SUPER TUESDAY SPECIAL: The Sheeple Have Spoken

There are primaries yet to come, and it’s a long way out till the party conventions in summer. Still, after yesterday’s Super Tuesday contests, it might fairly be said that the “sheeple” (pictured, left) have spoken.

Prospects for the wannabes shifted but didn’t effectively change. Save for Mitt Romney, who surely is dead mutton no matter how hard he says he intends to keep fighting. His big chance to make an inroad into the Tuesday gains of John McCain and Mike Huckabee was California, but he trailed McCain by 17% by the time a third of the vote was counted. Heck, he even came in third in Missouri. You can keep on going, but you can’t keep on losing. Romney finished third in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee too, all states won by his arch-nemesis Huckabee. That had to sting. Too few victories overall, insufficient drawing power in the South, and getting trounced by McCain in New York, New Jersey and Illinois spell the end for the Mittster, and he oughta withdraw before they make an eponym out of him. (“Yeah, I interviewed for that job three times, but I pulled a Romney.”)

Huckabee made an impressive showing, especially for a guy whose campaign is running on fumes. He won five states, including his home state of Arkansas, and clearly certain folks rally to him in ways they don’t rally to Romney. Huckabee doesn’t hide the religion thing, but that’s not all he’s about. He speaks reasonably about every topic, and he’s surely more worldly than your average Bible-thumping Baptist. (McCain, by the way, is also a Baptist, in case you didn’t know.) And Huckabee’s got this Fair Tax idea, and it’s not bad at all. In that regard, he’s probably gained the attention of Libertarian types, who otherwise voted for Ron Paul in modest numbers. Paul didn’t do badly for a third-party candidate masquerading as a main-streamer. A serious third-party could be built around what Paul has pioneered in ’08, so long as his followers really want to excavate for the future.

As for Dem wannabe Barack Obama, well, he had a good night. He rung up more victories than Clinton and proved to be an impressive percentage vote-getter. When he beat her, it was usually by far stronger numbers. The guy has charisma and all, but alas he couldn’t halt the Clinton machine in New York, Massachusetts and Cali. Obama did snake out a crafty little “W” in Connecticut, practically Clinton’s backyard, and that was a good sign. But where he could have sent a real message was in Missouri, where the vote was closer than anticipated but where Clinton emerged with more delegates. Obama kicked Clinton’s (fairly) fat ass in Illinois, which is his home state, but—good to remember—is also her home state, where she was born and raised before embarking on her lifelong indulgence in carpetbaggery. Yet his Cali performance was a huge disappointment. That was where he could prove something big—like, maybe, he could actually win Hispanic votes?—but even Oprah couldn’t save him there. Joining the ticket as veep looks like his destiny (if he's got the stomach for it). Heck, he wouldn't even have to finish out his first term as a U.S. senator.

So while the nominations remain contested, it’s probably wisest to get used to the inevitable: Hillary Clinton (“The Pantsuit Who Would Be King”) vs. John McCain, who will rapidly size up as “the doddering old man who is not Ronald Reagan.”

You might as well also get used to hearing White House reporters hollering “Madame President!” at press conferences. (At least that’ll be something new for crusty old hen correspondent Helen Thomas, who’s been cackling “Mr. President!” for about a century.)

Even at this early juncture, projecting the general election doesn’t look too tough. Billary—yeah, don’t forget, Bubba’s back in town (Gawd! Chelsea, too!)—and McCoot will cancel each other out on many issues, including immigration (’cause he’s a softie on that, and if he gets tough he’ll lose all the Hispanic voters who love Mamacita Clinton).

Unless something extraordinary happens between now and November, watch for the inevitable tide of Democrats to ride in on the heels of eight dour Bush years that even real conservatives are tired of. So tired they may all stay home.

At least we've all been here before: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... It's dynastic deja vu all over again.

So you’ve been warned. Get ready for the new sitcom: "The Harridan of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue." (You won't laugh even once.)

The sheeple have spoken.

[Update: Barack Obama eventually won the Missouri Democratic primary, defeating Hillary Clinton 49% to 48%. Each candidate emerged with 36 of the state's delegates to the national convention.]

Alway$ Follow the Money: Who’$ Giving What to the Politico$, Tenne$$ee Edition

Ever wonder about those vast sums of political money that keep flowing in to campaign coffers? I know I do. Mainly ‘cause I can’t afford to give hardly a penny.

With football season out of the way, and sports in general in the doldrums until March Madness, we’re going to get more political around here, and that means introducing you—if you’re not yet hip—to FundRace2008.

Thanks to the ever-increasing miracles in computer-search capabilities, and the enterprising sponsorship of Huffington Post—love that Arianna, both pretty and smart—any average Joe can use FundRace2008 to track the campaign donations of the high-profile and rich and famous nationwide.

This is a delicious mode of snooping, and you can narrow your search to name, address, city, occupation or employer.

A few basic ground rules of understanding about personal campaign donations:

Individuals are limited to a single primary or single general election contribution, to each candidate, of $2,300. In other words, you can donate a max of $4,600 to any one candidate, but the candidate can only use half of that ($2,300) for the primary run. The remainder (the other $2,300) has to be held in abeyance until it might be used in the general election. However, if you’re the type to hedge your bets, you can do this for however many different candidates you want.

Take pop singer Bette Midler. From a Nashville Music Row address of 1222 16th Ave. South, Midler has made a single $2,300 contribution to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, each of whom has doubtlessly used the money for the primary run. Now, assuming they both remain in the race after Super Tuesday, they can each solicit Midler—if they haven’t already—for another $2,300 for use in the general election campaign, though obviously only one will actually be able to exercise the option of using it.

Here’s another show-biz oddity: Jon Bon Jovi—using his real name, John Bongiovi, and from the same Music Row addy as Midler—has contributed a max of $4,600 to Hillary Clinton. His wife, Dorothea, also from the Nashville address, has also donated $4,600 to Clinton.

Nashville industrialist and noted arts patron Martha Ingram’s search brings up interesting results. From two separate addresses, Ingram contributed $2,300 to ex-candidate Fred Thompson. For whatever reason, Ingram donated $1,000 from one address, and $1,300 from the other. There’s probably a good accounting reason for that. (Or maybe she had to think two separate times about giving to Fred.)

Check out other locals:

Jack Bovender, chairman and CEO of health-care giant HCA, donated $2,300 to Mitt Romney. Ditto Mrs. Bovender.

Mike Curb, chairman of Curb Records, donated $2,300 to Fred Thompson. So did wife Linda.

Ronnie Dunn, of the music duo Brooks & Dunn, also sprung $2,300 for Thompson, who was definitely getting his share of Music City money.

Others on the Thompson bandwagon—when there was one—include former U.S. senator Bill Frist, record exec Joe Galante, singer-songwriter John Rich (Big & Rich), music producer James Stroud, “Redneck Woman” singer Gretchen Wilson, arts patrons Steve and Judy Turner, retired producer Billy Sherrill, and eye surgeon Ming Wang.

Giving it up locally for John Edwards were music producer Paul Worley and ambulance-chasing lawyer Blair Durham.

Other notables:

U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper—Obama ($2,300)
Andrea Conte (Mrs. Phil Bredesen)—Bill Richardson ($2,300)
Hazel O’Leary, president of Fisk University—Clinton ($2,300)
Monroe Carell—Romney ($2,100; couldn’t part with the other $200, apparently)

The point is, because of the magic of online technology, you can hardly do a public act without the public finding out. And in politics, donating money can sometimes mean more than just helping someone pay for a few dinners.

Since money is the one area that we interested political onlookers can’t compete in, the best we can do is keep tabs on the fat cats. Besides, it’s just interesting to see who they like.

Check out the site. It’s fun and informative. And you might get a surprise or two along the way.

Super Bowl Dumb Stuff

Great Super Bowl. Loved every minute of it. I had a very dispassionate but totally sincere interest in the game. If the Giants won, we had a cool upset. If the Pats won, we had history. Once the Pats took a 14-10 lead late in the fourth quarter, I kinda thought it was over, and I was all for history. When the Giants kept battling in their final drive, I thought, “Well, if they can pull it out, more power to ’em.” And after David Tyree made the catch of the century, I was pulling for the Giants all the way. So congrats to the Giants. Awesome game.

Now here’s all the dumb stuff:

Why did they give the MVP trophy to Eli Manning? He ended up playing a very good game statistically, but for three quarters he had put exactly 3 points on the board. His escape of the Patriots’ rush on the Tyree play was remarkable, but Tyree made that play. If he hadn’t, we would’ve said Eli flung the ball wildly and we’d’ve been right. The MVP should have been given to Osi Umenyiora or Michael Strahan, or maybe jointly to the Giants’ defensive line. Because of them, the Patriots only scored 14 points. THAT was the game. The Giants’ offense actually sucked, scoring only 17 points against a much more vulnerable Pats defense. Eli is still a player with some rough edges, and any sharp observer will tell you that. He proved spunky yesterday, he made some plays, and honestly, I’m happy for him. It’s a very good story. But why do they always try to find a way to give the big award to a QB, when the DLs are the guys making it happen? Dumb.

Why does Chris Berman call the Giants the “G-Men”? Is that a term he coined? Why does he say it on TV as if it’s some time-honored nickname? I’ve followed the Giants for years in print and on TV, and I never heard this term until Berman started bellowing it, what, maybe in the mid to late ’90s? It sounds dumb, and dumbly fabricated by someone trying to call attention to himself. Berman’s a blowhard. Enough, already. Someone tell him to stop it.

Deion Sanders is another blowhard. In a postgame interview, he came on to Tom Coughlin with the accusation of the Giants coach being “old-school”—the actual implication was clear: “old”—and then asked him how he was able to “turn it around” and “relate” to his young players. Just a stupid, cliche approach. Totally dumb. Coughlin is a vet coach, who’s been much-maligned, especially by the New York press, and he toughed it out in Gotham, having to listen to unfair, impatient criticisms from reporters and pundits and ex-jock dummies like Sanders and Tiki Barber. (“How do you like me now, Tiki? If you’d stayed one more year, you’d’ve gotten that ring. LOL.”) Coughlin proved a graceful guy, actually appearing quite humbled and not the testy, flustered martinet that he’s been portrayed as for all these years. Nice guy, nice story. Too bad there were dummies on the scene, clueless how to approach him.

Oh yeah, remember Tiki’s criticism of Eli last year? About his leadership qualities? You’re a dumb schmuck, Tiki. And a loser.

Ever notice the dumb look on Joe Buck’s face as he’s forced to look upward at Troy Aikman when they’re in the booth in a “two”-shot? It’s hilarious. Poor Joe. Desperately trying to be taken seriously, with all his pietistic pseudo-dramatic commentary, then he’s immediately dwarfed both by Aikman’s broad shoulders and the ex-QB’s superior skills as a communicator. If Buck told us one more time about 41-year-old Giants punter Jeff Feagles trying to get his first Super Bowl ring you’d have started to think he was being paid off by Feagles’ PR firm. He latched onto this theme early and never let it go. Boring. And dumb too. Buck is a dummy, and one lucky stiff.

Why do they continue to have geezer acts for halftime entertainment? Dumb. Tom Petty? He’s not even a good geezer act. Just plain dumb. I thought his music was boring even when he wasn’t a geezer.

Also dumb: those of us who predicted a Patriots victory. No problem-o. The better story prevailed, and we’re all better for it. What wasn’t dumb was how I managed to completely avoid all the pre-game TV hoopla, watched the first half, then went to the store during halftime—thus gratefully missing Tom Petty—timing my return perfectly for the beginning of the second half, which I then watched with rapt attention and fortified by fresh munchies. The only thing that matters is the game, folks.

Have a great off-season. (We’ll be back for the draft in April.)

A Bill Belichick Fantasy; plus, the SMA Super Bowl Prediction

[University of Phoenix Stadium. Glendale, Arizona. February 3, 2008. The New England Patriots locker room. Minutes prior to Super Bowl XLII.]

Bill Belichick: Well, fellas, here we are. One game away from perfection. 19-0. Where no man has gone before. At this point, after this long season—including some early-season BS that cost me half a million dollars—it seems like there really is nothing more that needs to be said.

Nevertheless, I want you to listen up, and I want you to listen up good.

We’re going out here to play a football game against another professional NFL team. A team that has won 13 games this year. And if there’s one thing every single one of you guys knows, it’s that in football, sh*t happens. No matter how well a team has prepared, no matter how natively talented its individual players are, no matter how remote the chance that a lesser team might beat a better team—sh*t f***in’ happens. Balls take weird bounces. Somebody catches a break. Then that same somebody gets lucky on an interference call in the end zone. Then they get an early score that no one ever figured was possible. Suddenly you’re behind. And just as suddenly, this same lucky team picks off a pass that might’ve been thrown just a little more accurately. Suddenly, they’ve got field position again and maybe they kick a field goal. Then the lucky team’s defense starts to get aggressive, and you suddenly realize that they’ve got some talented physical guys playing on the defensive line—guys who aren’t just lucky, but who are capable of kicking ass. Then they start to kick ass, and suddenly all bets are off, and you’re in the game of your life.

Well, today, I don’t WANT the game of my life. I want to go 19-0, and I don’t want the embarrassment of having to talk to some ESPN lady who’s shoving a microphone in my face as I leave the field, asking me “Coach, what happened out there?” Or, “Coach, what’s going through your mind right now?” I don’t want to go to a postgame press conference where dozens and dozens of reporters are going to want me to dissect every little detail of a game we lost.

Trust me, you guys don’t want that either.

So, what are YOU gonna do about it?

Well, I’ll tell you what you’re gonna do about it. You’re gonna go out there in that first quarter, and you’re gonna play your asses off like you know how. You’re not gonna take these guys for granted. Instead, you’re gonna show ‘em how to play professional football in every phase of the game. You will make precise, crushing blocks to protect your quarterback and open up holes for your running backs. You will run precise routes and you will not drop one pass. You will play defense like it’s the last game you’ll ever get the chance to play on this earth. You will never let up. You’ll sprint to every ball carrier or receiver on every single play. You’ll rush the passer with all the fury you’ve got, because he’s trying to deny you your destiny. You’ll deliver bone-crunching tackles on every play, and you won’t lose your cool and do something stupid like get flagged for a personal foul. If you get flagged on some sh*t questionable pass interference call, you will suck it up and clamp down on their receivers on the very next play without second-guessing yourself. You will give up your bodies on every single special teams play.

Ideally, if we do what we’ve been doing all year, only with the ultimate effort I’m asking of you, this thing will be over at halftime.

If you let these sonofabitch Giants steal your destiny, I will never forgive you. But most of all, you will never be able to forgive yourselves.

Now let’s go play some football.

Super Bowl XLII
New York Giants (13-6) vs. New England Patriots (18-0)
Feb. 3, 6 p.m. EST, FOX-TV

I keep wondering if there is any way the Giants can actually win this game. But no matter how you slice it, it just doesn’t seem possible. Let’s look at some of the key markers.

1. History: Superior teams usually win the Super Bowl. It’s just a fact.

2. Quarterback: Tom Brady vs. Eli Manning. Arguably the greatest quarterback ever against Peyton’s little brother, who’s had a nice little run here in the playoffs avoiding errors and making enough passes to win.

3. Running back: We kept waiting for the Giants’ Brandon Jacobs to take over a game. He plays well, but he doesn’t dominate. Fleet-footed Ahmad Bradshaw is an interesting case. Is he the Timmy Smith of 2008? But for overall dependability, the Pats have Laurence Maroney, who can run inside and out. Plus, they have Kevin Faulk and Heath Evans, who ensure variety in the ground attack.

4. Receivers: Well, you could be deferential to the Giants and call this a wash. Both teams have talented wideouts and tight ends. Except Brady is throwing to the Pats receivers, which probably makes them the better squad.

5. Defense: The Giants have an excellent defensive line, but their secondary is suspect. The Patriots’ bend-but-only-break-a-little-sometimes D has some encroaching age, but it’s doubtful that it’ll affect their performance critically for one more game. They play well as a unit generally, and as long as the Pats’ offense is putting points on the board—the line must protect Brady sufficiently, which they usually do—the final tote should put the Pats in the plus column.

Prediction: Patriots 27, Giants 20

ESPN Responds...Sort of...

A copy of yesterday's Sports Media America story on Dana Jacobson was forwarded to ESPN. Following is the network's response:





Thank you taking the time to write.

Ms. Jacobson's inappropriate comments were delivered in the context of Notre Dame football and its Touchdown Jesus icon. They were wrong and inexcusable, and she was suspended from her duties. Her uncharacteristic behavior was not aimed at a particular religious faith. They took place at an adult-only roast that was not aired on any ESPN outlet.

We appreciate your giving us the opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,
ESPN Viewer Response

Hmmm..."not aimed at a particular religious faith..." Well, there is only one particular religious faith that sponsors Notre Dame football and is responsible for the Touchdown Jesus icon. That's Roman Catholicism. Guess from now on everyone gets a pass based on the "adult-only roast" clause. In other words, if you say bigoted things in a private gathering, then that's more or less okay. Sort of like what happens at a Ku Klux Klan meeting.

She should be fired.

Many a Truth Said in Jest: ESPN's Jacobson Strikes a Blow for Anti-Catholics Everywhere

"F**k Notre Dame." "F**k Touchdown Jesus." "F**k Jesus." And with those words, uttered under the influence of tongue- and mind-loosening alcohol, ESPN’s Dana Jacobson has helped to expose the longstanding—but long ignored—American bigotry against Roman Catholics.

Jacobson’s recent drunken tirade at an ESPN roast for the overly ambitious and minimally talented duo of Greenberg and Golic confirms what I’ve suspected for years: that anti-Catholicism is the last unaddressed bigotry in this country.

Blacks? Got ya covered. Decades of attention to righting the wrongs. Jews? Yep, the Holocaust and the evils of anti-Semitism have been drilled into our heads. (PBS programming continues to pile that on, too.) Asians and Hispanics have their advocacy groups. Heck, even Arabs have attempted to combat negative stereotyping pretty actively, and with some success, in the post-9/11 world. With the rise of presidential contender Mitt Romney, there’s been a more open approach to the acceptance of Mormonism. Other examples abound.

Whether it’s an ethnic thing or a religious thing, America and its media always like to jump on the latest bandwagon and show what openness is all about. It’s the American way, after all. We are a melting pot, and we’re all supposed to espouse liberal attitudes about color, creed and nation of origin.

But if you’re an American Catholic, you’re supposed to turn the other cheek, while media hammer on—always with impunity—against the priesthood, the Pope, the church’s supposed “millions of dollars,” its stand against abortion and its male-dominated hierarchy.

Catholics get the short end of the apologist stick. They can’t cry virulent racism like blacks or Jews. At the same time, they remain a bit of a curiosity to America’s millions of Protestants, especially in the South, where Baptists and evangelicals still harbor a lingering suspicion of Catholic practices and beliefs. To narrow minds, if you’re not a black or a Jew, but you’re not in church on Sunday listening to hellfire and brimstone speechifying and thumping your Bible, then you might be a Catholic and you might be suspect.

There are supposedly about 50 million Catholics in the U.S. Those are big numbers, but many Catholics’ regular practice in the faith waxes and wanes. They don’t always go to church on Sunday, and they don’t always drop money into the collection basket. They tend to struggle with the papal stand on many social issues as well, and this has strained their commitment to a church they wish were more “understanding” of human frailty. To be a Catholic is often a work-in-progess type of thing. I know, because I am one.

Yet I would argue that that is the faith’s very strength: its pledge to forgiveness, its mode of penitence, and its willingness to accept its black sheep back into the fold. Disagree with the church’s stand on social issues if you will, but you can’t say that the faith isn’t consistent. If you want a faith that turns a blind eye to abortion or that allows women as priests, then by all means go seek out such an organization. But don’t rag on the Catholic church. They’re doing their thing the best way they know how. They also do what a lot of other groups don’t: commit millions of dollars and (wo)man-hours to ministering to the sick and poor worldwide. So stick that in your vodka bottle, Dana Jacobson.

Jacobson, 36, a Jew from upper-crust Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and a grad of the University of Michigan, has been with ESPN since 2002, having joined the ever-increasing fraternity of fellow non-jock Jews, male and female, who fairly dominate the sports giant’s anchor and reporting duties (except for the jocks themselves, of course). Her vile remarks put me in mind that, shortly after the college football season ended, Tony Kornheiser, another Jew, made a negative comment on “PTI” about Notre Dame football. In sum, Kornheiser doesn’t like Notre Dame and he was glad to see them doing so poorly on the field. So what’s with Jews and Notre Dame? (Honestly, just wonderin’.)

According to the Chicago Tribune, Jacobson was suspended one week for her outburst. The Notre Dame response? University spokesperson Dennis Brown was quoted thusly: "While we in no way condone Ms. Jacobson's comments, we're aware of the circumstances in which they occurred, and, in the interest of forgiveness, trust that she and ESPN have addressed the matter in an appropriate way."

No, I don’t think so, Dennis. Sometimes turning the other cheek is a crock. Sometimes forgiveness is not in order. A one-week suspension is outlandishly lenient. Jacobson should be fired. Public drunkenness and an attack on a major world religion have gotten her less a slap on the wrist than the one Kelly Tilghman received recently for her “lynching” remark re: Tiger Woods.

Should the punishment not fit the crime? Let's say a Catholic reporter for ESPN got drunk and proclaimed in public, "F**k Jews. F**k the B'nai B'rith. F**k Moses and his clan." You think he'd last a day more on the job?

It’s funny how we tend to forgive those who say things when they’re drunk. We acknowledge always the altered behavior. But there’s another property about alcohol that can’t be undervalued here: that it often causes a person to reveal their deepest held beliefs and innermost mind-set.

Dana Jacobson, you've offended me. Have a nice day.

Tabloid Thinking: Golfweek’s “Noose” Cover Reveals Dimwitted Editorial Reach

ESPN’s Thursday afternoon “Outside the Lines” feature, with Bob Ley, addressed the hubbub surrounding the “noose” cover on the latest issue of Golfweek magazine.

It all started last week, of course, when Golf Channel broadcaster Kelly Tilghman (left) used the word lynch while discussing, with partner Nick Faldo, the steps Tiger Woods’ foes could take to stop him from winning all the time. “Lynch him in a back alley” were Tilghman’s precise words, delivered with a smirk, doubtlessly innocent from the get-go, and clearly intended to be an offhanded—surely tongue-in-cheek—remark. Definitely not a word to be used in reference to an African American, though. I mean....no, you don’t use that word anytime unless the context is clear and clearly not potentially offensive.

My first reaction to the story was, “Well, whoever this Kelly Tilghman is—yet another babe that TV sports execs have hired to keep a job away from a knowledgeable non-jock male?—she’s probably really young and has no sense of the historically charged, negative connotation of the word lynch.” She might be so darn young that the idea of strained racial relations isn’t even on her youthful radar screen. Maybe she’s a truly nouveau member of the broadcasting world—from a new generation in which everyone and everything is absolutely color-blind.

It turns out that Tilghman graduated from Duke in 1991. That makes her close to 40. So, yeah, any broadcaster that age, with any brains at all, should be aware that, years ago, racist Southerners lynched black men. (Maybe the subject never got covered in class at Duke? In Durham, North Carolina?) Whatever...

Fast forward to the ESPN show, where Ley interviewed Golfweek writer Scott Hamilton. I don’t know Hamilton’s work, but if he writes anything like he speaks, then he must be one duffer of a journalist. He bumbled his Neanderthal way through an explanation of how Golfweek editors came to the decision to run the controversial cover picture. He stumblingly admitted that there were no African Americans in on that decision either. Ley’s questioning had subtext: Why would Golfweek run such a cover for any reason other than to stir up the embers of an incident that seemed well on its way to being forgotten? (Tilghman had apologized to Tiger. Tiger claimed no offense taken. Tilghman was suspended for two weeks—for being a dummy, presumably, and not a racist.)

According to Hamilton, Golfweek editors, in running with the cover image, were acknowledging the historical racial issues in the sport. Yeah, there used to be some of those. Such as blacks being barred from playing at all. That was a long time ago—though not as long ago as lynchings.

The game has been dominated for a decade now by a black man, and there are up-and-coming stars who are Asian and Hispanic. Frankly, the diversity has helped the sport tremendously. I daresay your average golf fan would love to see yet another black man step up to challenge Tiger—if only because certainly none of the white guys are having any luck. No one wants to see Tiger challenged because he’s black. We want to see him challenged for the same reason we want to see the Chargers challenge the Patriots this weekend. Because it’s good for the game.

And Golfweek ran the noose cover...why? Because a clueless lady broadcaster used an unfortunate verb, and they saw an opening to go tabloid about it to get attention. That’s why.

If only Tiger weren’t so damn good. Then maybe Golfweek could expend its energies publishing cover stories on some of the other players who were beating him.

Interesting that Golfweek’s website does not feature the cover on its home page. But better smart late, than never at all.

Conference Championships Weekend: Great Stories with Interesting Angles Abound in AFC, NFC Matchups

While we all scratch our heads trying to figure out why the federal government is spending our hard-earned money holding congressional hearings into major league baseball’s drug problems—Would they bring in the CEO of Ford Motor Co. if a lot of assembly-line workers were taking HGH? Would they haul in Rupert Murdoch if his media conglomerate had a big steroid problem? Didn’t the NFL prove that a major sport can police its own internal business in a systemized and efficient manner?—let’s focus instead on this weekend’s conference championships.

Where to begin with the fabulous story angles? Let’s see, pro football’s best “old” quarterback, Brett Favre, gets a shot at playing in another Super Bowl, while the game’s very best, Tom Brady, goes for 18-0 and the chance at making his fourth Super Bowl appearance. (The latter would tie Brady with Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana for all-time bragging rights.) The other two QBs, Eli Manning and Philip Rivers, were actually traded for each other in 2004, when the drafted Manning didn’t want to play in San Diego. (Remember that?)

Packers RB Ryan Grant faces off against the Giants, the team that originally signed him as an undrafted free agent from Notre Dame in 2005. Meanwhile, the Chargers’ LaDainian Tomlinson nurses a hyperextended knee, making one wonder if backups Michael Turner and Darren Sproles might not be getting the call. And who knows, they might be getting the ball from Billy Volek, who subbed for the banged-up Rivers (knee) in last weekend’s divisional victory over the Colts. Volek proved resilient in leading the Bolts to a game-winning TD in Indy. He’s a talented QB who’s simply never had an extended trial. With the Titans in ’04, subbing for an injured Steve McNair, Volek put up terrific numbers (218-357, 61.1%, 2,486 yards, 18 TDs, 10 INTs, 87.1 passer rating). Then, when Vince Young joined Tennessee in ‘06, Volek was deemed expendable and dealt to San Diego.

On the coaching front, we’ve got the crusty grand wizard Bill Belichick of the Patriots, and also the fresh-faced youngster Mike McCarthy of the Packers. But most of the focus will be on the Chargers’ Norv Turner and the Giants’ Tom Coughlin, each of whom has suffered a lot of criticism in their careers. Neither has ever been able to win the big one, though Coughlin made it to two conference championships with the Jaguars. Turner is much-maligned: too soft, cursed with bad karma. Now he heads to New England, against a team making history. We’ll be rootin’ for ya, Norv, if only because your challenge is so impossible. (Oh, a bad name, too. Norv?)

It’s all good stuff. Much better than baseball.

AFC Championship

San Diego Chargers (13-5) @ New England Patriots (17-0)


Sunday, 3 p.m. EST, CBS-TV

The Chargers are pretty banged up. Rivers, Tomlinson and TE Antonio Gates (dislocated toe)—the main cogs in their offense—are either questionable, day-to-day, or game-time decisions. If they play, they face a defense that, whatever occasional criticisms it's endured, does not let up and would probably love nothing more than to see Volek have to step in to the spotlight. The Chargers have a very good defense themselves, of course, and if there’s maybe one team around that has the raw talent to pressure Brady with any consistency, it might be the Bolts. Yet even 17 games into the season, it’s amazing how much time Brady gets. And even after the occasional sack, his line just sucks it up and eventually does its job for him. The problem with defensing the Patriots is that, once you’ve accounted for, say, Wes Welker and Randy Moss—challenge enough—then Donte’ Stallworth comes out of nowhere and catches the long pass instead. Or Ben Watson. Or Jabar Gaffney. Conventional wisdom says that Pats RB Laurence Maroney should step up and provide the ground game. He might. Or he might not. Brady & Co. still look invincible. If the Chargers show no ability to match the Pats drive for drive, how will they ever win on a cold, hostile field? Theirs would certainly be a magnificent victory, but a soul-sucking loss looks more likely.

Prediction: Patriots 24, Chargers 13


NFC Championship

New York Giants (12-6) @ Green Bay Packers (14-3)


Sunday, 6:30 p.m. EST, FOX-TV

Here’s a good question: Why have they scheduled the coldest venue for the later starting time? It’ll be 8:30 at night in January in Green Bay, Wisconsin, when this game’s in the fourth quarter. (Just wonderin’.) Nevertheless, the Giants have a shot here. They’re not playing dominant football, but they’re playing error-less football. If they can stay in this game—they’re an amazing 9-1 on the road this season—anything can happen. The Giants’ D is playing aggressively and getting some turnovers. Eli is putting up acceptable numbers while playing things close to the vest—and it’s working. He has very good receivers—Amani Toomer has a ton of talent, and even though he’s been around awhile, we’re getting a showcase glimpse at his abilities. TE Kevin Boss has stepped up amazingly to replace Jeremy Shockey with no apparent drop-off. We’re still waiting for RB Brandon Jacobs’ break-out game. He’s a truck back there, and even when he hasn’t put up big numbers, he’s proved very useful. On the other side are the upstart, generally youthful Packers, helmed by a 38-year-old QB legend and seemingly in a definite “up” cycle and playing at home before rabid fans. The Pack showed a lot in coming back from a 14-0 deficit against Seattle last weekend. Their defense went into shutdown mode, and with a solid D-line, three young and talented LBs (Barnett, Hawk, Poppinga) and a tough, veteran secondary, they might be getting better. History proves that Favre excels with a running game, no matter how capable he is of carrying a team with his arm. So Grant needs to keep doing what he’s doing: slash through the line for quick gainers and use his speed with the occasional sweep or dump-off pass. If Favre gets the option of keeping the New Yorkers guessing—38 and still the master of the play-action—he’ll try to hook up with his talented receivers (those guys seem to be getting better also). It should be a very good game. If the Giants hang tough, and someone makes a critical mistake... The thing is that, despite their youth, the Packers have been consistent all year long. They don’t play like a Cinderella team. They look like they belong here. Will the big-game atmosphere rattle ’em?

Prediction: Packers 24, Giants 23

Divisional Playoffs Weekend: Home-Field Sweep a Distinct Possibility

If kicker Shaun Suisham doesn’t miss that field goal in last weekend’s Redskins-Seahawks battle, Washington takes a 17-13 lead and has sufficient momentum to knock off Seattle. It didn’t happen. That left us 3-1 on the wild-card predictions. Our pride is a little wounded, but heck, we’ll take a .750 percentage anytime.

We’re looking for the home-field sweep in the divisionals. Too many good teams hosting games and way too much history backing up the value of being a rested, top-tier division winner.

NFC Matchups

Seattle (11-6) @ Green Bay (13-3)/Saturday, 4:30 p.m. EST, FOX-TV

Was that a surprise when the Seahawks dismantled the Redskins last week, or are they really pretty good? Not sure. The home crowd was so loud the Skins couldn’t hear their offensive signals, and were plenty thwarted. Even so, they mounted a comeback, took the lead fairly late, intercepted Matt Hasselbeck twice, and got a good break they should have exploited for a four-point lead with the momentum going their way. The Seahawks have some serious physical players on defense, and if they’ve got any energy left after laying on Todd Collins and Clinton Portis, they could be the key to upsetting the Packers. The voice in the back of my head keeps saying, “The Packers are still untested. Have they matured enough? Exactly how good is this team?” (Yes. I dunno. I dunno.) But they’ve looked very strong throughout the season. They’ve been consistent. Their defense allowed the second-fewest points in the NFC, and their offense scored more points in the conference than everybody but Dallas. There’s no 12th Man for the Seahawks here: Running back Ryan Grant and the Packers receivers will hear Bret Favre barking out the signals, and the Lambeau Field crowd will provide their own positive ambience to aid the Pack D. This could be a tussle, but Pack coach Mike McCarthy looks like a pretty tough guy, and with a 21-11 record in his young career, he’s a rising star. It would be a surprise if he doesn’t have his team ready.

Prediction: Packers 27, Seahawks 24

New York (11-6) @ Dallas (13-3)/Sunday, 4:30 p.m. EST, FOX-TV

The Giants are feeling pretty good about their wild-card victory over the Buccaneers. They get a real test here going into Dallas. The Cowboys didn’t look very good as their season wound down. They looked distracted and got careless. Here’s something else to chew on: Dallas coach Wade Phillips is 0-3 in his playoff career, while the Giants’ much-maligned Tom Coughlin is 5-6 and has taken two teams to the conference championship game. Obviously, if Cowboys QB Tony Romo plays badly, his team is in trouble. The Dallas running game has been MIA recently, and Terrell Owens is rebounding from an ankle injury (presumably better-rested by now). Meanwhile, the Giants‘ offense is probably capable of even better performances, especially if RB Brandon Jacobs has the monster game we think he’s capable of. But all those “ifs” are meaningless if the ’boys simply regroup and focus committedly on the task at hand. They’re the superior team on paper, and they’re at home. ‘Nuff said.

Prediction: Cowboys 23, Giants 17


AFC Matchups

Jacksonville (12-5) @ New England (16-0)/Saturday, 8 p.m. EST, CBS-TV

Every game with New England is fun because that perfect record is on the line. The Jags are a talented bunch for sure. Two ways to look at their slim victory over the Steelers last weekend: They almost blew it, or pulling it out is a harbinger of their destiny. Winning on the road is such a difficult thing, however, and yet another journey back home to the South and then back again up to the North, for a game against the Belichick Machine... well, it doesn’t look good. (For those curious about the weather factor, and if the Florida team will have to brave the winter, the temperatures in Boston Saturday should hover between 27-44 degrees Fahrenheit under partly cloudy skies.) If the Steelers could get 29 points vs. the Jags’ D, how many will Brady & Co. put up? On the other hand, the Jags’ D–when it’s hitting on all cylinders—is just the kind of aggressive squad that could disrupt the Pats’ offense. Just say, for instance, that the Jags’ defenders play the game of their lives, and Jax RB Maurice Jones-Drew gets loose in any number of his potential ways. The more I think about it, the... NAH!

Prediction: Patriots 20, Jaguars 17

San Diego (12-5) @ Indianapolis (13-3)/Sunday, 1 p.m. EST, CBS-TV

This is a good matchup—if the Chargers come to play. Not sure about them. They’ve got a lot of talent, but as the Titans have proved this year, their offense can be stopped. Peyton Manning will have to be on top of his game ’cause the Chargers’ front seven is very good. Very good. Colts RB Joseph Addai has to reassert his value here. Otherwise, the Colts very quietly finished up an impressive season, and I don’t see Norv Turner outcoaching Tony Dungy in Indianapolis. The Colts are a determined team, and they’ve had to overcome injuries to keep the boat afloat, which they’ve done impressively.

Prediction: Colts 24, Chargers 20

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Mr. Obama,

They say your ascent to the Democratic nomination for the presidency of the United States is practically a foregone conclusion. I suppose congratulations are in order. One primary win in Iowa and you have been fitted for an impressive temporary crown, and in fact there are other so-called experts who claim that we’re already breathing the air of inevitability: that you may very well be our next chief executive.

Yet I have one specific question for you that—so far as I can tell from watching the TV news and reading my favorite online outlets—has yet to be answered: Exactly what is your political philosophy, and exactly what will you do to effect this “change” you talk so much about?

We hear about your interest in various issues—health care, the war, energy—in other words, the same issues every candidate attempts to address. Whenever you speak, the words seem to have a rather mesmerizing effect on your audience, and the subsequent excitement evinced by your appearances is characterized as palpable. You’ve been dubbed a phenomenon. No doubt some people think you are a visionary. Yet no one knows anything about what the vision is.

It’s one thing to have words of inspiration thrilling throngs of people desperate for something to believe in. (They might try church or something, but I digress...) It’s quite another thing to actually spell out specific methods of change that will let voters know what the impact will be on their pocketbooks, their personal lives and their sense of security.

It’s interesting to note that Republican candidate Ron Paul comes under criticism for some of his so-called radical ideas, but in fact Paul always explains that his plans—for dismantling the IRS and revising the tax code, for withdrawing troops overseas, etc.—involve transitional periods for everything. Paul has stated that gradual reform is a necessity. You, however, use pretty words and a slick (if appealing) demeanor to declare that there is some kind of broadly sweeping transformation of America coming under your leadership. Yet you tell us nothing about how it will be accomplished.

We have, in these pages, previously accused Hillary Clinton of demagoging the issues. But, in fact, you are out-demagoging the demagogue.

Anybody can talk about change. Lord knows there are many critical issues that need addressing with an eye toward distinctive change. Here are five things many Americans want to see happen:

1. An end to unbridled immigration. Stop the flow inward—absolutely, completely—and then address the issue of what to do with the illegals residing here. Illegals are killing the tax system in California and elsewhere, and they just keep coming.

2. A total reassessment of income taxation and a reduction in the size of the federal government. It’s a cliche, for sure, but middle- and lower-income Americans are getting killed with the rising costs of gas and food and lots of other things. If you keep taking their money to feed the monstrous federal bureaucracy, you will make their lives even more miserable. Instead, if people are going to be miserable, or at least needing to readjust their lives, it should be federal employees. There are too many of them doing non-essential work, many of them being paid more than private sector workers, with secure benefits and health-care plans. The federal government tail should not wag the tax-paying public dog.

3. The end of our dependence on imported oil. This is not only a question of our own economic independence as a nation, it is a question of freeing up our foreign policy. So long as we are beholden to radical and tyrant states simply because they sell us oil, our future is in peril. This requires a multi-pronged, long-range plan (sort of like getting to the moon) that should begin on January 20, 2009. It means having the balls to take on the domestic oil and car industries and tell them to fend for themselves while new technologies are developed for an OPEC-less future. (If you’ve got vision, Barack, you’ll need a ton of it for this one.)

4. The implementation of reasonable solutions to health-care issues. If 43 million Americans are uninsured, that means about 260 million of them have insurance of some kind. Actually, that’s a pretty decent percentage of insured folks, though a great deal of others have insurance that won’t handle heftier bills. This is a monster problem nonetheless, due mostly to the rapacious tactics of health-care providers and insurance companies. Who ever said it was right that doctors and insurance executives should get ultra-rich on the backs of sick people? Certainly there are compassionate compromise solutions to this problem.

5. A responsible approach to the war (which we all know you didn’t create or endorse). Well, it’s not just the war. It’s that the military-industrial complex is sucking all our money out of our domestic economy. I support our troops. I support the troops that we need. What I don’t support is a huge military infrastructure, worldwide in scope and paid for with American tax dollars. Sorry, but like the federal employees, the soldiers will have to be employed elsewhere while rejoining the rest of us workers not on the dole. It’s not that bad a life, really. We have to fend for ourselves a bit, but you get used to it.

There are other things, of course. Social Security. Our escalating trade deficit. Green issues (which suddenly look like nothing when compared to the challenges that really lie ahead).

So, okay, Barack. No more pretty words. No more hyperventilating throngs. No more Oprah. If your specifics for addressing the issues are as practical and logical as the attractive package in which you wrap your rhetoric, I’ll be the first to listen and remain last among the captive audience.

Fisher Deserves Better: Titans Coach Bushwhacked by Ailing, Failing Offense

After Sunday’s 17-6 loss to the San Diego Chargers, one can only imagine what Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher will do when he first finds some quiet, peaceful moments alone. He might sit heavily in his favorite chair, look skyward, close his eyes, and mutter to himself, “Lord, if only I had an offense...”

For the second time in five weeks, Fisher’s squad lost a physical battle to the Chargers, yet another game where his defense had asserted its superiority and shut down LaDainian Tomlinson, Philip Rivers and the rest of the San Diego offense, only to watch his million-dollar quarterback Vince Young fail to direct the requisite scoring drives that might give his team a decent cushion of points, which a better-rested D would be more apt to protect.

The Titans took a 6-0 lead into halftime. Not unlike the Dec. 9 game in Nashville, which the Titans led 17-3 in the third quarter (and lost 23-17 in overtime), Young continuously failed to work any sustained magic, giving the Chargers’ offense plenty of time to get back in the game and eventually wear down the Titans’ inspired defenders, whose performance brings to mind an old Billy Ray Cyrus tune, “Some Gave All.”

Fisher was quoted after the game saying, "I thought Vince played well enough for us to win. He got banged around a little bit and bounced back, made some throws." If you call 16-29 for 138 yards and no touchdowns “making some throws,” Jeff. You’re way too kind.

Sadly, Rivers began to connect with receivers Chris Chambers and Vince Jackson, and the Tennessee secondary couldn’t play perfectly. LT was still held to only 42 yards on 21 attempts, however, and yet again, all things considered, the Titans’ defense played well enough to win against a well-favored opponent.

Young’s postgame remarks were his usual monosyllabic cliches. He never discusses what kind of looks the opposing defense was giving him. He’s rarely able to articulate how his game plan unfolded—or went awry. There were some holes on the Titans’ offense due to injuries, true. But after 30 games as a pro QB, Young plays with little microcosmic purpose and no apparent sense of overall strategy. He’s like an improv actor being told to get onstage and play Hamlet. Once in a while he gets his lines right, but mostly he flounders, out of his depth. Watching him complete two- and three-yard passes is painful, but moreso is watching him panic in the backfield and then throw an incompletion that probably was ill-advised to begin with.

“Run, Vince, run!” is all I can think of, going against my own firmly held belief that quarterbacks who win—Manning, Brady, Elway, Favre, Montana, Aikman, Bradshaw, Starr, Unitas—do (and did) so because they know how to stand back there and run their offenses. Even the very mobile Elway only ran when he had to.

It even occurred to me to wonder if Fisher would have the balls to yank Young at the beginning of the second half and put in veteran Kerry Collins. Collins is no Unitas, but he’d’ve been a better bet to sustain a drive, or maybe complete a long pass. Fisher stuck with Young, but the possibility of substitution must have crossed his mind.

Fisher is a terrific coach. He doesn’t have half the raw first-string talent of teams like San Diego, Jacksonville, New England, Dallas or Seattle. His philosophy is based on the hand he’s been dealt, which includes about three major defensive stars, one much-ballyhooed but underachieving young quarterback, and a remaining roster of virtual unknowns or re-treads who are willing to give up their bodies determinedly till they’ve got no more to give.

One can only wonder what Fisher might do at the helm of a team like, say, the Washington Redskins, owned by Daniel Snyder, who has absolutely no problem spending his money in order to give his coach options and depth.

Fisher just completed his 14th season at the helm of the Oilers/Titans. His career regular season record is 115-99. He’s made five playoff appearances, including losing the Super Bowl following the 1999 season. This year has been a case-study in the limits to which motivation and strategizing can take a modestly talented football team.

In fact, 10-6 and a first-round playoff loss isn’t bad at all. Especially when you don’t have a playoff-caliber quarterback calling the shots.

Fisher’s future fortunes—surely he’d like to get back to the Super Bowl someday—rest with Young. It’s an interesting but nervous prospect. It’d be a shame to once again waste all that bone-crunching defense while VY gets his on-the-job training.

Meanwhile, Snyder might be looking in a year or so, depending on how long Joe Gibbs plans to extend his Second Coming. You never know.

An Open Letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton

Dear Ms. Clinton,

I’ve been watching you on C-SPAN and other cable news outlets. Today I saw you addressing some New Hampshirites in your typically strident fashion, one day after your disappointing finish in the Iowa caucuses. A very strange feeling came over me. I actually felt sorry for you.

I’ve decided to explore these feelings, for my own psychological benefit and also possibly for your own campaign advantage.

Now, it makes no sense for me to want to aid your campaign, since heretofore I have essentially categorized you as a demagogue. Do you know what a demagogue is, Ms. Clinton? The dictionary defines it thusly: “a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.”

Now, how is it that an eggheaded gal like yourself—Wellesley College, and all—could be conducting herself like a demagogue when surely you must be familiar with the word, know what it means, and know that, for most every politician in history except Hitler, it’s been a dead-end strategy. (I guess Hitler ended up badly as well, though he did have a good long run.)

Do you videotape your appearances? Do you go back and look at them? Has it occurred to you that you come across with a kind of determined desperation that is very offputting to the average viewer? If you do not address your perception problem, you are sunk. Now, you may be sunk anyway, but there’s still time to spruce up the medium if not the message.

Yeah, you’re a smart lady. Everyone knows it. We remember those pictures of you in the ’70s, when you were a young lawyer and had those nerd glasses and probably went to parties where people drank Boone’s Farm and smoked a little pot out on the back porch and bashed Nixon. But this is politics, girl, and if you lead with your brain all the time you’re going to relate a sterile message and alienate all those people out there who want you to make them feel good.

Here’s the irony of it all, Ms. Clinton. You’re so desperate to prove you can play with the big boys, that you’ve forgotten what’s great about being a woman—how those female attributes can soften your perception and even make your message seem more caring. And hence way more appealing.

Of course, there’s the distinct possibility that you are incapable of projecting your feminine side. You’ve always been so hell-bent on election, and proving yourself—and so darned proud to be a feminist—that perhaps you have no perspective on what being female can add to your run for the presidency.

Just being a female won’t cut it. Especially now that you are being challenged by an African American male. I know, I know. More irony. Finally, America gets a serious-minded woman on the stump—one with huge recognizability and formidable intelligence—and she has to run into the one buzzsaw that can really undercut her automatic cachet as a woman: a black man with equal and uniquely fresh appeal.

So guess what, Ms. Clinton? It’s time to play hardball. It’s time to play the gender card. That means being unafraid to be a woman. Let us see your gentler side. Shed a brief—but controlled!—tear at your next touching human encounter on the campaign trail.

Here’s another tip: Smile. Like many intense women, you communicate a whole other you when you smile. You’re not a bad-looking lady. You’ve still got a feminine shape and you seem fairly comfortable in it. Don’t be afraid to play that up, either. And don’t stop smiling unless the situation du jour actually demands gravitas.

Like it or not, Ms. Clinton, you are a woman, and that’s your ace in the hole. You seem to have convinced yourself that acting like a man will put you on the level playing field, but you are wrong. In fact, you are not going to be on a level playing field ever, which means that it behooves you to take advantage of your one singular difference over the rest of the players. This isn’t football, thank God. You don’t have to bench-press 300 pounds. This is a battle for hearts and minds. That’s a woman’s game in my experience.

You are a modern woman, Ms. Clinton. We already know you can roar. Now let’s see some of that nurturant lioness. You know, like in those National Geographic specials, where the mother lion takes care of the cubs with loving care but also with totally aggressive zeal, willing to give up her life for her children if it comes to that.

In short, Ms. Clinton, you need to become a human being again. A female human being, with all the creative wonder and surprising energy that we associate with all the women that we love.

The demagogue has to go, Ms. Clinton. And have you noticed that I’ve not once called you “Hillary”? That’s because the media’s use of your first name only is a pejorative gender-buster. Oh, it sounds catchy and clever and almost affectionate, but that is not its ultimate effect. It does not take the mother lion seriously, which is definitely what you want. (Did they ever call Margaret Thatcher anything but “Mrs. Thatcher”? No.)

All the rest—the nurturing, the humor, the personal warmth, the perceived (and actual, we hope) sincerity—is up to you. If you don’t relax your persona—if you persist on giving us a robot programmed to stridency—you will lose. And you will lose very fast.

I can’t help you with your message. As it is, your rap seems woefully absent of specifics. The good news, I guess, is that your opponents seem to have the same problem, which is why the Democratic race for president has become one of persons and not ideas. But at least that might be a race you can still win.

Be our mommy, Ms. Clinton. Be that intelligent, energetic, caring, vivacious, and still attractive middle-aged lady that most of recognize as the good mother of our youths. You seem to have all of that in your kitbag of tricks, but, to quote a line out of the film Mr. Mom, “you’re doing it wrong.”

It’s not too late to get it right, Ms. Clinton.

(You know what else? Get Bill off the campaign trail. Or at least minimize his presence. Not good. Yeah, a lot of people liked him, but, well...you know, this is your race. This is for all the marbles. You need to win it on your own. And you needn’t worry: We’re all too aware that if you win, he’ll be the First Gentleman. But we don’t want to think about that any more than we already do.)

You go, girl!

Wild Card Weekend: Sentimental Favorites Have Their Work Cut Out for Them

I grew up in Washington, D.C.—a rabid Redskins fan. Now I hang my hat in Nashville—a rabid Titans fan. Both teams made it into the NFL playoffs as #6-seed wild cards in their respective conferences, and there’s the temptation to place heart before head when evaluating their prospects. But a prognosticator cannot enter the process as a partisan fan. It’s a clear-cut conflict of interest. So now, after savoring the past weekend’s heart-thumping results for the personal faves, we wade in with eyes wide open, the rose-colored glasses safely ensconced in the dresser drawer. If the Titans pull off a surprise victory, I won’t mind having been wrong. If the Redskins lose, I lose double.

NFC Matchups

Washington (9-7) @ Seattle (10-6)/Saturday, 4:30 p.m. EST, NBC-TV

The Seahawks both scored more points and allowed fewer points than the Redskins. They were also 7-1 at home, while the Skins were 4-4 on the road. Those are the hard facts that make this seemingly a slam-dunk for Seattle. Yet the Redskins are playing, if not actually dominant football, then certainly inspired football, and sometimes a team like that can will its way to victory. Will Skins QB Todd Collins continue to play practically to perfection? He needs to continue his error-free ways (zero interceptions in four games since replacing Jason Campbell), mainly because he doesn’t have the quick-strike, long-ball capabilities of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. The Skins need to stay in this game from the beginning, continue their aggressive, run-to-the-ball team defense, and hope for another big effort from RB Clinton Portis. Collins has receivers, too, in Moss, Randle El and Cooley. If his offensive line can hold Patrick Kerney and the rest of the Seattle D at bay, he might find some success. Meanwhile, the Seahawks’ running game has been only so-so most of the season, finishing 20th in the league, leaving the offense to ride on the arm of QB Matt Hasselbeck (3,966 yards, 28 TDs). The receiver-vs.-secondary matchups seem to favor Washington, actually, though Seattle’s Engram and Burleson are certainly reliable pros. The Seahawks were rather a mystery team all year, playing in a weak division and quietly going about winning 10 games, but facing only two teams that ended up in the playoffs. (They beat Tampa Bay and lost to Pittsburgh.) Their secret has been home-field advantage and a weak-sister schedule. If anyone’s ripe for the plucking, it’s them.

Prediction: Redskins 24, Seahawks 17

New York (10-6) @ Tampa Bay (9-7)/Sunday, 1 p.m. EST, FOX-TV

The problem with Eli Manning’s good performance against the Patriots in the season-ender is that now he has to go do it again. Consistency is not his forte, and he’s facing a Tampa defense that yielded the fewest points of any team in the NFC. But what if Giants behemoth RB Brandon Jacobs rumbles his way to 100 yards or more? What if receivers Toomer, Burress and Boss come up big for Eli? The talent is definitely there, but you never know with these Giants. On the other side, the Buccaneers lost three of their last four games, and QB Jeff Garcia (a noted Giant-killer with both Philly and the 49ers) is rebounding from injury, leading an offense that has its moments but statistically is unimpressive. Plus, the Bucs won a meager division and posted their barely respectable 9-7 record playing a last-place schedule after finishing 4-12 in ‘06. The Giants clearly have the ability to pull off the road win, and they were 7-1 away from the Meadowlands this season. If their scary-good defensive line can get after (and thwart) Garcia—never an easy task—their chances improve dramatically. If a computer were asked to pick this game, it’d be Giants all the way. But then there’s the human factor. Let’s hope the computer’s right.

Prediction: Giants 19, Buccaneers 16


AFC Matchups

Jacksonville (11-5) @ Pittsburgh (10-6)/Saturday, 8 p.m. EST, NBC-TV

The Jaguars already beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh once this year. They did it in convincing fashion, too. In yet another game where the visiting wild-card entry has a better record than the division-winner host, the Jags appear to be the superior team. Seems crazy to bet against the Steelers on their home turf, but you can’t ignore the Jags’ strengths: a confident, talented QB in David Garrard, an inside-outside running game with Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew, and a hard-hitting defense. Even their passing game has picked up lately. The Steelers, on the other hand, are without RB Willie Parker, and it’ll be up to Ben Roethlisberger to withstand Jacksonville’s rush and somehow connect with receivers. The only things in the way of automatically picking the Jags are the Steelers’ general mystique and the fact that the odds are against anyone beating them twice in one year at their own stadium. A very tough pick, and one we may end up regretting.

Prediction: Jaguars 24, Steelers 16

Tennessee (10-6) @ San Diego (11-5)/Sunday, 4:30 p.m. EST, CBS-TV

Laden with injuries, the Titans must make a cross-country trip to visit a team on a six-game winning streak, who also dealt them a serious emotional blow only four games ago back in Tennessee. Somehow the Titans rebounded from that 23-17 overtime loss to capture their final three games, but the victories were ugly and included a mere 10-6 home win over the lowly Jets. If the Titans were healthy, their defense would match up well against the Chargers’ offense, led by an up-and-down QB Philip Rivers. It took LaDainian Tomlinson three quarters to get untracked against the Titans in the previous game, but he should have smoother sailing here. If Rivers can make some decent throws into the bargain, LT could have a field day and it might be over early. Titans QB Vince Young’s health status is day-to-day, but even if he were 100%, he’d still have to contend with the Chargers’ athletic and hard-hitting defense. It’s tough to admit, but it’s true: Young’s been carried this year by an occasionally productive running attack and a stalwart Titans defense that’s been asked to do way too much. If he can’t play, that means 35-year-old Kerry Collins gets the nod, which might not be so bad where the passing game is concerned. Yet that would leave the immobile Collins at the mercy of the Chargers’ front seven, a prospect no Titans fan wants to think about for more than a millisecond. Yep, the Titans finally got back to the playoffs. They’ll soon be one and done.

Prediction: Chargers 28, Titans 9

Politics, NFL Style: A Guide to the Presidential Playoffs

There are so many candidates currently vying for the presidency, that it’s gotten to look like the NFL playoff grid. Here are some sporty thumbnail sizeups about each, offered roughly the way the polls (which I don’t trust, by the way) have been generally lining them up. We’ll divide the candidates just like NFL teams, into the Democrat Conference and the Republican Conference. The top four become “division winners,” and all the rest are “wild card” teams.

Regrets to guys like Dennis Kucinich and Tom Tancredo, who didn’t make the cut here despite playing some determined political football.

DEMOCRAT CONFERENCE

North Division—Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton’s favorite pronoun is “I.” Listen to how often she uses it. Clearly this is a campaign about her, and not about some kind of loyalist groundswell tied to enthusiasm about her specific plans for improving America. She was not asked to run. You rarely hear the humble, movement-oriented “We” come out of her mouth. She speaks in platitudes, offering a better country, but she never advances specifics about how she’ll actually accomplish her goals. It’s very odd to watch her work. Personally, I find it scary, verging on demagogic. The face she is presenting to all those farmers in Iowa is a mask out of ancient Greek theater. She tugs at their heartstrings with blather about “bringing home the troops,” and “supporting our police and firefighters,” and posits bromides on health-care and (my favorite) education. But ask yourself, Do you really want those people back in the White House, with their twisted marriage and their out-of-control egos? Also, Clinton claims to have all kinds of experience, but really she’s only just completed her first term as a U.S. senator, which happened as a carpetbagger after she moved to New York (basically so she could run for the Senate). I don’t know about you, but I don’t count eight years as First Lady as “experience” of any kind, no matter what she says. And she has the temerity to attack Barack Obama for being a novice. She has supporters, this we know, but is it only because she’s a woman?

East Division—Joe Biden
Now here is an experienced guy. Biden’s had his controversies through the years, but they’ve been minor tempests in teapots. He’s been the senator from Delaware for nearly 35 years, and is generally recognized as a thoughtful, moderate fellow. He’s chaired important Senate committees, he knows Washington inside and out, he speaks well and he appears sincere and smart. He’s also ruggedly handsome, and you’d think, as a respected lawmaker and serious-minded individual, he’d be a more imposing player than he has been heretofore.

South Division—John Edwards
Edwards and his $400 haircuts are suspect, but he’s reading a little more sincere these days. Like Clinton, he only has one term as a U.S. senator on his resume, but he had the national stage as the veep candidate with John Kerry in 2004. He claims to be for the little guy, for whom he had success in his law career, gaining huge medical malpractice settlements which made him (and his clients) wealthy. (He even sued the Red Cross—three times!) His wife is battling cancer, and it’s hard to know what to make of his decision to continue running for the presidency despite such a personal event. Is it courage, or hubris, or opportunism? Edwards has talked intensely of reforming health care, but, like everybody else, is vague on specifics. Generally, he comes off as a moderate, but in the absence of communicating any greatly imaginative ideas on the issues, he also comes off pretty bland. He’s a handsome guy with a decent profile. Is he a heavy hitter—or a finesse player?

West Division—Barack Obama
Obama is definitely a media darling. He’s handsome, well-spoken, smoothly dapper, he’s got a hip wife, and now Oprah Winfrey has joined his bandwagon. He was elected to the U. S. Senate in 2004, after eight years as an Illinois state senator. His resume is a tad “lite,” for sure, and there are tons of questions about his ability to lead on the world stage. Fact is, when you think about it, he has not put forth any substantial ideas that have captured the public’s imagination. Like Clinton, he speaks in bodacious platitudes, which sound good on TV but don’t really tell us a thing about his economic or social ideas. Yes, he voted against war funding; what he’d do as chief executive to deal with the war is another matter altogether. He seems to want us to elect him because he’s sincere and younger and change-minded, but those factors have nothing to do with the mechanics of getting stuff done in Washington, especially if you’re going to overhaul the system (which seems unlikely no matter which of the Dems might get in). Being an African American is an interesting thing, but the more exposure he gets, the less people will focus on it seriously (though this fact could hurt Clinton in the primaries, for sure). Obama is not selling snake oil; that said, it is unclear what his product is. Caveat emptor.

Wild Card—Chris Dodd
Dodd is a veteran senator from Connecticut. He seems completely intelligent, sincere about wanting to lead, and passionate in expressing his ideas. He has generally moderate positions about a lot of things, and frankly he probably wouldn’t be a half-bad prez, if only because he’s got a lot of experience and brings a level-headed approach to his candidacy. He’s not connecting on the “sex appeal” factor, but maybe if we listened more we’d find him to be a lot more substantial than Obama, Edwards and Clinton combined. He should be taken seriously, but the superficial stuff hurts him, as unfair as that may be.

Wild Card—Bill Richardson
He’s been a U.S. congressman, ambassador to the UN, secretary of energy and currently the governor of New Mexico. In other words, a career politician whose biggest jobs have been appointments (sorta like Papa Bush). I never find Richardson very articulate or inspiring in the debates. He bumbles his way through and always comes off as pretty forgettable. He seems like a decent guy, who ultimately should best stay put in New Mexico or snap up the next appointment that comes his way. He’s a Democrat foot soldier, not a commander-in-chief.


REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE

North Division—Mitt Romney
Handsome, rich, articulate enough. With a fairly reliable persona as a conservative. He could certainly run on the national ticket that way. But I don’t know how he’s gonna run the gauntlet between Huckabee and Giuliani, unless one of them drops out, which would make positioning himself a lot easier. He looks strong on paper—a viable Republican candidate. But he needs to step up and define himself more. If he had great ideas, no one would care that he’s a Mormon. But if he remains bland, then the religion issue looks like another strike against. (We don’t mind our cultists if it looks like they can lead us to the Promised Land.)

East Division—Rudy Giuliani
He condones gay marriage and abortion. So how can he run the distance as a Republican? Well, he might, if only because his Democratic opponent will share those views and they then become a wash. Giuliani’s had some weird issues besetting his campaign, which deal with judgment. Yet he certainly has an impressive mind where big-picture issues are concerned, and he seems in charge of his presidential persona. Yet he’s on his third wife. Now, I don’t judge a guy for that, and sometimes it just takes a while to get that sort of thing right. But it’s an atypical profile for any presidential candidate, and there are probably some voters who think it “means something.” Lucky in politics, unlucky in love? It sure is weird to see a former mayor of New York City over in the Republican camp, that’s for certain. I think he’s headed for trouble in the primaries. That said, he still seems to be a pretty tough guy. He’s highly intelligent, but the last two presidential elections have shown us where that gets you.

South Division—Mike Huckabee
Welcome, Mr. Happy. It’s all smiles for Huckabee, who’s come out of nowhere to make his mark in presidential politics. He has impressed me as a very controlled speaker who is articulate on some issues. He’s also an ordained Baptist minister. Now, the last Baptist we had in the White House was, like Huckabee, also a governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton. And before that, we had a Baptist in Jimmy Carter. So I’ll let you make up your own mind on whether that means anything. I just don’t know about Huckabee. If it walks like an elephant, then I guess it must be a Republican candidate. He’s made inroads because he seems so right-wing and the supposedly rabid Christian right responds to him. Is that a good thing or something to be suspicious about? (It’s killing Mitt Romney, that’s for sure.) Huckabee smiles a lot. He’s almost robotically perfect. Clinton played the saxophone. Huckabee plays bass guitar. A bassist in the White House?

West Division—John McCain
If there’s one Republican candidate who seems to have all the game necessary to win in ‘08, it’s the senator from Arizona. A respected and experienced politician on the national stage, a war hero, a generally strong conservative whose pedigree is tempered with moderate nuance, a sincere speaker, a man of compassion. Why he’s not the runaway frontrunner, though, is a bit of a mystery. He’s 71, which doesn’t help, but it’s unclear whether that’s hurting him much. He appears robust and when you say the words “President McCain,” it has a nice probable ring to it. Whoever is next in the Oval Office has to deal with the infernal Bush War, and McCain inspires confidence in this area. So, why hasn’t his candidacy caught fire?

Wild Card—Fred Thompson
Did Thompson join the race just to say he did? He seems awfully phlegmatic for a guy with huge national recognition and strong party affiliations. He finally looked feisty at that recent travesty of a debate in Iowa. Thompson has some real experience in the Senate and government and a legit conservative pedigree, but he seems sluggish out of the box. Maybe he can emerge out of the pack like some longshot thoroughbred. The problem with that, though, is that his Daily Racing Form numbers say he ought to be a favorite. It doesn’t seem like he wants it much. If he waits till the last furlong it could be too late.

Wild Card—Ron Paul
Full disclosure: I am an admirer of the ideas of Ron Paul. He is the only candidate anywhere with an actual philosophy. He appears to be a man with a tremendous amount of faith in the American system, and his devotion to constitutional principles is fresh and exciting (which kind of makes you wonder which principles have been guiding us up till now). Paul is doggedly consistent in his beliefs, and that’s cool. Whether he’d be flexible enough to run a White House, cajole or strong-arm Congress, and develop the right political allies as president is a concern. Don’t, however, be swayed by the pundits or the reps from the opposing campaigns, who like to talk about Paul’s candidacy as a mere Internet dalliance propped up by teenagers and crackpots. They say that for only one reason: because they’re aware that Paul is developing a unique and serious voting base, one that they most likely can’t get their hands on. Make it clear: Paul didn’t use the Internet to launch his campaign. He was already running when devotees started to use the Internet to spread his message. Fred Thompson should have such an inspired fan base.

The Tuesday Morning Quarterback: NFL Week #15 Winners and Losers... with Media Notes

There are five NFC teams still alive for a wild-card berth. The AFC is all but sewn up, though the Tennessee Titans still have an outside chance should Cleveland or Pittsburgh falter. So keep your eyes on the wannabes, and glance occasionally over the Patriots' way, to see if they can nail down that perfect record. After they beat the Dolphins this coming weekend, they'll be 15-0. Their last game is against the Giants, who might very well need to win it to make the postseason.

The scores:

Dolphins 22, Ravens 16—What’s sadder: that it took the 1-13 Dolphins 14 games to gain their first victory, or that the once-proud Ravens (4-10) have now dropped eight in a row? Anyway, events reduced Fins owner Wayne Huizenga to tears and elevated Miami QB Cleo Lemon and little-known WR Greg Camarillo to a kind of dubious folk-hero status. Meanwhile, the Ravens pressed 2006 Heisman Trophy recipient Troy Smith into action, replacing the injured Kyle Boller at quarterback. Ravens LB Ray Lewis fractured his hand.

Texans 31, Broncos 13—In a bar Thursday night, the guy next to me was marveling at second-string Houston QB Sage Rosenfels, who he thought was a rookie or close to it. He was shocked when I informed him that the former Iowa State Cyclone is 29 years old, and that, from 2002-2005, he sat on the bench of the Miami Dolphins, a team that has been desperately seeking a quarterback ever since Dan Marino retired after the 1999 season. Rosenfels throws nice passes and he’s got some mobility, and with an assist from RBs Ron Dayne (11-67) and rookie ex-Notre Damer Darius Walker (13-66) he helped the Texans even their record at 7-7. They’re out of the playoffs though, as are the 6-8 Broncos, now full-blown into a transitional phase.

49ers 20, Bengals 13—Another retread QB, Shaun Hill, comes to the rescue with his second straight impressive showing and in his first-ever NFL start (21-28, 197 yards, 1 TD). Hill teams up with TE Vernon Davis for a Maryland Terrapins TD connection. RB Frank Gore’s 138 yards on the ground helps, too. Nevertheless, 49ers can only look at their 4-10 season with a huge sigh. They thought this was a significant year. Maybe it’s next year, though it remains to be seen if injured QB Alex Smith is the answer to a long-held, post-Steve Young prayer. Bengals are 5-9 and have big question marks, especially on defense.

Vikings 20, Bears 13—The win puts the 8-6 Vikings, along with the Giants, in line for a wild-card berth. (If the season ended today...etc.) But the season doesn’t end today, and the Redskins come to Minnesota next Sunday night for a critical matchup. Near as I could tell, the Vikes beat the Bears because the Bears (5-9) are no damn good. Minnesota rookie RB Adrian Peterson did a few things well, but the quarterback situation still looks iffy, and the normally well regarded Vikes defense wasn’t tested by lame-o Chicago. Yet the Vikings are on a five-game winning streak, and their destiny is in their own hands.

Redskins 22, Giants 10—Don’t you love irony? The sorta thuggish, ofttimes sluggish and completely erratic Redskins go through the murder of teammate Sean Taylor, then emerge on the other side as a kind of Cinderella story. Led by aging QB Todd Collins, the Skins deal capably with swirling winds in the Meadowlands, get a kick-ass game from RB Clinton Portis (25-126, 1 TD) and watch Eli Manning throw 34 incomplete passes to defeat the Giants, whose 9-5 record does not yet guarantee them a playoff spot. Skins need more miracles to turn their 7-7 record into postseason gold, including a victory at Minnesota next week and a final home win against the despised and very talented Cowboys. More improbable things have happened. Giants lose TE Jeremy Shockey for the year with a broken leg, the injury looking almost Theismann-like in its intensity.

Eagles 10, Cowboys 6—How quickly things change. The Cowboys having the #1 NFC playoff seed seemed a foregone conclusion, until they dropped this defensive struggle on their home field and find themselves tied at 12-2 with the Packers. Cowboys end the season with two road games (not gimmes—@ Carolina, @ Washington), and if they don’t win out might find themselves heading to the “frozen tundra” for an NFC conference championship game. Tony Romo kinda stunk it up in this one, and the Dallas running game and TO were mostly MIA. Philly RB Brian Westbrook continues to amaze with his grit and versatility, and the Eagles’ defenders played with a motivated passion that was inspiring.

Titans 26, Chiefs 17—That’s seven losses in a row for the 4-10 Chiefs. It’s not a fate they necessarily deserve, but this is the NFL, and even if you have a decent defense and you appear to be trying really hard, if you make mistakes like costly interceptions and badly timed penalties you will lose, even at home against the mysterious Titans. Tennessee QB Vince Young has one of his “up” games, RB LenDale White gains 93 rushing yards, and WR Roydell Williams catches two TD passes, pushing the Titans’ record to 8-6, still with an outside chance at a playoff spot.

Browns 8, Bills 0—There’s football weather, and then there’s football weather. But I’m not sure anybody should have to play in a driving snowstorm. This game was ridiculous, and you can bet the 7-7 Bills would like a “do-over,” especially since their playoff chances ended with the loss. Still, Browns RB Jamal Lewis churned out 163 yards on the ground, and that’s impressive stuff. Browns are 9-5 and poised for the playoffs. They could even still win the AFC North if Pittsburgh falters, yet if they lose strategically, they could be out of it altogether. Their final two games are against teams going nowhere, Cincy and San Francisco.

Jaguars 29, Steelers 22—A blip on the radar screen, or reason for concern? Hard to know, but at least the 9-5 Steelers lost at home to a high-caliber 10-4 Jacksonville squad that looks to be as strong a wild-card entry as you’ll ever see. Actually, Steelers QB Roethlisberger had an okay game (3 TD passes, 0 INTs), and RB Willie Parker gained 100 yards on only 14 carries. So maybe it’s just that the Jags are that good. David Garrard is looking great at QB, “Hall of Fame Freddie” Taylor amasses 147 rushing yards, and the defense comes up big (five sacks, two forced fumbles). Fact is, the Steelers haven’t clinched anything yet. Their final two games are against also-rans, but both are road trips.

Saints 31, Cardinals 24—Saints QB Drew Brees is trying to will his 7-7 team into the playoffs, and with a break or two, it could happen. Brees completed 26 of 30 passes for 315 yards and two TDs, and RB Aaron Stecker gained 95 yards on 22 carries. The 6-8 Cards' playoff hopes have vanished, but the team can still finish at .500; if that happens, first-year coach Ken Whisenhunt can consider the season a mild success.

Chargers 51, Lions 14—Am I the only person who thinks LaDainian Tomlinson is a bore? Avoid his interviews at all costs. He talks yet says nothing, and the idea that he’s another Walter Payton is just...well, silly. Payton had an edge in his discourse. He was polite and thoughtful with the press, but there was a darkness underneath that occasionally slipped out. You could see it in Sweetness’ eyes, and the punishment he meted out to opposing tacklers afforded a deeper kind of insight into his warrior spirit. LT is soft, and a little vacant. He did, however, gain 116 yards on 15 carries with two touchdowns in this blowout of the pathetic Lions (QB Jon Kitna: five INTs), who have gone from 6-2 to 6-8 and out of the playoff picture. Now 9-5, Chargers have wrapped up the AFC West, but it behooves them to keep winning so they can maybe avoid a first-round playoff game against the surging Jaguars.

Panthers 13, Seahawks 10—These teams took a 0-0 tie into the fourth quarter before a “flurry” of scoring. What does it all mean? Panthers elevate to 6-8 behind fourth-string QB Matt Moore and a useful but unspectacular running game, and somehow they are not yet eliminated from playoff contention. Seahawks exhibit abject mediocrity—or simple carelessness—yet are playoff-bound with a 9-5 record. (Now I remember: It means the NFC sucks.)

Colts 21, Raiders 14—There is little to say here. Colts go on the road against a lousy team, phone in a competent performance, pad their record to 12-2 and assure themselves a #2 seed in the playoffs. Raiders, now 4-10, locked in battle with Chiefs for last place in AFC West.

Buccaneers 37, Falcons 3—Most notable item here: Bucs QB Jeff Garcia returned to action after missing two games. Also, for the first time in their checkered 31-year history, the Bucs had someone (Micheal Spurlock) return a kickoff for a touchdown. Strange but true. Bucs now 9-5 with the NFC South crown, and still battling Seattle for the #3 playoff seed. The rudderless Falcons, well...3-11 is not the worst record in the league, but the team completed four (4!) passes the entire game. Back to the drawing board in 2008.

Packers 33, Rams 14—Four sacks and two interceptions on the road for the Pack defense, sometimes overlooked with all the attention on Brett Favre. The Great One keeps on rolling out winning performances and breaking records, and at 12-2 the Packers still have a chance at gaining home-field advantage throughout the playoffs. Mike McCarthy for NFC Coach of the Year, right? Steven Jackson gained 143 yards on the ground for 3-11 St. Louis, which made it a game but only for the first half.

Patriots 20, Jets 10—Tom Brady logs a 51.5 quarterback rating, and goes an entire game without throwing a touchdown pass. What gives? Maybe he was as bored as the Pats fans who started throwing snowballs in the fourth quarter. Brady is still four TD passes shy of Peyton Manning’s single-season record of 49, but next week’s home game versus Miami gives him a shot at getting it all in one fell swoop. In case you missed it: Brady is 30, which means that his native ability is now being matched by his commensurately ripened experience, which means he’s peaking. Which means, How do you stop New England? RB Laurence Maroney gained 104 yards, just to remind us that, yes, when they want to focus on that, the Patriots have a running game. Jets fall to 3-11, and there was a Chad Pennington sighting.

Media Notes

Ever notice how CBS color commentator Solomon Wilcots is a moron? He’s sort of in the mode of ESPN Radio’s Freddie Coleman. He speaks ungrammatically, says a lot of dumb stuff (then changes his mind and says more dumb stuff), and has a lot of macho/adolescent enthusiasm. He’s definitely an annoyance. Just think: It could be you in that announcing booth. If only you’d played six years in the NFL as a mediocre defensive back and then exhibited absolutely no broadcasting talent.

The ESPN “add-on” team of Sal Paolantonio, Steve Young and Emmitt Smith was weak Monday night. Paolantonio kept mispronouncing names and Young was stumbling over his words. Emmitt said less than usual. That’s good, Emmitt. Less is more.

I read a blog the other day that claimed that Tony Kornheiser earns $1.8 million for doing “Monday Night Football,” and is paid another $900,000 for doing “PTI.” Let’s assume it’s true: Okay, pardon the interruption while I puke. (I’ll be back in a while: this is gonna be a long one.)

I can find half a dozen random guys sitting at the bar at Sam’s Place in Nashville that know more about football than Kornheiser. The guy’s an absolute fraud. My favorite is when he tries to manufacture an “original” observation based on a stat or bit of knowledge that he must have squirreled away sometime during the day. He doesn’t know football. Worse, he doesn’t have any intuitive feel for the game as he’s watching it. He only sees obvious blunders and the occasional momentum change, and clearly he has no natural enthusiasm for what’s going on. He’s a slug. Someone dump some salt on him, please.

Oh, and don’t forget to add in the salary he gets from the Washington Post, which he receives for writing the blandest, most uninspired sports copy you’ll ever see above the level of a college newspaper. Kornheiser joined the Post in 1979 after “starter” stints with Newsday and the New York Times, which automatically accrue to young New York natives (specifically, Long Island) of certain ethnic descent looking for media work.

Frankly, I don’t even think Kornheiser really likes sports. He likes himself (possibly), and the sound of his own voice, and he’s gone with the sports thing since he got involved with it full-time in the 1980s. If he could’ve been Larry King, he might’ve gone that route. In fact, he spent many years writing piffle for the Post’s “Style” section while also contributing to the sports page.

But sports has opened up avenues in radio and TV for Kornheiser (ka-ching!), which leads to a torrent of other pertinent questions. Why does a guy who isn’t incisive about what happens on the field get so many opportunities in sports media? Why does a guy with a mushy, wobbly voice get to be on radio? Why does a humorless, odd-looking nebbish of a fellow get to earn millions of dollars a year involved with some of the cushiest television sports opportunities going? (Must be his telegeneity!)

This is funny. According to Wikipedia, ESPN’s Mike Golic was critical that Kornheiser got the “MNF” job because he wasn’t an ex-athlete. This is especially humorous when you consider that Golic, who was an athlete—if you call being a mediocre defensive lineman on bad football teams athletic—is maybe the most meat-headed, grammar-challenged guy in broadcast sports going. I’ll give this one to Kornheiser: He can talk better than Golic.

Still, the reasons how and why Kornheiser—a limited-talent non-jock—has been able to grab plum assignments in this current age of mega-sports media remain a mystery. Meanwhile, he’s sending his kids to Ivy League schools (and greasing the way for their Newsday jobs, I suppose). The vicious cycle repeats.

Life isn’t fair. This we know. But do we have to be reminded every Monday night during football season?