Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
This Should Have Been a Slam Dunk
Basketball was Barack Obama’s first love.
It’s the game that taught him many of life’s lessons.
Unfortunately, it seems like Obama has forgotten one of the biggest lessons the game has to offer: Don’t sit on a lead.
Obama ought to know better. How many times have we seen basketball teams go up by a huge margin, only to squander the lead by trying to slow the game down?
It’s the same in every sport, every time you pull the reins in, you lose momentum. Once momentum goes, it’s awfully hard to retrieve.
This is exactly what’s happened to the Obama campaign. He built up a nearly insurmountable lead by delivering his message with passion and intensity. He showed us the kind of vitality and energy we haven’t seen since JFK.
That Obama has seemingly disappeared.
Wounded by a vicious campaign by Hillary Clinton and damaged by a few self-inflicted wounds, Obama has been on his heels for weeks. The fire is gone and has been replaced by an air of resignation.
If he was on the basketball court instead if the campaign trail, he’d be benched.
But this is not a game. It is the race to become the most powerful person in the world.
Obama deserves the job, but he looks like he’s not willing to fight for it. His recent speeches sound more like civics lessons, eloquent, yet lacking fire. While Obama is being professorial, Hillary is threatening to nuke Iran.
The soft-sell has never played well in presidential politics. It didn’t play for Michael Dukakis. It didn’t play well for Al Gore. It didn’t play well for John Kerry.
Hillary’s learned this lesson. It’s about time Obama does, as well.
Barack has got to bring his “A” game.
In his playing days, Obama was known to throw a few elbows and talk a lot of trash. It’s time for that Obama to show up.
Both Hillary and John McCain have demonstrated a willingness to fight dirty. When attacked, Obama looks like the kid on the basketball who can’t believe that nobody called a foul.
On the playground, where Obama honed his game, the best response to a foul was to deliver an even harder one yourself.
Hillary’s out there trying to force Obama into more debates.
His response has been “we’ve had enough debates.” It should have been, “bring it on.”
Barack… it’s time to stop turning the other cheek. When you do that, all you’re left with are two bruised cheeks.
It’s time to sharpen both your elbows and your tongue.
It’s time to get off the bench and back in the game.
Comments (9)
Except he's playing his team-mates and doesn't want to make a fool out of them to their supporters, because come Nov, we're all together in the big league.
Seriously, don't you Hillary supporters think there's a difference between a primary and a general?
Obama needs Hillary's supporters, so he's tried hard not to denigrate her. She would need his supporters should she win, but she knows it's a long shot, she's doing everything she can to stay alive, but she would lose in Nov. given how much of the party she's alienated.
April 27, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
These dummies don't understand the concept of restraint. Of not sucker punching your own sibling. For them, it's 'Welcome To The Jungle'.
April 27, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. There's a difference between good political strategy and good political theater. But activists and political-journalism-junkies will often prefer the latter.
April 27, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that, whenever I spar with my buddies at the gym I am always aiming to disable them permanently -- maybe take out an eye or break a limb. Because those wimps haven't crossed the threshold yet, so I help them out by choking them till they pass out.
April 27, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughtful. Will be commented on while it's around, but not recommended by the echo chamber. You're putting too many demands on them.
April 27, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He built up a nearly insurmountable lead by delivering his message with passion and intensity.
And he still has a nearly insurmountable lead. He's got an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. He's got an insurmountable lead in the add-on delegates. And he's steadily cut Hillary's lead in superdelegates from over 100 a couple of months ago to less than 25 now.
The only reason to add "nearly" in saying that he has a "nearly insurmountable lead" is that if Hillary exceeds expectations in all the remaining primaries, AND gets 80% or so of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to endorse her, then she could win. Mathematically possible, but practically impossible.
And note that the superdelegates who have been steadily going to Obama and not to Hillary have heard all the arguments. And yet Hillary can't even get superdelegates to go to her side faster than they leave her side. If what you're seeing is so clear, why aren't the superdelegates seeing it?
April 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I saw the title, I thought the article was about how Hillary should have wrapped up the Nomination from Day One.
That Obama can not "put away" Hillary is asking the question backwards. Why is he even in the lead? Where did she go wrong? What happened to her 20 point lead in PA - even with the support of a popular Governor, the Mayor of Philly, Bitter-Gate, Wright-Gate, and Ayers-Gate? Why did she lose ground with lower income white males in PA compared to OH?
The article reeks of Clinton spin and regurgitating the media hyperbole they use just to keep their ratings up.
During this pounding that Obama has supposedly taken, HRC's lead in SD's, once over 100, is down to 19. But you say that she has the momentum. Based on what? The race is for delegates, not sound bites.
Give in to her distraction of a debate? To give her free air time?
To stick with your basketball analogy: Barack is in the (UNC fans will appreciate Dean Smith's) 4 corners offense: he's up, he has the ball. All he has to do is to keep her from scoring in bunches. She has to scramble and foul. He can just let the clock run out. In the meantime, he can set the tone for the GE and keep her as an ally, who, as was noted earlier, he will need, by NOT rehashing all the old Clinton baggage and probing into their current vulnerabilities.
Granted, the game plan doesn't have the excitement of the Tarkanian UNLV teams or Houston's Phi Slamma Jamma, but then Dean Smith has more National Championships than Tarkanian and Guy combined.
The answer to the question as posed is fairly simply: He can blow her away for three reasons:
1. She has a strong base of support, particularly with older women who, rightfully so, are inspired by the history of her candidacy.
2. She has the base of, the power of, and the coat tails of one of the Parties elder statesmen in her husband.
3. Though she is a dog with fleas, she is a known quantity. Some, though like the inspiration of Barack and the idea that he does not accept PAC or lobbyist money,are resistant to change. They prefer the faults of the brand name gamble on the new guy on the block.
But then, to paraphrase Dennis Miller, I could be wrong....
April 27, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He can blow her away for three reasons:"
That should be "He can NOT blow her away..."
My bad.
April 27, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I read it three times before I saw your correction.
And to the original post: in my experience, basketball games are no fun when one team gets totally shut out. The most fun ones are the ones where they keep it close. The constant changing possession keeps the other on their toes, making plays. It makes the last second three-pointer that much better.
That said, I don't agree with you that he needs to start throwing elbows and talking trash, but I do think he needs to get fired up again. Or rather, I don't think he should be throwing elbows at Hillary. I think he should get fired up about the crap McCain wants to do as President. I think he should get fired up about the shitty treatment of vets in this country. That ONE THOUSAND vets try to kill themselves every month. And that the fucking VA tried to cover it up!! I think he should get fired up about the fact that 28 million Americans are going to be on food stamps next year. That the world is facing a serious food crisis. I think he should get fired up about the fact that George Bush and virtually every single high ranking member of the Bush administration convened and schemed to find ways to break the Geneva conventions and any sort of moral human code. I think he should get fired up about the fact that Bush has totally shit on the Constitution for the last 8 years.
Dammnit. Now I'm all fired up. And I apologize for the language. But you know what? I am mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more. And I would like to see a little of that type of fire out of Obama. Directed in the right places, it would do him a lot of good.
April 27, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment