Tag Archives: scoreboard

Tiger, Phil and the Masters

This was a great weekend of golf. The Masters at Augusta. The weather was perfect. Sure, on Thursday there were some sprinkles and there was some wind on Friday, but for the most part the temperatures were mild and the greens were fast. Everyone, including myself, wanted to know about Tiger Woods. Well, Tiger played great for somebody who has had all of the distractions that he’s had. I describe his final round as up and down. I’m not sure how you play a round of golf, end up with a score of 69 and have people say that it’s disappointing. Those are the kind of expectations that Tiger Woods has set up. Back to Tiger in a minute… Phil Mickelson.

Fewer than 10 years ago, those television pundits were talking about how Phil Mickelson might go down as the greatest golfer never to win a major. He actually has 37 PGA Tour wins and three major titles. Now, he has a fourth major title. His third Masters. They’re even pundits, probably those same pundits, who are saying that it’s highly likely that Phil Mickelson will surpass Jack Nicklaus’ six green jackets. All I know is Phil Mickelson played consistently good golf for four days in a row. He played a bogey-free final round. I thought his back-to-back eagles on Saturday gave him the confidence to know that he could win. You know there’s a time when you’re playing a contest when you simply know you’re going to win and it doesn’t matter what the scoreboard says. You know that you’re going to play well enough to win. I think on Saturday, Phil Mickelson hit that spot. Now, the shop that everyone is talking about was on 13. He was in the pine straw. He hit a six iron over 200 yards to land on the green. From my standpoint, the amazing part of the shot was that he was able to get the ball up and over the sand trap.

There are three other short stories that I’d like to tell you about the Masters. The first is about Fred Couples. He is 50 years old and still one of the best ball strikers on the tour. His opening round was a 66. He was playing great on Friday until the last three holes. He reportedly had back spasms. You really can’t play golf with back spasms. (I’m not sure what sport you can play with back spasms.) Hell, he’s 50 years old. He’s allowed to have back spasms. He shot a 75. That’s kind of sad because he shot a 68 on Saturday and a 70 on Sunday. He played well enough to win… except for that three hole stretch on Friday. Isn’t it amazing that you can play 72 holes of gold and have three holes blew it for you? These guys are that close in talent. He came in sixth place at nine under par.

Anthony Kim is a 24-year-old American who is playing some absolutely fabulous golf. He reminds me a little of Tiger Woods when he was younger. There’s no shot that Anthony Kim seems to be afraid to try. He had an amazing stretch on Sunday where he had two birdies, followed by an eagle and then another birdie. That really skyrocketed him into the top of the leaderboard. He had the lowest round of the tournament — 65. This is a guy to watch.

Lee Westwood led going into Saturday and Sunday. Unfortunately, he played his worst golf on Sunday. Normally, you would like to play your best golf on Sunday. He got into trouble early with a bogey on the first hole. He remedied that bogey with a birdie on the next hole. He got in trouble again on four and again on nine. He shot bogeys on both of them. On the back nine he really settled down. He eliminated the bogeys and added two birdies. He really showed grace under pressure. I would like to see him win a major.

Finally, there’s all the psychoanalysis about Phil Mickelson and his wife, who had cancer. There’s the same $.25 analysis of Tiger Woods. Basically, these guys have proven that they can put adversity aside and play some amazing golf. I suspect the next 5-10 years we’ll see more great golf and both of these golfers. In the meantime, stop with the overanalyzing and I need to take more golf lessons.

Maybe Clinton's Victory Isn't as Impressive as First Impression

On the DailyKos, Kubla000 had this take on Senator Hillary Clinton’s victory:

“When you’re down 179 delegates total, there is NO TIME For Momentum or Symbolism. Despite what the media is telling you, Hillary Clinton tonight Failed in West Virginia.”

Why, you may ask, is kubla000 saying Clinton lost West Virginia? Simply, tonight Clinton underperformed Senator Barack Obama’s TEN best Victories

What does tonight’s final tally look like? After reviewing the second Exit Update, tonight is going to be:

65% Clinton
32% Obama

Per the Incredible Poblano

Obama built his 179-delegate lead on much larger victories than Clinton’s 33 percent victory tonight in West Virginia, which is home to only five electoral votes. Let’s re-cap the scoreboard:

Idaho- Four electoral votes (I’m sorry, I have to inject some thing here. 92 percent of Idaho is white while 0.5 percent is black. I thought that Obama had a problem with white folks? It doesn’t look like it in Idaho).
Obama 79%
Clinton 17%
Obama +62%

Hawaii- Four electoral votes
Obama 76%
Clinton 24%
Obama +52%

Alaska- Three electoral votes
Obama 75%
Clinton 25%
Obama +50%

Washington- 11 electoral votes
Obama 68%
Clinton 31%
Obama +37%

Georgia- 15 electoral votes (Competitive with Bob Barr)
Obama 67%
Clinton 31%
Obama +36%

Colorado- Nine electoral votes
Obama 67%
Clinton 32%
Obama +35%

Minnesota- 10 electoral votes
Obama 66%
Clinton 32%
Obama +34%

And, as Poblano pointed out this morning, no Democrat has won the White House while losing Washington, D.C….

Barack Obama won Washington D.C. by 52 percent

52%…

52%…

Despite the pomp and circumstance, Clinton’s victory tonight pales in comparison to Obama’s landslides… and it’s beyond too late anyhow. Enjoy your night Senator Clinton. You did win. But you lost because you didn’t win by 52 percent. This was your ‘Most Lay-Up State’ and your margin didn’t eclipse Obama’s most ‘Favorable.’

PS: Do you recall the Virgin Islands? Clinton didn’t even make threshold there… Obama walked away with all three delegates. That’s over 70 percent.

P.P.S: I forgot Democrats Abroad
Obama: 65.8%
Clinton: 32.5%

Let’s see if Clinton out performs our ex-pats… with 20 percent in, it’s right at 33 percent

UPDATE: Per Mark Halperin, the bar was clearly set at 68 percent.  With 19percent in, it’s at 63 percent– the 33 percent that Poblano predicted.

Percentage of votes that Clinton has to get in West Virginia for the press to take notice and assign it some meaning: 68

Senator Clinton Supporters Argue for Her

Update below

Throughout the 70s when the Dallas Cowboys were clearly the best team in the NFL, fans like me let losses roll off our backs. We could do this because we knew that the Cowboys were always the best team on the field. They just didn’t play up to their potential. Well, the Senator Hillary Clinton supporters are now using the same argument that caused Pittsburgh Steeler fans to yell, “Look at the scoreboard” at Cowboy fans.

They are trying to argue that Clinton would be best at the top of the ticket. They argue that she is the best candidate.  A group of Hillary Superdelegates have gone so far as write a letter which expresses why they think that Clinton is the best candidate.

The letter is addressed to “fellow Democrats” and sent to the Clinton campaign. They posted the letter on their web site. There is no new information in the letter. They state that Clinton has won battleground states.  They do not, however, present any convincing information showing that if Senator Barack Obama was the nominee he wouldn’t win those same states.

The key paragraph asks two questions:

Pennsylvania was not just a victory for Hillary Clinton. It was also a wake- up call for superdelegates, forcing us to ask ourselves two essential questions: 1) Which candidate can carry the magic 270 electoral votes to win in the fall? 2) Which candidate is most likely to help our fellow Democrats in down-ballot races? We believe the answer to both of these questions is Hillary Clinton.

Pennsylvania was a wake up call? Hardly. Six months ago, we knew that Pennsylvania would go to Clinton and it did. Governor Ed Rendell, who supported Clinton, has a great organization in Pennsylvania. It was going to be very hard for Obama to overcome a popular governor and his machine. If Clinton isn’t the nominee, wouldn’t governor Rendell support Obama? I think that the answer is yes.

Finally, to the question of coattails. The Clintons are currently running on the premise that if you liked the 90s, you will love it again today. It is only fair to look back and see what kind of coattails the Clintons have. Didn’t the Democrats lose the 1994 mid-term election?

As a matter of fact, the popular president lost the mid-terms so badly that it took over a decade to reverse the Republican majority in the House. If the Clintons had significant coattails there wouldn’t have been any Republican Revolution. Al Gore would be president now and George Bush would be clearing brush in Crawford, Texas. There are no Clinton coattails. None. So, this argument is completely empty. Maybe the argument should be that we wished the Clintons had significant coattails.

This letter doesn’t explain why Mrs. Clinton hasn’t won more states if she is such a great candidate. She was the front runner, the one the whole party was looking to for leadership. But she stumbled out of the gate by never renouncing her Iraq war vote. Then she never came up with a clear theme for her campaign except, “I’m Hillary” and “Vote for me.” While former Senator John Edwards was fighting for the little guy, Clinton was fighting to tell us that the 1990s were great and that she can bring those policies back.  (As an aside, can you ever go back?  Whether it is old girlfriends or the policies of the 90’s, you can never go back).  Obama was talking about change and Clinton was talking about turning back the clock.

Think back to Clinton’s original announcement. This wasn’t an “I’m going to work for you” announcement. Instead, Clinton’s announcement takes place in a plush living room where she is sitting on a couch that costs more than most of us make in month. The whole feel of the announcement was “I’m the nominee, let’s talk about beating the Republican nominee.”  Clinton raised a ton of money, more money than any other candidate before her. The press, the candidates, and America were ready for Clinton to be president.

All she had to do was one little thing and she dropped the ball: Clinton lost Iowa!! If she would have won Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada) then we would not be talking about Obama or anyone else right now, but she didn’t. The next big contest was South Carolina. Again, Hillary stumbled. Mr. Clinton said some things about fairy tales which didn’t help her candidancy. Now, Obama is a real candidate and Mrs.Clinton is scrambling. The best candidate would have never let that happen.

Finally, there are other Superdelegates who believe that Obama is the one. Obama picked up nine superdelegates today.

By the way, although I’m a huge Dallas Cowboy fan, they did lose to the Pittsburgh Steelers in a couple of big games – Super Bowls. The Steelers were the better team. Right now, with 32 contests under his belt, Obama is the best candidate. Time is running out for Clinton to prove that she is worth destroying the party over because if the superdelegates give Clinton this nomination, it would destroy the party.

Update: I think that I wrote a pretty good post. In today’s Yahoo News, there is a very similar article (without the Cowboy references) from the Associated Press. They paint an even more detailed picture of how 2008 was Clinton’s race to lose and she lost it. Early polls showed that Hillary had over 90 percent of the black vote. Then folks in her campaign started saying things about Obama. I think that the bottom line is that Clinton could of, and should ,have won the first four contests. If she would have done that, then the race would have been over and Obama would be remembered as a nice flash in the pan.  Unfortunately for Clinton, that didn’t happen. She has clearly shown us, the voters, that she is not the best or the strongest. She has shown us that she doesn’t mind visiting the dark-side when it suits her.