To check out our new Red Sox blog, Me and Pedro Down By the Schoolyard.
Also, if you haven’t read my A-Rod essay, The Huckster, this will be my last shout-out for it.
And just for fun, we’ll dig into the vault for an old column of mine from the Queens Chronicle, apropos during election season.
That type of day.
I didn’t get to sleep last night because it was windy and loud and I thought someone was walking around my backyard. Fun stuff.
Joe Posnanski I’m not.
I know y’all have probably had it with the Red Sox, specifically Red Sox blogs, but I was just reading a funny, insightful and clever one today called Me and Pedro Down By The Schoolyard, written by, it looks like, two childhood friends from Massachusetts. This is their quasi-mission statement. You should really check it out.
In an “unrelated note,” I won’t be blogging here about the Red Sox all that much…
I’ve had a topsy-turvy relationship with Lost over the years that has finally settled on “topsy.” (That’s the good one, I think.) I’m now a dedicated fan of the show, but it took some convincing. I watched the pilot and a lot of season one, but in season two and the beginning of season three I was put off by the sudden influx of supplies the castaways came across. When the show wasn’t about survival, I was thrown for a loop. I also thought the non-stop references to philosophy and literature (Locke, Rousseau, Sawyer, etc.) were cloying, whereas now I just find them amusing. Nonetheless, I still made a point to watch all the season three episodes before last year’s ill-considered three-month hiatus, at which point I gave up for good. Or so I thought.
Let me just say this, before I go on: I work with a bunch of Lost fans, and they all supported my decision. Not much had happened in the third season, and between the often glacial pace of the show and my haphazard watching schedule, they said they couldn’t blame me for bailing. Even when the show came back on last spring, they were furious at the addition of Paolo and Nikki, two model-looking “new” castaways who were promptly buried alive. When I heard about this episode, I figured I had made the right choice.
We all know what happened: I made the wrong choice. I’ve since caught up, and there’s little I can say about the show other than, for anyone who’s even half-followed it, it’s appointment television until it goes off the air, and its finale will probably have M.A.S.H.-like numbers. (That was 25 years ago and it’s still the top-viewed show ever). But last spring, the same people who were complaining about the show absolutely killed me for stopping, after the season finale. “You’re an idiot,” “What were you thinking?” etc. It was absurd, and I told them so, and they didn’t listen.
I’m not trying to paint all Lost fans into a corner here, but the reason I bring it up is that today, the same people were carping about how “they can’t introduce new characters now,” “I don’t see how they’re going to do anything in 8 episodes,” and the like. Nevermind that the only meaty part of last year were the final 8 episodes, they’ve had this discussion before. At what point will they realize that the show just doesn’t disappoint? Just sit back and enjoy it, everyone: it’s one of the best shows ever.
I saw a commercial last night called “Perfect Season.” It goes like this:
Perfect terrible beginning
Perfect pre-season distractions
Perfect injured Plaxico
Perfect Strahan near retirement
Perfect argument with the press
Perfect in-fighting
Perfect first loss
Perfect second loss
Perfect interceptions
Perfect “Booo”s
Perfect broken Shockey
Perfect inconsistency
Perfect week 17 loss
Perfect when it counts
Perfect point spread
Perfect ending
Perfect season
And you know what? It was right for the Giants, it was a perfect season. The only result that mattered was the score in the last game, and once you’ve got that on your side — that’s perfection. A lot of Patriots fans I know were incensed at the thought of losing a mere regular season game this year, leading one to email me saying he would “drink a bottle of bleach” if they did. He’s on the rampage now for David Tyree, but he really should be angry at the Patriots. It was their failed strategy that led them to lose, and they deserve the blame.
At what point did we think we needed to be invincible to the be the best? Does it come from watching the Yankees? Does it come from the Celtics/Lakers rivalry? I’m more inclined to say the second one than the first, actually: Patriots fans have a desire to bury their closest opponent and hate everything about them, like the Lakers and Celtics did when they tore each other apart for a decade. I have never, ever understood the uniform hatred of the Colts and Peyton Manning. Outside of a three-game stretch that culminated in a loss that was arguable tougher than Sunday’s Super Bowl loss, the Patriots have owned the Colts. What’s there to be angry about?
I actually saw some highlights from this year’s Colts game recently and winced: I can’t even watch any more. That was when the undefeated talk really started, and when the Pats more or less started playing like the 2003/2004 Patriots, winning close games instead of blowing people out (notwithstanding the Buffalo game). That was fine, because those teams won it all, and one thing I have realized about the Super Bowl is how it was an expression of how good the Patriots were, not how bad they were. Let’s face it, they were getting smacked all over the f’ing field all night and still had the lead with 2:45 left. They just couldn’t put it away. They ran up against a team that, on the day of the game, was better in virtually every phase of the game and came up 35 seconds short. What can I say?
Here’s what: be careful what you wish for, as fans. We can’t control what the team does, and 16-0 is great and non-refundable: it’s ours forever. We won as many games in a season as any team ever, tying the 1985 Bears. Let’s take the positives out of this season and look back on our three Super Bowl titles as if they’re solidly in the past. There might be another one, but we’ll never expect it any more. The illusion that the Pats are unstoppable has been destroyed, but remember this: it was an illusion the whole time. They play the games for a reason. Let’s have some fun out there.
As much as I wanted to keep my Obama post up today, my fingers are still wandering over the keys after the Super Bowl, and I figure it’s better to try go ahead and get it over with.
This isn’t one of those losses that hit me all at once. It’s one that will stick with me for years, because it’s been easier to repress any feelings of anger since about halfway through the game, when I figured the Patriots were going to lose. The mind plays funny tricks on people, and some day soon I’ll be torturing myself about specific plays, and how if any one of them had gone the Pats’ way, they would have won.
The problem is, I know that’s unfair. We got the breaks for years, and it was destined to come back on us, sharply. And, unlike any other NFC team, I am legitimately happy for my Giants fan friends because there are so many of them, and they have, for the most part, steered clear of me. I texted a few after the game offering congratulations, and one sent me an email yesterday asking me about the game, and I had to respond with platitudes, because my heart wasn’t in it. Will Leitch put it best in his NYT blog post:
It was sports at its absolute best: Random, unimaginable, insane. Not even a Patriots fan could deny it, though, just for the record, I’d wait a week or so to press them on the issue.
I don’t even know if a week will suffice. Everything I know about the game, intellectually, breaks my freaking heart, because my team lost the Super Bowl. And this is what people forget about Patriots fans: they’re the exact same as everyone else. I started reading the Indianapolis Colts blot 18to88.blogspot.com this year because I was interested in hearing opposing voices to the Pats media machine. They were thrilled after the Super Bowl, because the Patrots lost, and more because Brady became de-mystified. They have long argued that to judge Peyton Manning based on the results of the games was not his fault, because there were often external factors that affected the performance. But in their latest post, they write about how Brady looked bad and he had a “mixture of frustration and confusion” on his face that will be their lasting memory of the game, gleefully. These are the EXACT same complaints that have been leveled against Manning in the past, which they have steadfastly refuted. I started reading thinking I would learn what the Patriots-infatuated media wasn’t telling me; what I learned, instead, is that the other fans are no different than Pats fans.
Everyone else can keep telling themselves that they are, but they’re not. I’ve tried to be a gracious fan in victory, but many have not, just like some Giants fans who were more concerned with “18-1” than they were with their own victories, and Giants fan who egged me in December after I did exactly nothing. Though most all Giants fans who are friends of mine have given me ample space here, like normal human beings. The point is you can’t pigeonhole a whole group of fans. I know my fair share of ignorant, say, Steelers fans, too, but I don’t classify them as a bad group: I would argue that they have the best fan base in the NFL. I like hating them, but I go to great pains to be consistent with my football analysis. It’s that consistency that has me constantly remembering the 2001 Pats Super Bowl after Sunday, and how I felt, and how the Giants feel now, and how that’s good for the game.
It’s also why I get upset at people like the unfathomable Gregg Easterbrook, who writes columns that basically tell every Patriots fan their team is f*cking dirt. Easterbrook’s no different than anyone else, and you can tell by the tenor of his column: if it was his favorite team, the Redskins or whomever, he’d be arguing on their side. Just wait 10 years, when another team starts to dominate for stretches like the Patriots, and see who defends them. It will be a select few who are consistent on the issue, but it will mostly be the fans of that team. It’s like clockwork. These things repeat themselves, but everyone lives in the present and forgets.
When the Super Bowl ended, the first thing I felt was not sadness. It was relief. This season was finally over. I was called an asshole 20x over for simply owning a Patriots jersey and wearing it to watch my incredibly good team. I didn’t care if the Patriots went undefeated; I just wanted them to win the last game. But they didn’t. When I saw Bill Belichick giving the postgame speech, he was wearing a Patriots polo, and I realized that maybe some of the fans who have colored the bad impressions of the Pats over the past few years will fall off the bandwagon because that little Patriots logo stood for “winning” to them. For me, it was the logo I failed to draw many times after it was introduced when I was in seventh grade, and indicative of the team I still love without qualifications. Some of the people there, I don’t care for, but as a franchise there isn’t one I love more.
That’s why this one will never go away, the same way the 1986 Red Sox debacle didn’t go away until 2004. I’ll be standing in line at a deli, waiting to buy a Gatorade, and it’ll hit me… faaaaaaaaahk. I’ll be reading a history book, and… faaaaaaaahk. I’ll be on a date, and I’ll think, “Faaaaaahk… but this is better.” It just sucks, at times of its own choosing. I have a friend who is a big Cleveland Indians fan, and when I asked him how often he thinks about Jose Mesa, the guy who blew the 1997 World Series, he answered “Every day.” This was five years ago, so he might not think about it that often any more, and the Patriots’ recent run of success will temper it for me. But if you see me a week from now, a month from now, even a year from now, and I’m suddenly quiet… looking off in the distance… and then shaking my head, silently, you know exactly what I’m thinking about. Just give me a second, and we’ll move on.
As non-political as I try to make this blog, I want to make the case for Barack Obama in today’s primary election. My friends are pretty much split along Hillary/Obama lines, but I can’t let the arguments I hear for Hillary go unchallenged. Let me also say this at the outset: if John McCain wins the Republican nomination, and we have a Presidential race of McCain/Obama or McCain/Clinton, I will already be happy with the President no matter whom it is. I understand that many will disagree with me, but I don’t care to argue the point. That’s how I feel. But I feel Barack Obama is the best choice, and that the arguments for Hillary hold little water. Here they are:
1. She has more experience
It is true that Hillary Clinton has more Senatorial experience than Obama and is older, and therefore has more professional experience. I think most of the “experience” people refer to here is Clinton’s time in the White House. I do not believe proximity to the President has any bearing on how good a President will ultimately be, though it would help Hillary on day one, the moment she pledges to reform the broken White House. Clinton proponents have stressed that someone with intimate knowledge of the White House has a distinct advantage over someone like Obama, who has spent little time in the Oval Office. This argument has many holes in it, the first being that Bill Clinton himself came into the White House with no White House experience, though he logged executive experience in Arkansas. None of the presumed candidates for President have executive experience, so either:
a) Bill Clinton’s executive experience helped him to become a good President, or
b) Bill Clinton’s executive experience did not help him become a good President
If the answer is “a,” and we’re granting Hillary executive experience by proxy, this would go directly against her own contention that the President alone is responsible for their decisions, and bears the weight of the office. She said this in response to fears of a co-Presidency, which she said “didn’t work” the first time. If it “didn’t work” the first time, then why would we grant her any credit for executive experience? (Plus, if we were really worried about it, we’d have Romney/Richardson).
If the answer is “b,” then it’s a moot point, and any supposed knowledge runoff to Hillary wouldn’t benefit her, nor would it detract from Obama’s campaign. Outside of her White House years, Hillary’s record is not distinctly any more or less impressive than Obama’s, and vice versa. But her “experience” in the White House, while relevant in a few key areas, should not be a deciding factor in the Presidential race. (And obviously, if you think the answer is “c: Bill Clinton was not a good President,” this discussion probably isn’t relevant.)
2. She will be ready on “day one”
First of all, between the inauguration and the Presidential ball, this should really be “day two.” Jokes aside, I agree with Hillary here: she will be better on Day One. This is the one area that her proximity to the White House will help or, more importantly, the access to her husband’s former team of leaders. We’d probably get a team of people very familiar with the workings of the White House, and negotiating that bureaucracy is an actual challenge that Hillary would be better faced to meet. If Obama was elected President, I could see his bridge-building agenda getting off to a slow start, and I could see him hitting a few speed bumps with the bureaucracy. The advantage for 2009 is solidly for Hillary.
But here’s the thing: we are electing a President for four years. The same factor that would allow Hillary to have a stable team in place on day one would be limiting on day 366, or day 700. Obama would need to learn the landscape to find a team of new leaders and thinkers, just like Bill Clinton did in 1993. Bill Clinton had a terrible two years in office but rebounded to thump Bob Dole in 1996, and this should make it clear that it’s not about day one at all. The colossal disaster that is George W. Bush’s America cannot be fixed in a day, and probably can’t be fixed in four years. If you think Hillary is the better Presidential candidate across a four year term, by all means, vote for her, but “day one” is her zinger, and it means next to nothing.
3. She will have the best adviser in the world
There’s no denying Bill Clinton’s political talents and his intelligence, and there would be no denying his effect on a H. Clinton presidency, real or imagined. No matter what Hillary says, there will always be the perception that Bill is pulling some strings, and in politics, perception and reality have a funny way of mixing. Now for a lot of people, that’s alright. They like the idea of Bill Clinton being close to the White House.
But let’s look at it this way: we only trust Bill Clinton’s judgment because we saw it in action as President. Does Hillary receive any credit as an adviser to her husband’s Presidency? Hardly. It’s more about what she took from it than what she gave to it. Those simply nostalgic for Billy should remember that memory plays tricks on people, and that nostalgia is a dangerous tool when picking someone who will lead as the idealized time period falls farther and farther into the past. The world has changed significantly since Bill Clinton was in office, and it’s only going to continue to change.
•
Like the arguments for Hillary, you’ve heard the arguments for Obama before: he will unite people, he has better judgment (mostly, he was against the war from the beginning), he represents a necessary break from the Clinton/Bush past, he’s more likely to be elected, and, most importantly, he has the greatest potential as President. I buy into all of these arguments, and here’s why I think they are important.
I was already solidly pro-Obama when I read the incredible cover article to the NYT magazine last Sunday, entitled Waving Goodbye to Hegemony. The article describes the world as it is now, which is to say, it describes the world a lot different than most Americans think of it, or would like to admit. America is now merely one of three major world powers, with a voracious China and a self-confident European Union both rising in the days of American excess. The new world will be shaped by the decisions of the second world-countries that fill in the map between the powers, except for Iraq, countries long ignored by America. The next President will have to find a way to fix our horrible problems of poverty and inequality at home while literally carving out America’s place in the world. There’s no magnetism to the Stars and Stripes any more. We have to find our piece of the pie wherever we can get it, and we start by presenting ourselves as the country we want to be through our President.
If we elect Barack Obama President of the United States, it will be the greatest moment in the history of our country. I do not begrudge anyone at all who wants to vote for Hillary because of her gender, nor would I ever cross words with anyone on the subject. Against anyone else, Hillary would have my vote, and for that inarguably awesome reason. But the story of race is the story of America. Lincoln is our greatest President because he abolished slavery, and the world has watched us since then, and it has waited for us to turn the ultimate corner, and we have not. If we elect Hillary Clinton, we will be following in the wonderful footsteps of Argentina and Chile, who recently elected women leaders, and we will be applauded. If we elect Barack Obama, we will be following no one. We will be leading again, living up to the promise of our country by taking the one step long thought unfathomable. We will have a President with dark skin, and he will be the right man for the job. It would be our greatest triumph, and we would reap the benefits.
In wrestling, the aging superstars go out their backs. It’s the sports corollary of, ‘Things don’t end well. That’s why they end.’ The Patriots went out on their backs last night, ending their chances for a fourth Super Bowl title in seven years when Tom Brady’s second 60+ yard heave to Randy Moss hit the Arizona turf. There will be no joy in Mudville, er, Boston, today.
Losing is a part of sports. In fact, it’s half of it, and before Brady and Belichick showed up, it was status quo for the Patriots. Then they shocked the Rams in 2001, and a new ethos of winning was adopted. I wrote about this after the game yesterday: last night’s game could hardly have resembled the 2001 Super Bowl any more, when the Patriots beat the monolithic Rams by outhitting them and mounting a drive as time expired to take the win. I remember my feelings when they won. I was bewildered, ecstatic, and not quite sure if it was real.
Now the Giants have that feeling. And you know what? I’m okay with that. If there weren’t games like this, the other ones wouldn’t be worth playing. This should make us appreciate the three that we won instead of making us rue the fourth that we didn’t win. Some day, the Patriots will be the underdog again, and will run up against a team that there’s almost no way they can beat, and it will be close for three quarters, and all of a sudden they’ll have a chance, and then it’ll look like it’s going to slip, and then they’ll push themselves over the top, again, through nothing but grit and hard work. And it will be your team.
That’s the greatest feeling in the world. And today, that’s what Giants fans are feeling.
Bryan Joiner 