So gas has hit $4 a gallon. Crude has hit all time highs and suddenly everyone is in a panic over what can be done. One proposal in particular is suggesting we go back to a national 55mph speed limit.
NO
It is not safer, and unless people actually adhere to the limit it will not do anything to improve gas mileage. It would improve ticket revenue however.
If you question my statement about safety just go look it up and find whatever sources you deem credible. There were more wrecks and more fatal wrecks by any measure made during the double nickel era and was followed by a sharp decline after it was repealed. Simple physics says it should be safer... less speed less damage etc. That is true enough but the problem is that the vast majority of people paid zero heed to the signs. Average highway speeds did not decline at the onset of 55mph limits... in fact average highway speed has generally increased over time with improved car design. Today's typical sedan is a far cry from a 70's piece of heavy iron with leaf springs. However because a fair percentage of drivers will ALWAYS adhere rigidly to the posted speed limits this meant there was often a greater relative speed difference between cars on the highway. Relative speed difference is what makes wrecks dangerous. It does not matter if we are talking about a car and a light post or two cars. The relative speed difference is the determining factor in how bad it will be. You also have to remember that the equation for deriving kinetic energy is exponential. That means the energy that has to be dissipated by a car moving at 80mph is not 4 times that of a car moving at 20mph... it is more like 16x the energy.
The equation is E = .5 (m * v^2) or Energy equals half of mass times velocity squared.
Use kg for weight and meters per second for velocity and you will arrive at joules. Map some speeds and you will see what happens. If everyone stayed within +- 5mph of 55 it would indeed be safer... but when speeds are split 55 - 85 that 30mph difference is worse than say a wreck between 25 and 55. Highway wrecks involving 55mph difference.. ie running into a stationary object.. are pretty much the same as hitting it at 85... you are just more sure of fatality to a few more decimal places. Crash tests generally take place around 35-45mph and very few cars can maintain their integrity at that speed much less higher velocity impacts.
So barring a completely different and vastly more effective enforcement mechanism there is no chance lowering the speed limit will increase safety or lower overall gas usage. Both simply because people will not obey it... not because the idea couldn't produce those results.
So what can be done about gas prices? Obviously numerous alternatives are in the wings. However for the most part those options are only in the wings because the higher price of gas has made them attractive. If gas went back down to $2-3 a gallon those ventures would dry up in pretty short order. Why? Because the new technologies are going to run consumers at least as much in total cost of owner ship as current cars with fuel costs around that level. Alternatives are needed so I am not that sure lower gas prices are a good thing. But if you want to lower them it is easy. You lower demand.
The majority of gas demand in the US is driven by the daily work commute of the average American. Cut a day of work and you cut that source of demand by ~20%. But I have to work you say? Fine... work from home. The overwhelming majority of white collar work in the US is computer based. We have this wonderful thing called the internet which virtually all said white collar workers have access to at home. They can do computer work at home and only come on days where face to face events are required. As a standing policy I would suggest a 3/2/2 workweek system. 3 in , 2 out and weekend.
Mon, Wed and Friday in the Office. Tuesday and Thursday as standard remote work days. That would produce a large drop in gas demand if it were implemented across the board in the US. It is realistic, and it is overdue. Lower traffic to work leads to lower gas consumption, less congestion, less smog, less emissions and improves quality of life as you spend less time away from home. It seems so simple. But decades of entrenched thought dictates what the work week is and means. While technically easy to implement this calls for a major change in how corporate bean counters and managers think.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
MLB The Show '08
Had to toss my two cents out about this game. First off I played ball through College and as a general rule I despise baseball video games despite the fact I always have to try them out 'just to see' if they got it. The last baseball game I enjoyed playing more than five minutes was 'bases loaded' on Nentendo.
So... I don't like the standard game mode for all the usual reasons. Fielding just does not work well when you are bugs bunny (playing everyone). And reactions are always messed up because you don't know which player will be selected. But 'Road To the SHOW' is awesome. At least for a pitcher.
What did they get right?
Setting pitches up realistically, hitters strengths and weaknesses are not givens... IE leave a ball in a hot zone and it leaves the park. Most games just don't do well (like most people) with the fact that even a hall of fame caliber hitter is only successful 3 out of 10 times on average even if they get something to hit. That said, screw up in a count favoring the hitter and mistakes will get hammered. Get ahead and hitters get more defensive and are less likely to jump on something... but its still more percentages than 'given'... ie they will hammer it behind in the count and they will miss ahead in the count. Fielding for a pitcher works fairly well though they seem unrealistic on lack of response on shots up the middle. That seems to be tied to your players fielding ability... ie rack up a higher fielding ability with training and more up the middle balls become playable (tappers etc...).
Variable strike zone with ups is only too realistic and VERY frustrating at times.
What did they get wrong?
Default pitch selection signals are horrendous... or maybe that was supposed to reflect bad calling. The game seems to think you have to mix high and low regardless of the pitcher on the hills capabilities and it will call a crap load of up in the zone pitches. There are only a handful of big league pitchers that are successful up in the zone consistently and even they spend most of their time in the lower quarter of the zone. Watch any game and you will see that it is extremely rare for a catcher to ask for a pitch to intentionally be 'up' in the zone.
If you are going to have a 'sweet spot' release point mechanic and you nail it then the pitch should go to the location or reasonably close.
Players should not start at 'F' qualities across the board. Initial point distribution should allow a good 'all round' player or one strong in a couple of areas to be so weak in others. Choosing starting points seems pointless since everything is so awful anyway. If a player was straight F's they wouldn't be in pro ball. Remember those are the attributes that got them a contract. Applying those attributes in games consistently is then what gets them to the show.
The 'missions' or whatever they want to call them are very hit or miss. For a pitcher they love to have random 'strike the batter out' requests which are mostly silly, especially considering how many other little details they got right. Pitchers rarely are on the hook to deliver a strike out. Runner(s) in scoring position with less than two outs is the ONLY time they would even work with a strike out in mind rather than JUST getting them out. At the least getting an out without a runner scoring should have always been a 'positive result'. Measuring pitching success rarely comes down to individual batters. Instead there should have been a pitching chart evaluation for the cumulative outing. IE what percentage of batters were you ahead in the count on, what was your strike/ball ratio, how many times did not let the lead off man on? Etc... these are all things that could have been standard evaluations after the game that were not really to be seen.
Training... man they really goofed that one if you ask me. What they should have done is provided a basic set of points per period in between games and then made players choose what areas to work on. Great performances in games would then have generated bonuses to attributes that were successfully used. IE if a pitcher got a lot of clutch outs they would be granted improvements to clutch performance and been able to focus training elsewhere. Heavy successful use of a pitch would develop aspects of that pitch etc...
All in all though the pitching experience is fantastic from my standpoint. I play every pitch and can REALLY get into the game. Hitters actually seem to respond to the way they are pitched. IE a hiiter who has their weakness exploited will adjust and you can then get them in other areas of the zone (or get hammered if you keep doing the same thing). Larger game trends like reliance on a certain pitch in certain situations will also get you in trouble. The mental game of pitch selection and location is there better than in ANY other game I have ever played.
Road to the show for a fielder is less well done. I don't think they should have limited player involvement to only the plays they were involved in directly. They should have just made it at least every pitch that was put in play. You don't have any chance to get in the 'mental' game of a fielder. Also hitting goals are asinine. Goals like 'reach base safely, or don't strike out' should be for an entire game, not specific at bats. Again hitting just isn't the kind of activity that lends itself well to such specific goals in a given AB. Hit and Run success should be weigted against the quality of pitch received and what was done... getting the ball on the ground to the correct side of the field successfully for a hit is NOT the only means of judging it a success. It is a percentage play in the right counts... which brings up signs. When you bat or are on base then checking signs should be pretty much a given part of every pitch except in obvious 'swing away' circumstances. Also the camera should provide a hitters eye perspective rather than just low behind the catcher... the eye hight is extremely important for pitch recognition etc... Though in the long run for a real decent pitch recognition mechanic in a game they are going to have to have a good 3d image for real depth perception judgement
Speaking of that the camera for base runners rounding second should be given a view of the third base coach... or the third base coach should be in a window. Pick Off warnings should come from the base coach and not from the announcers.
Fielding should include backing plays up... pitchers have a LOT of back up responsibilities but I have yet to see them come into play, and the camera angle for most of the backups of third/home are completely unusable.
Spring training... Why the hell do you only go to spring training if you are auditioning for a new contract? Starters play every year, and up and comers content for roster spots. Top Prospects should always be battling for position in spring training. If you want to give an established 'veteran' the option to skip playing spring training out fine. But honestly I think that is where the 'improvement' dynamic should have been most relevant with it being limited in season by success in games. Practice during the season is largely aimed at keeping sharp.. not on developing except in the minors in some cases.
Foul tips... jeesus H _(*@)(*#&% Christ. Every other at bat sometimes seems like the impossible out where all they do is fould the ball off. It does happen... but rarely does it happen more than a couple of times a game, Early on I literally had like 10 batters in a row where they would foul off an average of 6-10 2 strike pitches... was nutz. Happens WAAAAY to much.
All that said, I love the road to the show for a pitcher. You actually play a game of ball and most of the game is 'right' in terms of what happens though the fielding is sometimes goofy.
So... I don't like the standard game mode for all the usual reasons. Fielding just does not work well when you are bugs bunny (playing everyone). And reactions are always messed up because you don't know which player will be selected. But 'Road To the SHOW' is awesome. At least for a pitcher.
What did they get right?
Setting pitches up realistically, hitters strengths and weaknesses are not givens... IE leave a ball in a hot zone and it leaves the park. Most games just don't do well (like most people) with the fact that even a hall of fame caliber hitter is only successful 3 out of 10 times on average even if they get something to hit. That said, screw up in a count favoring the hitter and mistakes will get hammered. Get ahead and hitters get more defensive and are less likely to jump on something... but its still more percentages than 'given'... ie they will hammer it behind in the count and they will miss ahead in the count. Fielding for a pitcher works fairly well though they seem unrealistic on lack of response on shots up the middle. That seems to be tied to your players fielding ability... ie rack up a higher fielding ability with training and more up the middle balls become playable (tappers etc...).
Variable strike zone with ups is only too realistic and VERY frustrating at times.
What did they get wrong?
Default pitch selection signals are horrendous... or maybe that was supposed to reflect bad calling. The game seems to think you have to mix high and low regardless of the pitcher on the hills capabilities and it will call a crap load of up in the zone pitches. There are only a handful of big league pitchers that are successful up in the zone consistently and even they spend most of their time in the lower quarter of the zone. Watch any game and you will see that it is extremely rare for a catcher to ask for a pitch to intentionally be 'up' in the zone.
If you are going to have a 'sweet spot' release point mechanic and you nail it then the pitch should go to the location or reasonably close.
Players should not start at 'F' qualities across the board. Initial point distribution should allow a good 'all round' player or one strong in a couple of areas to be so weak in others. Choosing starting points seems pointless since everything is so awful anyway. If a player was straight F's they wouldn't be in pro ball. Remember those are the attributes that got them a contract. Applying those attributes in games consistently is then what gets them to the show.
The 'missions' or whatever they want to call them are very hit or miss. For a pitcher they love to have random 'strike the batter out' requests which are mostly silly, especially considering how many other little details they got right. Pitchers rarely are on the hook to deliver a strike out. Runner(s) in scoring position with less than two outs is the ONLY time they would even work with a strike out in mind rather than JUST getting them out. At the least getting an out without a runner scoring should have always been a 'positive result'. Measuring pitching success rarely comes down to individual batters. Instead there should have been a pitching chart evaluation for the cumulative outing. IE what percentage of batters were you ahead in the count on, what was your strike/ball ratio, how many times did not let the lead off man on? Etc... these are all things that could have been standard evaluations after the game that were not really to be seen.
Training... man they really goofed that one if you ask me. What they should have done is provided a basic set of points per period in between games and then made players choose what areas to work on. Great performances in games would then have generated bonuses to attributes that were successfully used. IE if a pitcher got a lot of clutch outs they would be granted improvements to clutch performance and been able to focus training elsewhere. Heavy successful use of a pitch would develop aspects of that pitch etc...
All in all though the pitching experience is fantastic from my standpoint. I play every pitch and can REALLY get into the game. Hitters actually seem to respond to the way they are pitched. IE a hiiter who has their weakness exploited will adjust and you can then get them in other areas of the zone (or get hammered if you keep doing the same thing). Larger game trends like reliance on a certain pitch in certain situations will also get you in trouble. The mental game of pitch selection and location is there better than in ANY other game I have ever played.
Road to the show for a fielder is less well done. I don't think they should have limited player involvement to only the plays they were involved in directly. They should have just made it at least every pitch that was put in play. You don't have any chance to get in the 'mental' game of a fielder. Also hitting goals are asinine. Goals like 'reach base safely, or don't strike out' should be for an entire game, not specific at bats. Again hitting just isn't the kind of activity that lends itself well to such specific goals in a given AB. Hit and Run success should be weigted against the quality of pitch received and what was done... getting the ball on the ground to the correct side of the field successfully for a hit is NOT the only means of judging it a success. It is a percentage play in the right counts... which brings up signs. When you bat or are on base then checking signs should be pretty much a given part of every pitch except in obvious 'swing away' circumstances. Also the camera should provide a hitters eye perspective rather than just low behind the catcher... the eye hight is extremely important for pitch recognition etc... Though in the long run for a real decent pitch recognition mechanic in a game they are going to have to have a good 3d image for real depth perception judgement
Speaking of that the camera for base runners rounding second should be given a view of the third base coach... or the third base coach should be in a window. Pick Off warnings should come from the base coach and not from the announcers.
Fielding should include backing plays up... pitchers have a LOT of back up responsibilities but I have yet to see them come into play, and the camera angle for most of the backups of third/home are completely unusable.
Spring training... Why the hell do you only go to spring training if you are auditioning for a new contract? Starters play every year, and up and comers content for roster spots. Top Prospects should always be battling for position in spring training. If you want to give an established 'veteran' the option to skip playing spring training out fine. But honestly I think that is where the 'improvement' dynamic should have been most relevant with it being limited in season by success in games. Practice during the season is largely aimed at keeping sharp.. not on developing except in the minors in some cases.
Foul tips... jeesus H _(*@)(*#&% Christ. Every other at bat sometimes seems like the impossible out where all they do is fould the ball off. It does happen... but rarely does it happen more than a couple of times a game, Early on I literally had like 10 batters in a row where they would foul off an average of 6-10 2 strike pitches... was nutz. Happens WAAAAY to much.
All that said, I love the road to the show for a pitcher. You actually play a game of ball and most of the game is 'right' in terms of what happens though the fielding is sometimes goofy.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Election 2008: And then there were four
So Super Tuesday has come and gone and what do we have. Democrats are in a hoss race. The Clinton Delegate strategy is keeping them in front of the Obama revolution in the sparsely settled zones. Romney bowed out just when the fight was getting good on the republican side but Huckabee and Paul are soldiering on. I do say there are four at the expense of Dr. Paul because realistically there are now only 4 in the running for the nominations. This does not mean there are only 4 possible candidates for the presidency. I hope to see Ron Paul on the election circut... if he gets a fair shake he might stir some things up. But on to the the current real show... the donkey race between Hillary and Obama.
Well last post I said with a hoss race the odds were 50/50 on a party split. I might be smoking crack rock but I think I will stick to them odds. Of course now that the race is polling this closely a lot of folks are talking about a Clinton/Obama ticket. Never say never and there is a lot to say for this one happening. Obama has an obvious 'uniting' theme to get folks behind a Clinton running mate... but the weirdness factor and fox in the hen house element tells me this isn't likely. I really like the idea of Obama departing from politics as usual when it comes to considering potential running mates. The Republicans are going to have a problem with McCain and if Obama chooses wisely and pulls someone in from outside the party, perhaps even from the Republican camp, he could change the rules of the game and split off a chunk of the republican herd... not that he is there by any stretch of the imagination... but its nice to think about what if.
Don't let the close delegate count fool you. For the most part Clinton is still in the drivers seat. Most bobble heads agree that a Convention nomination favors Hillary... all that backlog of dirty behind the scenes politickin of all the Clinton years will pull a LOT of weight when the doors shut on the convention. Obama needs a clear enough mandate from the party to neutralize the super delegate vote otherwise it is likely he will get oh so close... and yet so far from a front running nomination. The scary thing will be if Obama rolls in an eyelash in front of Clinton, and the super delegates toss it to Hillary. It is anyones guess what happens then. Obmama can't go rogue. His message is of uniting and going rogue is the ultimate divisive move. However... the party can split in a less spectacular fashion. Simply dividing the vote will likely knock the democrats out of the running. If Obama pulls ~5% through write ins etc... he hands the election to the Republicans, even if he is no longer a candidate. His fans CAN go rogue.
Talks of a split aside, if you are a Democrat then watching what is evolving has got to be painful. Having a democratic nomination come down to the convention is going to make it very tough on whoever gets it. The mud is slinging and the more it flies the more divided the party will be. This will put enormous pressure on the democrats to scramble immediately just to collect the pieces of their typically scattered party before really focusing on their opponent. Meanwhile the more archaic, less democratic nomination scheme of the Republicans is already doing its thing. Despites the problems McCain has in his own party the writing is on the wall and the healing process begins NOW barring some kind of last mile surge by Mike Huckabee, the issue facing the republicans from here on out will be about getting behind McCain. And after the Republican convention they will come out swinging for the undecideds while the Democrats will be fighting for their own party votes.
A Hillary Nomination is going to throw those undecideds up for much harder contention because the break thus far has been overwhelmingly for Obama. Gen X and Y is starting to throw their weight around and for the most part they will not be happy with a Clinton nod.
**** Update ******
Since I wrote all the above Obama has swept the Potomac primaries and the race is taking on a decidedly different air. A while back I said for Barak to aspire to anything more than a VP nod he would have to string together a solid campaign in a similar manner to the early Dean run in the last election. I did not think it was very likely he could do that and if I wasn't watching it with my own eyes now I would find it hard to believe, yet here he is looking like he has the momentum with a rapidly deflating Hillary striving hard to grasp the crown she thought was fated for her. When Hillary and Bill played the dirty card in South Carolina I said he had to redefine the game or they would out politick him... and damn if he hasn't. Obama has done something no candidate has accomplished since Regan, he has captured the imagination of the American people. He has consistently refused to play the game on his opponents terms and instead has stuck to his ideals and lofty approach to political discourse. The Clinton's held out the bait and it looked like the only responses Barak made would only paint him in a tighter and tighter corner... and he has all but ignored it. Instead he has kept his eye on the prize and refused to get sidetracked with an momentum sucking quagmire of racial posturing. In short he has been a grownup in what has long since degraded into an immature childish dirty game of name calling that we call our national elections of late. Instead he has walked the straight and narrow and come through a very dangerous period in his campaign smelling like roses and looking like he has the hole shot to the convention.
I sincerely hope that I have misjudged the american people and overestimated the Clinton's. I don't agree with all that Obama wants to do. I still think he is long on vision and short on plans if you know what I mean. But at the same time I am the absolute first person to say that the president is the figurehead... the office is the bully pulpit and it is not exactly required that he have it all planned to the 5th significant digit. I don't expect his message to change between now and the convention. I think he has committed to his campaign what and who he is and that change in the sense of choosing different ways of presenting himself just is not a change he is interested in.
My only word of caution to those who see an inevitable Obama coronation at this point is to remember that the Clinton's have been on the ropes numerous times in their long storied careers. True the outlook is bleak... but they have a habit of pulling off the unexpected turn around when least expected. Right now is when they are most dangerous. Do NOT count them out, do NOT take your eyes off of them, they will bite. On the other hand I think they have made one tragic miscalculation. They are now 'the man'. Hillary did such a fine job of establishing herself as a good capable senator that she planted herself in the establishment and it is rankling her to no end. She has fought and fought and fought and finaly has accidentally clawed her way right into the kind of position many of her opponents have found to their disadvantage over the years. It took a freshman senator with a clear element of newness to clearly outline this facet of her for the general public... but the longer this election goes on the more apparent it becomes that she has embraced being the person in power to folks who never could see past the personae to the raw calculated ambition underneath. She thought she could meld the two elements into a final crowning achievement by taking her 'revolution' all the way to the highest office in the land... only here she is so close, only to be getting pushed out by someone with more 'street cred' when it comes to being the radical person fighting for change.
If you wanted to put this in sports parlance here is how I call it right now. Obama has finally taken the ball and it is now his nomination to loose. But he has GOT to put Clinton away. Rolling into the convention without a decisive delegate count in his favor strong enough to rule out the possibility of a brokered convention puts it all back up for grabs. He is now the Patriots on their way to their last score in this years super bowl. Just keep in mind who actually won that game. Put plain... he needs Texas and Ohio the same way he swept the Potomac. It is the next to last hill to climb for the Cinderella man. My hats off to him. If he has done nothing else, I think he has managed to somewhat elevate the level of the game in the world of politics this election... of course their was no where to go but up. But improvement is improvement and I grant him his due.
Well last post I said with a hoss race the odds were 50/50 on a party split. I might be smoking crack rock but I think I will stick to them odds. Of course now that the race is polling this closely a lot of folks are talking about a Clinton/Obama ticket. Never say never and there is a lot to say for this one happening. Obama has an obvious 'uniting' theme to get folks behind a Clinton running mate... but the weirdness factor and fox in the hen house element tells me this isn't likely. I really like the idea of Obama departing from politics as usual when it comes to considering potential running mates. The Republicans are going to have a problem with McCain and if Obama chooses wisely and pulls someone in from outside the party, perhaps even from the Republican camp, he could change the rules of the game and split off a chunk of the republican herd... not that he is there by any stretch of the imagination... but its nice to think about what if.
Don't let the close delegate count fool you. For the most part Clinton is still in the drivers seat. Most bobble heads agree that a Convention nomination favors Hillary... all that backlog of dirty behind the scenes politickin of all the Clinton years will pull a LOT of weight when the doors shut on the convention. Obama needs a clear enough mandate from the party to neutralize the super delegate vote otherwise it is likely he will get oh so close... and yet so far from a front running nomination. The scary thing will be if Obama rolls in an eyelash in front of Clinton, and the super delegates toss it to Hillary. It is anyones guess what happens then. Obmama can't go rogue. His message is of uniting and going rogue is the ultimate divisive move. However... the party can split in a less spectacular fashion. Simply dividing the vote will likely knock the democrats out of the running. If Obama pulls ~5% through write ins etc... he hands the election to the Republicans, even if he is no longer a candidate. His fans CAN go rogue.
Talks of a split aside, if you are a Democrat then watching what is evolving has got to be painful. Having a democratic nomination come down to the convention is going to make it very tough on whoever gets it. The mud is slinging and the more it flies the more divided the party will be. This will put enormous pressure on the democrats to scramble immediately just to collect the pieces of their typically scattered party before really focusing on their opponent. Meanwhile the more archaic, less democratic nomination scheme of the Republicans is already doing its thing. Despites the problems McCain has in his own party the writing is on the wall and the healing process begins NOW barring some kind of last mile surge by Mike Huckabee, the issue facing the republicans from here on out will be about getting behind McCain. And after the Republican convention they will come out swinging for the undecideds while the Democrats will be fighting for their own party votes.
A Hillary Nomination is going to throw those undecideds up for much harder contention because the break thus far has been overwhelmingly for Obama. Gen X and Y is starting to throw their weight around and for the most part they will not be happy with a Clinton nod.
**** Update ******
Since I wrote all the above Obama has swept the Potomac primaries and the race is taking on a decidedly different air. A while back I said for Barak to aspire to anything more than a VP nod he would have to string together a solid campaign in a similar manner to the early Dean run in the last election. I did not think it was very likely he could do that and if I wasn't watching it with my own eyes now I would find it hard to believe, yet here he is looking like he has the momentum with a rapidly deflating Hillary striving hard to grasp the crown she thought was fated for her. When Hillary and Bill played the dirty card in South Carolina I said he had to redefine the game or they would out politick him... and damn if he hasn't. Obama has done something no candidate has accomplished since Regan, he has captured the imagination of the American people. He has consistently refused to play the game on his opponents terms and instead has stuck to his ideals and lofty approach to political discourse. The Clinton's held out the bait and it looked like the only responses Barak made would only paint him in a tighter and tighter corner... and he has all but ignored it. Instead he has kept his eye on the prize and refused to get sidetracked with an momentum sucking quagmire of racial posturing. In short he has been a grownup in what has long since degraded into an immature childish dirty game of name calling that we call our national elections of late. Instead he has walked the straight and narrow and come through a very dangerous period in his campaign smelling like roses and looking like he has the hole shot to the convention.
I sincerely hope that I have misjudged the american people and overestimated the Clinton's. I don't agree with all that Obama wants to do. I still think he is long on vision and short on plans if you know what I mean. But at the same time I am the absolute first person to say that the president is the figurehead... the office is the bully pulpit and it is not exactly required that he have it all planned to the 5th significant digit. I don't expect his message to change between now and the convention. I think he has committed to his campaign what and who he is and that change in the sense of choosing different ways of presenting himself just is not a change he is interested in.
My only word of caution to those who see an inevitable Obama coronation at this point is to remember that the Clinton's have been on the ropes numerous times in their long storied careers. True the outlook is bleak... but they have a habit of pulling off the unexpected turn around when least expected. Right now is when they are most dangerous. Do NOT count them out, do NOT take your eyes off of them, they will bite. On the other hand I think they have made one tragic miscalculation. They are now 'the man'. Hillary did such a fine job of establishing herself as a good capable senator that she planted herself in the establishment and it is rankling her to no end. She has fought and fought and fought and finaly has accidentally clawed her way right into the kind of position many of her opponents have found to their disadvantage over the years. It took a freshman senator with a clear element of newness to clearly outline this facet of her for the general public... but the longer this election goes on the more apparent it becomes that she has embraced being the person in power to folks who never could see past the personae to the raw calculated ambition underneath. She thought she could meld the two elements into a final crowning achievement by taking her 'revolution' all the way to the highest office in the land... only here she is so close, only to be getting pushed out by someone with more 'street cred' when it comes to being the radical person fighting for change.
If you wanted to put this in sports parlance here is how I call it right now. Obama has finally taken the ball and it is now his nomination to loose. But he has GOT to put Clinton away. Rolling into the convention without a decisive delegate count in his favor strong enough to rule out the possibility of a brokered convention puts it all back up for grabs. He is now the Patriots on their way to their last score in this years super bowl. Just keep in mind who actually won that game. Put plain... he needs Texas and Ohio the same way he swept the Potomac. It is the next to last hill to climb for the Cinderella man. My hats off to him. If he has done nothing else, I think he has managed to somewhat elevate the level of the game in the world of politics this election... of course their was no where to go but up. But improvement is improvement and I grant him his due.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)