myself emotionally from Indianapolis. My friends, strangely enough, are not associated with Indy even though many live there. Maybe that's because several were friends before any of us moved there, or maybe it's been my nomadic existence for the bulk of my life that keeps me from identifying a friend with a point on the map. Regardless, one thing keeps me still caring about the city and its well-being: the Indianapolis Colts.
I can still watch the RCA Dome, Peyton, the crowd, Monument Circle at game time, and put myself there. I realize how much that team means to the city, and what it was like when it seemed that they might leave for L.A. (Oh, and I remember my thoughts about them coming there from Baltimore, which happened well before I was a resident, but that's a different discussion.)
If there is a city in this country that deserves a championship, it has to be Indianapolis. It's not like Indy is downtrodden or fighting for its economic survival, but it's not special. Don't get me wrong; Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Birmingham, Phoenix, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee...there are lots of cities that are very liveable and have good people, but despite the best efforts of their local politicians, media, and citizenry they cannot escape the fact that there is and probably never will be a real reason for large scales of people to seek out and fall in love with their town. Living in Austin has made me face this. But it also makes me understand why Indianapolis deserves and needs a champion, especially if it comes from a team like the Colts.
The midwest doesn't do well with thugs, loudmouths, or lazy bums. Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Plaxico Burress...dare I say Mike Vanderjagt?...these are not the kind of people that are welcome. I understand this because I am a midwesterner. The work ethic and plethora of good people is as engrained in my soul as the distaste for slackers and chest-thumpers. And this is why the Colts need to win a championship for those good people of not only Indianapolis, but also all the other perceived also-ran cities of the midwest.
Tony Dungy, Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Tom Moore, Ron Meeks, Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Rob Morris, Tarik Glenn: these are players who personnify class and hard work. They are people who mesh with the general ethics and personalities of the population of central Indiana, people who often want nothing more than to raise a good family, be around friends, and have some interesting diversions, and are willing to work hard to get it. The Colts may not be America's Team (and God please tell me that the Cowboys aren't either), but they are Everyman's Team.
This is a team built around doing it the right way: outwork your competition, study harder and be smarter. Don't be dirty, don't cheat. Don't say or do stupid things away from the field or on it. Be pleasant to the media: give them your time as well as being available for the fans. And win and lose as a team, not as individuals.
Yes, the Patriots are the other team that seems to have these qualities, and you can also make the argument that the Saints have picked that persona up this year. But the Saints are a newcomer to the good guys scene. New England? A big city team, as well as the 800 pound gorilla in the NFL. Would anyone be shocked if they unseat the #1 seed Chargers next week? Contrast that with this year's Colts, who are given the same labels generally reserved for the midwest: no one's darling, not from big city, and perceived as flawed and soft. How perfect.
The Colts are going to have their work cut out for them this week, going into their old home of Baltimore, playing against a team of players that not only wouldn't be saleable in Indianapolis but would previously have never been saleable in Baltimore, either. And should they survive that test, they will have to either face this year's most balanced team (the Chargers) or their old nemesis New England. It's not an easy road. But perhaps there should be no easy road for a midwest champion.
It won't surprise me if the Colts bow out before reaching the Super Bowl. Last year was when everything had reached its nexus that would vault the Colts not only to a championship but into a pantheon of great teams, until James Dungy's suicide cast a pall that trivialized and ultimately seemed to undo everything. Fast forward to the 2007 playoffs, and the Colts being almost off the radar. Their defense played the game of the season against Kansas City, but does anyone truly think they can keep it up? Still, there seems to be something special about this team, if only because they are now playing from the same point on the field that Indianapolis the City always seems to be playing: not quite good enough for prime time.
Would it not be fitting if this was the year that the Colts reached for that place deep within their souls, and won one for all the good guys?
I can still watch the RCA Dome, Peyton, the crowd, Monument Circle at game time, and put myself there. I realize how much that team means to the city, and what it was like when it seemed that they might leave for L.A. (Oh, and I remember my thoughts about them coming there from Baltimore, which happened well before I was a resident, but that's a different discussion.)
If there is a city in this country that deserves a championship, it has to be Indianapolis. It's not like Indy is downtrodden or fighting for its economic survival, but it's not special. Don't get me wrong; Indianapolis, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Birmingham, Phoenix, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Milwaukee...there are lots of cities that are very liveable and have good people, but despite the best efforts of their local politicians, media, and citizenry they cannot escape the fact that there is and probably never will be a real reason for large scales of people to seek out and fall in love with their town. Living in Austin has made me face this. But it also makes me understand why Indianapolis deserves and needs a champion, especially if it comes from a team like the Colts.
The midwest doesn't do well with thugs, loudmouths, or lazy bums. Terrell Owens, Randy Moss, Plaxico Burress...dare I say Mike Vanderjagt?...these are not the kind of people that are welcome. I understand this because I am a midwesterner. The work ethic and plethora of good people is as engrained in my soul as the distaste for slackers and chest-thumpers. And this is why the Colts need to win a championship for those good people of not only Indianapolis, but also all the other perceived also-ran cities of the midwest.
Tony Dungy, Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Tom Moore, Ron Meeks, Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Rob Morris, Tarik Glenn: these are players who personnify class and hard work. They are people who mesh with the general ethics and personalities of the population of central Indiana, people who often want nothing more than to raise a good family, be around friends, and have some interesting diversions, and are willing to work hard to get it. The Colts may not be America's Team (and God please tell me that the Cowboys aren't either), but they are Everyman's Team.
This is a team built around doing it the right way: outwork your competition, study harder and be smarter. Don't be dirty, don't cheat. Don't say or do stupid things away from the field or on it. Be pleasant to the media: give them your time as well as being available for the fans. And win and lose as a team, not as individuals.
Yes, the Patriots are the other team that seems to have these qualities, and you can also make the argument that the Saints have picked that persona up this year. But the Saints are a newcomer to the good guys scene. New England? A big city team, as well as the 800 pound gorilla in the NFL. Would anyone be shocked if they unseat the #1 seed Chargers next week? Contrast that with this year's Colts, who are given the same labels generally reserved for the midwest: no one's darling, not from big city, and perceived as flawed and soft. How perfect.
The Colts are going to have their work cut out for them this week, going into their old home of Baltimore, playing against a team of players that not only wouldn't be saleable in Indianapolis but would previously have never been saleable in Baltimore, either. And should they survive that test, they will have to either face this year's most balanced team (the Chargers) or their old nemesis New England. It's not an easy road. But perhaps there should be no easy road for a midwest champion.
It won't surprise me if the Colts bow out before reaching the Super Bowl. Last year was when everything had reached its nexus that would vault the Colts not only to a championship but into a pantheon of great teams, until James Dungy's suicide cast a pall that trivialized and ultimately seemed to undo everything. Fast forward to the 2007 playoffs, and the Colts being almost off the radar. Their defense played the game of the season against Kansas City, but does anyone truly think they can keep it up? Still, there seems to be something special about this team, if only because they are now playing from the same point on the field that Indianapolis the City always seems to be playing: not quite good enough for prime time.
Would it not be fitting if this was the year that the Colts reached for that place deep within their souls, and won one for all the good guys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
