By now even the meteors circling the Planet Formerly Known as Pluto have heard that Sen. Hillary Clinton is “on track” to be President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of State. My reaction is a decided “meh.” I can understand the pressure Obama is under to offer Clinton a senior post, and she is certainly qualified to do *something* in the Cabinet. But State? I just don’t see it.
If I were asked what Clinton’s A-number one expertise is, I wouldn’t say foreign affairs or diplomacy. When it comes to domestic issues like education or health care, I couldn’t think of anyone better. But not State. And there’s the small issue of her disagreeing with Obama on many fundamental foreign relations issues – she still won’t admit that supporting the war in Iraq was a mistake, for instance. With the exception of her goodwill trips as First Lady, she has zero foreign policy experience.
Of course, any Clinton appointment will bring up the elephant in the room – Bill’s finances. When his foundation has accepted shady donations from some of the same nations that the State Department will have to deal with, the neon light reading “Hel-LO! Conflict of Interest!” is flashing so frantically that I can’t help but wonder if Obama isn’t setting her up for failure. “Sorry, PUMAs, I tried to appoint Hillary to a post that matters, but that Big Bad Congress wouldn’t confirm her nomination. Oh, well.”
(Today one of my co-workers wondered if Obama weren’t just trying to get her out of the way. I say no, because first of all State is not exactly a chump job. But it’s an idea…How ’bout Joe Lieberman, Ambassador to Madagascar?)
Meanwhile, we have a former U.N. Ambassador and energy secretary who negotiated more peace agreements than Carter has liver pills, and who endorsed Obama early on to boot. Yep, my man Gov. Bill Richardson still can’t get any respect. You know where CNN has him? The Commerce Department. I don’t even know what they do.
In that vein, I don’t get Tom Daschle at Health and Human Services. Not only would HRC be a million times better here, Daschle’s wife (until recently) worked for a lobbying firm that represents the health industry. That’s not exactly the most reassuring thing in the world.
I’m more reassured by the leak that Tim Geithner will be the nominee for Treasury Secretary. As head of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, Geithner’s been at ground zero of the financial crisis on Wall Street. And, at least according to my favorite economics professor, Geithner was warning about the sub-prime danger years ago. I like prescience. Also, he’s backed smaller commercial banks (the life-blood of credit in the 99.9% of the country that isn’t Wall Street), but also has the confidence of the big market guys.
At this point, it looks like the Obama team is still in trial-balloon mode – I won’t allow myself to get too happy or pissed off until he makes the actual nominations.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Jon Meacham on "The Daily Show"
It's a banner day! Two of the people on my "People I Want to Have a Beer With" list discussing yet a third person on my "People I Want to Have a Beer With" list! Jon Meacham, an editor at Newsweek, goes on "The Daily Show" to talk about his new book on Andrew Jackson's presidency:
I know Jackson did horrible things, and was kind of a dick to boot, but I just can't help but love him. For better or worse, he changed the presidency forever. (And launched the Democratic Party, becoming the first president to pay off the national debt.) But, for the record...Yes, I know Jackson represented Tennessee and lived there when he was launching his political career, but he was from North Carolina.
Bonus: the interview goes into coverage of presidents and their candidates. Interesting...
I know Jackson did horrible things, and was kind of a dick to boot, but I just can't help but love him. For better or worse, he changed the presidency forever. (And launched the Democratic Party, becoming the first president to pay off the national debt.) But, for the record...Yes, I know Jackson represented Tennessee and lived there when he was launching his political career, but he was from North Carolina.
Bonus: the interview goes into coverage of presidents and their candidates. Interesting...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Football day!
So my doomsday prediction about the Panthers losing to the Lions didn't come to pass, though my guys were down 10-0 at one point. Not even a TD by my future husband Jeff King (yay for the tight ends!) could help me shake that sense of foreboding........I'm just saying, set aside my step-dad's jinx and the Panthers' unfortunate propensity for losing to terrible teams. Daunte Culpepper made me nervous. It was in this very stadium three years ago that Chris Gamble destroyed the ligaments in Daunte's knee, and possibly his Hall of Fame career. Washed up, written off, Daunte has one last shot at redemption, in the very place where it all went south. If you'rer writing the Daunte Culpepper Story, how would you end it? Exactly.
Even though the Panthers were up 31-22, I was deeply freaked out to have to leave my house at 4 p.m. so that I could get to my nephew's "super bowl" on time. But the boys pulled it out, and now at 8-2 they're narrowly leading the division. Now, for the day's main event...
The "super bowl"/cheerleading competition was actually scheduled for yesterday. Yes, it rained all through Friday night and Saturday morning, but by the time I woke up Saturday, the sun was shining and the day was on its way to 70 degrees. But the geniuses in charge of the league decided that the field was too fragile to handle 22 80-lb. players at one time, so instead these nine and ten year olds found themselves playing at sunset in 40 degree weather.
There's not much better than watching little kids play football. Sure, most of them weigh less than their pads and helmets, but it's just so cool to see a 10-year-old lob a pass (!) and another 10-year-old actually catch it (even if it's a 10-year-old from the other team...). There weren't a ton of completions, thanks to the fact that the kids' hands were frozen blocks of ice. But they were hard-core into it. I wish I could say the same for the refs, who seemed to take a fairly casual attitude toward their officiating. It irritates me to see adults blow off anything that's so important to the kids involved.
My sister was justifiably pissed off that my nephew sat the bench the whole time, but I think he was more concerned about getting to someplace warm. Even though he wasn't having the best time in the world, I'm really proud of him for sticking it out for the whole season. And I'm even more pleased that no one cheap-shotted him after the whistle this time, because I really wasn't looking forward to beating up a little kid, even one from Mt. Airy.
But the best part came before the game started. The woman singing the national anthem was apparently under the impression that she was auditioning for "American Idol," judging by her unfortunate belting tendencies. Toward the end she blew out the microphone or something, because she started cutting in and out about the time we saw through the night that our flag was still there. Here's the cool part: all around me, I could hear random people picking up where she left off, singing along through the end. It was one of those cheesy moments that nevertheless give you chills for some reason. Maybe I'm just a goofball, but I thought it was awesome.
Even though the Panthers were up 31-22, I was deeply freaked out to have to leave my house at 4 p.m. so that I could get to my nephew's "super bowl" on time. But the boys pulled it out, and now at 8-2 they're narrowly leading the division. Now, for the day's main event...
The "super bowl"/cheerleading competition was actually scheduled for yesterday. Yes, it rained all through Friday night and Saturday morning, but by the time I woke up Saturday, the sun was shining and the day was on its way to 70 degrees. But the geniuses in charge of the league decided that the field was too fragile to handle 22 80-lb. players at one time, so instead these nine and ten year olds found themselves playing at sunset in 40 degree weather.
There's not much better than watching little kids play football. Sure, most of them weigh less than their pads and helmets, but it's just so cool to see a 10-year-old lob a pass (!) and another 10-year-old actually catch it (even if it's a 10-year-old from the other team...). There weren't a ton of completions, thanks to the fact that the kids' hands were frozen blocks of ice. But they were hard-core into it. I wish I could say the same for the refs, who seemed to take a fairly casual attitude toward their officiating. It irritates me to see adults blow off anything that's so important to the kids involved.
My sister was justifiably pissed off that my nephew sat the bench the whole time, but I think he was more concerned about getting to someplace warm. Even though he wasn't having the best time in the world, I'm really proud of him for sticking it out for the whole season. And I'm even more pleased that no one cheap-shotted him after the whistle this time, because I really wasn't looking forward to beating up a little kid, even one from Mt. Airy.
But the best part came before the game started. The woman singing the national anthem was apparently under the impression that she was auditioning for "American Idol," judging by her unfortunate belting tendencies. Toward the end she blew out the microphone or something, because she started cutting in and out about the time we saw through the night that our flag was still there. Here's the cool part: all around me, I could hear random people picking up where she left off, singing along through the end. It was one of those cheesy moments that nevertheless give you chills for some reason. Maybe I'm just a goofball, but I thought it was awesome.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Dirt.
Or, as Newsweek diplomatically puts it, "Secrets of the 2008 Campaign," aka all the dirt reporters were honor-bound to conceal until after the election. Back when we were hearing about Gov. Sarah Palin's alleged issues (more on that later), I was kind of miffed at the whole "secret" thing...when what you as a reporter see or hear of a candidate directly contradicts what that candidate is saying out on the trail, I think you kind of have an obligation to let people know while they can still do something about it. But most of what's in this gripping seven-part loooooong read is pretty tame, falling into the "interesting, but not exculpatory" category.
For instance...Sen. Hillary Clinton was more ambivalent about running than the caricatures of her would have us believe. So was Sen. Obama. McCain's campaign was even more dysfunctional than it appeared. Cindy McCain still hates Karl Rove (putting her a little higher on my "people I want to have a beer with" list).
Now, about the Palin drama...in an earlier post, I was a little dubious about the much-reported claims that she didn't know if Africa were a country or a continent, among other things. Well, it turns out that the Africa tidbit came from a "McCain aid" who's not actually a real person. I have to say, it scares the hell out of me that so many news outlets could be taken in by a hoax. It's an indictment of the way business is conducted in the world of the 24-hour news cycle, where the emphasis on how quickly a reporter can deliver the meat, and not necessarily on how well-cooked it is.
It's also telling that the first MSM outlet to report "Eisenstadt"'s claim was good ol' Fox News. It's nice to see that their sloppiness extends to conservative political figures on occasion. When Melissa at Shakesville first wrote about the segment where Fox's Carl Cameron gleefully threw Palin under the bus (hint: when Bill O'Reilly is the moderate voice of reason in your discussion, you should probably consider drawing back), I honestly thought she was laying it on a little thick. After all, it's not "sexist" to report facts, is it? But when those facts turn out not to be facts, one has to ask - why did Cameron rush to the air with a completely unsubstantiated (because the source is fake) story? Is it that old media disease, "must get the story out first"? Or is it that he didn't care because the rumor fit a prevailing conservative narrative that women just aren't equipped to handle governing? It's troubling on many levels.
So on one hand, we've got a meticulously reported behind-the-scenes account of the 2008 presidential race that I want to keep for my great-grandchildren, and on the other, a sad example of why so many of us are so wary of trusting the mainstream media. Sigh.
For instance...Sen. Hillary Clinton was more ambivalent about running than the caricatures of her would have us believe. So was Sen. Obama. McCain's campaign was even more dysfunctional than it appeared. Cindy McCain still hates Karl Rove (putting her a little higher on my "people I want to have a beer with" list).
Now, about the Palin drama...in an earlier post, I was a little dubious about the much-reported claims that she didn't know if Africa were a country or a continent, among other things. Well, it turns out that the Africa tidbit came from a "McCain aid" who's not actually a real person. I have to say, it scares the hell out of me that so many news outlets could be taken in by a hoax. It's an indictment of the way business is conducted in the world of the 24-hour news cycle, where the emphasis on how quickly a reporter can deliver the meat, and not necessarily on how well-cooked it is.
It's also telling that the first MSM outlet to report "Eisenstadt"'s claim was good ol' Fox News. It's nice to see that their sloppiness extends to conservative political figures on occasion. When Melissa at Shakesville first wrote about the segment where Fox's Carl Cameron gleefully threw Palin under the bus (hint: when Bill O'Reilly is the moderate voice of reason in your discussion, you should probably consider drawing back), I honestly thought she was laying it on a little thick. After all, it's not "sexist" to report facts, is it? But when those facts turn out not to be facts, one has to ask - why did Cameron rush to the air with a completely unsubstantiated (because the source is fake) story? Is it that old media disease, "must get the story out first"? Or is it that he didn't care because the rumor fit a prevailing conservative narrative that women just aren't equipped to handle governing? It's troubling on many levels.
So on one hand, we've got a meticulously reported behind-the-scenes account of the 2008 presidential race that I want to keep for my great-grandchildren, and on the other, a sad example of why so many of us are so wary of trusting the mainstream media. Sigh.
On Prop 8
Nov. 4, 2008 was an interesting day in American history. Yes, we elected a moderate-progressive with an improbable backstory (who happens to be black), which came as a relief to me and many other Americans. At the same time, a majority of voters in California - that supposedly reliable progressive state - were voting to strip tens of thousands of citizens of their civil rights.
I've heard a number of explanations for the passage of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, ranging from confusion about what a "yes" vote meant to supposed homophobia among the large number of African Americans who came out to vote for Barack Obama. Since Prop 8's passage, proponents of same-sex marriage have, well - not to put too fine a point on it - gone apeshit. I don't blame them. If my state's government put my very right to live my life up for a popular vote, I'd be pissed, too.
To say the last week and a half has been contentious is putting it mildly. Protestors have targeted the voters who supported Prop 8, particularly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who pumped millions into advertising in favor of Prop 8. They've publicly mulled boycotts of companies who donated money to the pro-Prop 8 effort, and even the entire state of Utah, where the Mormon Church is based. And now the targetees are pushing back, accusing the protestors of bigotry.
So let's make sure we're clear: however many people California requires to sign a petition to get an initiative on a ballot felt that it was appropriate to ask the public whether gay people deserve the same civil protections and privileges that come along with marriage as straight people do. Tens of millions of dollars were spent trying to persuade people that the answer was no. Then 52 percent of Californian voters decided that gay people were, in fact, second-class citizens. The people whose rights were just stripped away take exception to this, and say so........And they're the bigots?
Ok, first of all - no. Nobody's boycotting people who gave money to John McCain. Nobody's witch-hunting people who disagree with them politically, like, I dunno, the Bush Administration's been doing for much of the last eight years. Nobody's calling them terrorist sympathizers, as the vice president and several members of Congress did me and others who opposed the Iraq war. Nobody's going all Joe McCarthy on people who privately oppose same-sex marriage.
The First Amendment guarantees that Americans can speak freely, support causes and associate with like-minded others without fear of reprisal from the state. It does not guarantee that you can openly support discrimination against other citizens without having to deal with the consequences, such as a boycott by the citizens against whom you want to discriminate. If I don't hire you because I don't like how you voted, you have every right to sue my pants off. If I'm marching in front of your temple, on the other hand - welcome to America. Hope you like the view.
And while we're on the subject, let me introduce you to my other best Constitutional friend, the equal protection clause. That means that the laws, and protections under those laws, apply to this person (or couple) over here the same as they do for this person (or couple) over there. If you want that to not be so, then you'd better give me a better reason than "I think what Person B does in the privacy of his or her bedroom is icky."
I'm sick and tired of people asking me why I, an openly straight woman, emphatically support the right of gay couples to marry. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the people who want to flout the intent of the law be required to explain to me why I should go along with them?
I've never heard a single convincing argument as to why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. You're welcome to try, but you'll probably fail. You see, I love this country, and I love its laws. I curl up at night with a copy of the Bill of Rights in one hand and The Federalist in the other, with the Gettysburg Address embroidered on my pillow for good measure. And I'm a devout Christian - I'd give my life for the man who told his followers that their highest calling is to treat others the way they would want to be treated. I can't imagine ever - ever - twisting the laws of the noblest experiment in the world's history to enforce a distorted interpretation of the teachings on which I try to base my life.
The Prop 8 supporters who are being so extraordinarily called out this week made a choice to involve themselves in the political process (and in my opinion chose the wrong side). They can't hide from that choice now.
I've heard a number of explanations for the passage of Proposition 8, which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, ranging from confusion about what a "yes" vote meant to supposed homophobia among the large number of African Americans who came out to vote for Barack Obama. Since Prop 8's passage, proponents of same-sex marriage have, well - not to put too fine a point on it - gone apeshit. I don't blame them. If my state's government put my very right to live my life up for a popular vote, I'd be pissed, too.
To say the last week and a half has been contentious is putting it mildly. Protestors have targeted the voters who supported Prop 8, particularly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who pumped millions into advertising in favor of Prop 8. They've publicly mulled boycotts of companies who donated money to the pro-Prop 8 effort, and even the entire state of Utah, where the Mormon Church is based. And now the targetees are pushing back, accusing the protestors of bigotry.
So let's make sure we're clear: however many people California requires to sign a petition to get an initiative on a ballot felt that it was appropriate to ask the public whether gay people deserve the same civil protections and privileges that come along with marriage as straight people do. Tens of millions of dollars were spent trying to persuade people that the answer was no. Then 52 percent of Californian voters decided that gay people were, in fact, second-class citizens. The people whose rights were just stripped away take exception to this, and say so........And they're the bigots?
Ok, first of all - no. Nobody's boycotting people who gave money to John McCain. Nobody's witch-hunting people who disagree with them politically, like, I dunno, the Bush Administration's been doing for much of the last eight years. Nobody's calling them terrorist sympathizers, as the vice president and several members of Congress did me and others who opposed the Iraq war. Nobody's going all Joe McCarthy on people who privately oppose same-sex marriage.
The First Amendment guarantees that Americans can speak freely, support causes and associate with like-minded others without fear of reprisal from the state. It does not guarantee that you can openly support discrimination against other citizens without having to deal with the consequences, such as a boycott by the citizens against whom you want to discriminate. If I don't hire you because I don't like how you voted, you have every right to sue my pants off. If I'm marching in front of your temple, on the other hand - welcome to America. Hope you like the view.
And while we're on the subject, let me introduce you to my other best Constitutional friend, the equal protection clause. That means that the laws, and protections under those laws, apply to this person (or couple) over here the same as they do for this person (or couple) over there. If you want that to not be so, then you'd better give me a better reason than "I think what Person B does in the privacy of his or her bedroom is icky."
I'm sick and tired of people asking me why I, an openly straight woman, emphatically support the right of gay couples to marry. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the people who want to flout the intent of the law be required to explain to me why I should go along with them?
I've never heard a single convincing argument as to why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. You're welcome to try, but you'll probably fail. You see, I love this country, and I love its laws. I curl up at night with a copy of the Bill of Rights in one hand and The Federalist in the other, with the Gettysburg Address embroidered on my pillow for good measure. And I'm a devout Christian - I'd give my life for the man who told his followers that their highest calling is to treat others the way they would want to be treated. I can't imagine ever - ever - twisting the laws of the noblest experiment in the world's history to enforce a distorted interpretation of the teachings on which I try to base my life.
The Prop 8 supporters who are being so extraordinarily called out this week made a choice to involve themselves in the political process (and in my opinion chose the wrong side). They can't hide from that choice now.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
GOPers do a post-mortem
Reading about why Senator McCain lost the presidency on left-leaning blogs is kind of pointless. (Gratifying, but pointless.) So today I decided to go straight to the horse's mouth: Townhall.com, a site I usually only visit when I'm linked there by one of the aforementioned left-leaning blogs appalled at something posted there.
First, Michael Medved explores how McCain lost by getting almost as many Republican votes as President Bush did in '04 - Bush made up the difference with independents, which this year tended to break for Obama. I don't know if his stats are accurate, but it sure sounds logical. After losing the 2000 Republican nomination, McCain made a tactical decision to veer rightward. In his presidential campaign, he seemed to go totally off the rails in a bid to win over hard conservatives, to the point where he contradicted his own votes on Bush's tax cuts and other issues. For every vote McCain picked up in "the base," he probably lost two in the middle. Picking an extreme social conservative like Gov. Palin as his running mate was just icing on the cake.
And then there's Ann Coulter, who can actually be pretty funny when she's not being crazy. Case in point:
"This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?"
Of course Coulter's never been high on McCain - she's definitely one of the conservatives the campaign hoped to attract with the Palin pick. But it's interesting that her conclusion - "How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that 'moderate,' 'independent,' 'maverick' Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?" - is the exact opposite of Medved's.
And I don't even know what to say about this whole post-election crucification of Palin. Anonymously sourced McCain campaign people are leaking to the press that she's a shopaholic "diva" who didn't know that Africa was a continent and couldn't name all the countries in North America, even though she lives in one and right next to a second. Okay, first of all, there's no way that's true. So we're left with one of two conclusions...Either the leakers seriously despise Palin for one reason or another, or they're preemptively trying to undermine any future political career she might have. Either way, it doesn't point to a very happily run organization. Reason #957 why I'm glad they're not running the country.
I'm not gloating - far from it. It's just fascinating to see conservatives bicker, insist upon mutually exclusive interpretations of facts and in some cases outright call one another out. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were Democrats. ;)
First, Michael Medved explores how McCain lost by getting almost as many Republican votes as President Bush did in '04 - Bush made up the difference with independents, which this year tended to break for Obama. I don't know if his stats are accurate, but it sure sounds logical. After losing the 2000 Republican nomination, McCain made a tactical decision to veer rightward. In his presidential campaign, he seemed to go totally off the rails in a bid to win over hard conservatives, to the point where he contradicted his own votes on Bush's tax cuts and other issues. For every vote McCain picked up in "the base," he probably lost two in the middle. Picking an extreme social conservative like Gov. Palin as his running mate was just icing on the cake.
And then there's Ann Coulter, who can actually be pretty funny when she's not being crazy. Case in point:
"This was such an enormous Democratic year that even John Murtha won his congressional seat in Pennsylvania after calling his constituents racists. It turns out they're not racists -- they're retards. Question: What exactly would one have to say to alienate Pennsylvanians? That Joe Paterno should retire?"
Of course Coulter's never been high on McCain - she's definitely one of the conservatives the campaign hoped to attract with the Palin pick. But it's interesting that her conclusion - "How many times do we have to run this experiment before Republican primary voters learn that 'moderate,' 'independent,' 'maverick' Republicans never win, and right-wing Republicans never lose?" - is the exact opposite of Medved's.
And I don't even know what to say about this whole post-election crucification of Palin. Anonymously sourced McCain campaign people are leaking to the press that she's a shopaholic "diva" who didn't know that Africa was a continent and couldn't name all the countries in North America, even though she lives in one and right next to a second. Okay, first of all, there's no way that's true. So we're left with one of two conclusions...Either the leakers seriously despise Palin for one reason or another, or they're preemptively trying to undermine any future political career she might have. Either way, it doesn't point to a very happily run organization. Reason #957 why I'm glad they're not running the country.
I'm not gloating - far from it. It's just fascinating to see conservatives bicker, insist upon mutually exclusive interpretations of facts and in some cases outright call one another out. If I didn't know better, I'd think they were Democrats. ;)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
What the world thinks
One of the reasons I supported Barack Obama was the potential he has as president to restore America's standing in the world. I have so much to say about what happened tonight, but for now let's just look at the reactions of the world:
BBC (Great Britain)
The Times of India (the world's largest English-language daily newspaper)
Al-Jazeera (Arab world) (Warning: slowest Web site in the world - can't even link to them because the connection keeps timing out...)
Haaretz Daily (Israel)
BBC (Great Britain)
The Times of India (the world's largest English-language daily newspaper)
Al-Jazeera (Arab world) (Warning: slowest Web site in the world - can't even link to them because the connection keeps timing out...)
Haaretz Daily (Israel)
Monday, November 3, 2008
KO'd
Ben Affleck does my favorite blowhard, Keith Olbermann, on SNL:
I love it almost as much as I really, really can't stand Olbermann.
I love it almost as much as I really, really can't stand Olbermann.
Breaking out my crystal ball
I'm the least psychic person on the planet, but sometimes inspiration strikes:
It bugs me that everyone from the national press to "Saturday Night Live" have Gov. Sarah Palin running for the REpublican nomination for president in 2012, like they think she's going to quietly go back to Alaska and hunt moose for the next four years. No one's pointed out the obvious: Alaska's Senator Ted Stevens was convicted on corruption charges last week, but the ennormously popular Stevens might still win tomorrow. This is what I see happening: Stevens wins, and sometime in the next few months bows to pressure to resign his seat. Guess who Alaska's governor appoints to complete his term? Now Palin gets a few years of national experience and exposure under her belt before trying to climb Mount White House again. Hey, it (almost) worked for Hillary Clinton...
Last week when I went to the Panthers-Cardinals game with my step-dad, we had to have a talk about how sports jinxes work. Basically, he was going down the Panthers' remaining schedule trying to figure out who could possibly beat us, other than maybe Denver - who lost to Kansas City, who then got crushed by the Panthers. He specifically mentioned the upcoming game against the Detroit Lions as a "gimme." Now, setting aside my cats' nasty habit of losing horribly to teams that my nephew's peewee team could beat, there's this. So here's my prediction: Culpepper will indeed start in the Panthers-Lions game Nov. 16, and given both Culpepper's revenge motive (it was the Panthers who killed his knee, and therefore his career) and the Panthers historically bad luck in drawing new QBs on which our defense has no film (see Romo, Tony, and Garcia, Jeff about 14 different times), I don't think that's a gimme.
But the good news is that the Panthers almost never lose to the same team twice in one season (including playoffs). So that means when Tampa Bay comes to town in December, we should get an exact opposite version of the pathetic show the Panthers put in a few weeks ago. The Falcons might be a little friskier, but I still think the cats will win the division.
It bugs me that everyone from the national press to "Saturday Night Live" have Gov. Sarah Palin running for the REpublican nomination for president in 2012, like they think she's going to quietly go back to Alaska and hunt moose for the next four years. No one's pointed out the obvious: Alaska's Senator Ted Stevens was convicted on corruption charges last week, but the ennormously popular Stevens might still win tomorrow. This is what I see happening: Stevens wins, and sometime in the next few months bows to pressure to resign his seat. Guess who Alaska's governor appoints to complete his term? Now Palin gets a few years of national experience and exposure under her belt before trying to climb Mount White House again. Hey, it (almost) worked for Hillary Clinton...
Last week when I went to the Panthers-Cardinals game with my step-dad, we had to have a talk about how sports jinxes work. Basically, he was going down the Panthers' remaining schedule trying to figure out who could possibly beat us, other than maybe Denver - who lost to Kansas City, who then got crushed by the Panthers. He specifically mentioned the upcoming game against the Detroit Lions as a "gimme." Now, setting aside my cats' nasty habit of losing horribly to teams that my nephew's peewee team could beat, there's this. So here's my prediction: Culpepper will indeed start in the Panthers-Lions game Nov. 16, and given both Culpepper's revenge motive (it was the Panthers who killed his knee, and therefore his career) and the Panthers historically bad luck in drawing new QBs on which our defense has no film (see Romo, Tony, and Garcia, Jeff about 14 different times), I don't think that's a gimme.
But the good news is that the Panthers almost never lose to the same team twice in one season (including playoffs). So that means when Tampa Bay comes to town in December, we should get an exact opposite version of the pathetic show the Panthers put in a few weeks ago. The Falcons might be a little friskier, but I still think the cats will win the division.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)