It’s been a long time since I’ve posted anything. I can’t blog from work now unless it is from my iPhone, which doesn’t really work too well with not having copy/paste, etc. I should make a post soon about the most recent of my iPhone gripes.
Anyway, first I’ll tackle hockey. The Capitals were eliminated in Game 7 of Round 1 to the Flyers. I was saying for months that I felt like making the playoffs at all would be gravy on a magnificent season. Still, it’s disappointing the team isn’t still playing. I still believe this team is capable of beating any other team in the league in a seven game series. The bounces didn’t go our way and we didn’t get it done. We’ll get them next year. Alexander Ovechkin has the Art Ross and Maurice “Rocket” Richard trophies locked up already, with the Hart a virtual lock along with the Pearson being a strong possibility. Backstrom is a finalist for the Calder trophy and is certainly deserving, though it likely will not go his way. Finalists haven’t yet been announced for the Jack Adams coach of the year award, but it would surprise no one if was awarded to Bruce Boudreau. The team’s best players are it’s young players, and they are only going to get better.
All in all it was a phenomenal year for Washington Capitals hockey. The team has awoken DC as a possible future hockey town. Season ticket sales are way up and it is looking like hockey won’t be the forgotten stepchild in Washington, DC sports much longer.
Moving on.
I’m in panic mode about Sen. Obama’s campaign, and not through any fault of his. The recent “debate” (I use the term loosely) was a mockery of the political process and clearly showed ABC’s interest in tabloid journalism over anything resembling the responsibility of the press to help test these candidates. It took George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson a full 45 minutes to ask anything that should be of concern to the voters. Instead, they lobbed ignorant and pointless questions, giving prime-time air to all the distracting and completely irrelevant soundbytes. On top of it, they basically gave Sen. Clinton a pass on outright lying about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia, while drilling Sen. Obama for any and everyone he’d ever come in contact with.
One major topic, and a focal point of some of the debate’s nonsense was the statements made by Sen. Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Wright — among other things I’ll save for another time — claimed after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 was a result of America’s “chickens coming home to roost.” Now first of all, this is a true statement, though I can see why it draws the ire of many Americans. Then there is the “God damn America” snippet. It’s a touchy subject and it makes perfect sense why people are upset with at least the “god damn America” bit… anyone with half a brain can understand the “chickens coming home to roost” point, and it is one I have made myself many times. Sen. Obama shouldn’t even have to waste time addressing this issue! It is completely unrelated to the election and it’s being used unfairly to tear Obama down along with his former pastor. Now, Rev. Wright says a lot of stuff I disagree with. But that doesn’t mean I’m so myopic that I can’t call him right when he’s right and wrong when he’s wrong. I don’t see a lot of that mentality in the press or elsewhere. It is a complete extension of the “with us or against us” doctrine and it serves only to make all our lives more difficult. We seem incapable of seeing the good in people who have said something bad, and the bad in people who have said something good. It is all-or-nothing, black or white, red or blue. And that is a major problem in this country.
Sen. Obama has shown through his record of public service what he stands for, and he speaks about it daily. How is it that what someone else said 7 years ago is now a primary topic of the Presidential election? It’s as if it isn’t enough that a Presidential candidate be vetted, that his or her voting record be sifted through and picked apart, that all of his or her finances be analyzed. Now we have to assume that every relationship, every person met with or done business with or so much as spoken about in his or her life be perfect, too? Sen. Obama is too classy to pose the question, but if Sen. Clinton can claim he “wouldn’t have been [her] pastor,” then where is the outrage that she chose to stand beside and support a man who defiled the White House on our time as taxpayers by fooling around with an intern, and then to have the gall to want to have that same man be right back in the White House, only this time with a whole lot more free time? It is just as ridiculous a question, yet somehow more important. On the one hand you have a former pastor with some controversial ideas now making the interview and speaking engagement circuit with the convenient book to stump for of course, and on the other you have an actual betrayal of American trust and an Oath of Office. Which would you be more ashamed to associate with? Which is more worthy of a denouncement and disownment? Are either?
Beyond that, the attention paid to the soundbytes and minutia of this race has reached a painful level. From lapel pins to bowling to smoking habits to former associates, the media is spending so much time on the drivel that there is no time left to spend actually hashing out the plans and abilities of the candidates. The signal to noise ratio is simply horrific and I don’t see it getting any better.
What happened to the press being a force for honesty and helping us understand our prospective leaders? Now it is just tabloid journalism at its worst. What a shame. Unfortunately this plays perfectly into Sen. Clinton’s campaign. Having been in the White House for the Lewinsky scandal, and dealing with Whitewater and all manner of other things, Sen. Clinton is more than happy to spend the next few months talking about retired pastors and how they feel, and American flag lapel pins instead of the real issues or her skeletons. Meanwhile the polls continue to show her gaining on Sen. Obama in some states where blue-collar voters view an intelligence and well-spoken black man as elitist, and slowing Sen. Obama’s approach on her numbers in other states. And McCain can sit comfortably on the Straight Talk Express, and spout whatever flip-flopping nonsense he wants and the media will pay him virtually no mind.
Sphere: Related Content
Now I can’t stand hillary. But it scares me that Obama has Wright as his spirital advisor. That terrorifies me. This is not the type of person that should be in the president’s ear.
The fact that Obama took a long ass time to finally denounce Rev. Wright also scares me, as now it looks disingenous and is only to save political face.
I watched Rev Wright speak in Detroit and he is extremely devisive. His words and attitude is exactly the attitude that Obama spoke out against in his “race relations” speech a few weeks ago.
It also concerns me that Obama didn’t know any of this about the Rev Wright for the last 20 years.
Quite honestly, no matter who gets the nom. The democrats will alienate much of their base, there will be defectons to mccain and the superdelegate system is again going to screw the regular voter.
If Mccain picks condi as his VP, its over black and female, and with 10-25% of democrats planning on defecting if their candidate loses the primary, it’s almost over before it begins.
The democratic party is in sad sad shape and those with the most power are to effin stubborn to do anything about it.
I don’t think Wright is Obama’s “spiritual advisor” — He’s a retired pastor from his church. Yes, he subscribes to some ideas that are controversial, and that hurts Obama because of the 20 year relationship through the church.
I would not consider any of my former pastors a “spiritual advisor” and didn’t when I went to church either. That’s a label the press is using to tear Obama down. Is Hagee McCain’s advisor? Wright came in for support during the scandals of the Clinton administration. Is he Clinton’s advisor?
Obama shouldn’t have HAD to denounce him. That’s my point. It’s a character attack on Obama by attacking someone else. It makes no sense. It is treated like Obama and Wright have been working together in darkened rooms to overthrow the government and kill whitey.
Wright is divisive, and that is a problem. But it should be a problem for Wright, not for Obama. He is not a surrogate for Obama and doesn’t speak for him. He is not even his pastor anymore!
I don’t believe the Democrats will remain divided in November. I think a lot of the defection talk you here is people’s frustration with the length of the process, which I personally would have no issue with if they were talking about meaningful stuff. People are frustrated with the never-ending stream of negative and non-news.
What would you suggest the party do? Because I don’t see a problem with the party in this particular case. I see a problem with the press. The party can’t do anything about this tabloid journalism about things that have little to no bearing on the election. They can boycott networks the way they have with Fox, but the press is going to say what it wants regardless.