Well, How Did I Get Here?

Sorry for the long gap in postings. What can I say - Faithful Reader T.N. told me last week that I had been posting too often, and he had been spending too much of his life finding out what to think by reading what I had to say.

Plus, I just haven't felt like I've had too much to say in the last few days.

A few random thoughts from the weekend:

I think one of the things I really like about football is the way 'home field advantage' varies so wildly from city to city. It's the only sport where, really, you will see an almost completely different sport, depending on where the matchup is happening. It's great. The difference between the track meet between the Colts and the Chargers and the slogfest that was Green Bay beating the living snot out of Seattle in a driving blizzard was absolutely huge, and quite entertaining.

That said, I think those who doubt the potency of the eventual NFC champ do so at their own risk. Both teams have one absolutely dominating line unit - Green Bay's offensive line, and the Giants' defensive front 4. Big, strong, and wickedly well-conditioned. Both started so-so, but got stronger as the game wore on. In the fourth quarter of Saturday's game, Ryan Grant was getting deep into the secondary before getting brushed by defenders, and poor Tony Romo couldn't complete a 5-step drop without having an extremely large man running at him at high speed.

NFL games are won along the lines, and I think the Packers' O line and Giants' D line are the best two units left in the playoffs. (Before you mention them, I agree that the Patriots' O line is clearly a marvelous pass blocking group, but their run blocking is so-so, I would say.) So, I would say that each of those groups gives their respective teams a shot against the Pats in Phoenix.

Politically, I am fairly disappointed with the turn the Clinton campaign took against Obama in the last week. I know that I am wildly biased here, but I really feel like Obama has been trying to make a positive case for his candidacy, about what he brings to the table that nobody else in the race does.

Clinton, when madly ahead in the poll numbers, was happy to play suit, but now that she is in a dogfight, the tactics have changed. Rather than talk up Hillary's qualifications, they now get stuck in the mire of denying any real difference in Obama's stances, saying that he is, basically, just another liberal politician with views just like hers.

For example, when talking on Meet the Press about Obama's claim that his opposition to our misadventure in Iraq back in 2002 shows him to have better judgment than she, rather than deal with the question at hand, she instead attacks his integrity and consistency:

And let me address the point that Bill was making. Because, again, I think it's been unfairly and inaccurately characterized. What he was talking about was very directly about the story of Senator Obama's campaign, being premised on a speech he gave in 2002. And that was to his credit. He gave a speech opposing the war in Iraq. He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his Web site. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, '6 and '7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war. The story of his campaign is really the story of that speech and his opposition to Iraq.

It's lame. To go all cliche on you, it is absolutely 'politics as usual.' And it won't get things done.

If Hillary really thinks, as she appears to, that her vote in 2003 was right, then she should say exactly that. She can admit that the vote was a mistake, while still arguing that she was making the best decision she could, with the imperfect information she had.

But, no, that would be too hard. Much easier to just attack someone else instead about whether he is being honest about the things he said, than to have to deal with the much tougher question about whether or not you believe in the things you said.

But don't listen to me, listen to Reihan, who frankly knows many more things than I do and isn't afraid to speak up about it.

So was your judgment lacking, Senator Clinton? No, because President Bush lied to me about how aggressively and seriously he’d pursue a diplomatic solution. But then, almost by definition, you were misled. Judgment is, in no small part, about being able to tell when people are lying to you, isn’t it? Perhaps Senator Clinton believes that no one will ever again try to mislead her. I’m reminded of President Bush’s brilliant “fool me once” remark: Fool me twice! You can’t … you can’t fool me twice! This seems to be Clinton’s basic understanding of how the world should work, which suggests a level of ingenuousness far beyond that of the junior senator from Illinois.

Lastly, 16 days until Lost returns! Woohoo!