Quo Vadimus

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.