Was that a Debate, or a Lakers Game?

Published: April 17, 2008

I never liked the Lakers. They were a team of stars, playing for a stadium of celebrities, and I considered it my job to root against their apparent perfection. That was until 2004.

Now don’t get me wrong, I didn’t want them to win. I preferred the team ball played by the Detroit Pistons, and admittedly the first championship season in many years hearkened back the days of Zeke, The Spider, The Worm, The Microwave, 007, cheating Laimbeer, and a normal Dennis Rodman (if you’re from Detroit you know what all of this means).

But I have to admit, in 2004 I enjoyed watching the Lakers play because of Shaq and Kobe. Shaq and Kobe represented everything we liked about Laverne and Shirley, Turner and Hooch, and even Harold and Kumar. They were inseparable, and an amazing team to watch.

Imagine my surprise when I tuned into what was billed as a debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on ABC, and found what appeared to be a rerun of an old Lakers game. However, in place of Kobe dazzling viewers with his superior ball control and perimeter shooting, only to feed it in to Shaq, I saw Charlie Gibson playing point guard to Hillary Clinton, who like Shaq, just stood around the basket waiting for the easy dunk.

Charlie had some serious handles. He asked questions relating to Obama scandals that I hadn’t even heard of, and I try to keep up with these things. Nevermind that most were completely unsubstantiated, and the others (i.e. Jeremiah Wright and ”bitter” remarks) had been responded to by Sen. Obama many times.

Like Kobe, Charlie was unrelenting. He asked follow up after follow up until he could get the ball inside to Clinton for the easy basket. Of course Clinton showed as much creativity on court as Shaq did when he stood in the key the whole game and dunked. For Hillary, it was a litany of rebuts to the effect of “and this is exactly why the Republicans and John McCain will make Obama wet himself, and cry in the general election.”

Now, every now and then Charlie would get tied up, and have to pass the ball off to his boy George Stephanopoulos, a man who owes his career to his former employer, Bill Clinton. But the play was always the same. Set Hillary up for the easy attack.

Oh, and lets not forget my favorite question of the night, which came after beating the Rev. Wright horse dead a few times. “Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you?” Wow… Welcome to America, I guess.

But you know what, I don’t blame Clinton, Gibson, Stephanopoulos, or ABC. I completely blame Barack Obama (what a twist!). Come on Barack. I knew this whole thing was a trap, and I like to think you’re much smarter than me, so whats up with that? You were the only one in that room with something to lose. You know Hillary is a better debater, heck you didn’t even need this debate. Why did you agree to it in the first place, especially a week out from the primary?

Stop making this primary longer than it needs to be. It could’ve ended weeks ago in Texas/Ohio, just as it could end next week. However, it seems like you’re putting substantial effort into dragging it out as long as possible.

People have said that you’re inexperienced, and I’ve been reluctant to admit it. I don’t doubt you have the experience necessary to run the country, but I do seriously doubt you have the experience to run a campaign. Don’t get me wrong, I still think Hillary is out, but come on – this doesn’t help anything, especially since it looks like what appears to be the makings of a botched Pennsylvania contest.

How many times do you have to shoot yourself in the foot before you put the gun down? The Pistons beat the seemingly infallible Lakers in 2004, in an exciting five game series. But after winning game five, they most certainly didn’t play another one just for the heck of it.

| Print Print


 
  1. sean 04.17.08 / 1:10am

    you are right that obama could have ended this primary back in texas/ohio… however, the obama team is playing chess, not checkers. this is surface thinking. think a few moves ahead, and it should be clear that obama team believe they have to allow the primary to at least appear to end of its own accord and not to have killed hillary off. this is the only way to retain some hefty portion of the very pro-hillary contingent, most of whom strongly feel their own candidate has been much put down and put upon…so surely she must not now also be put out. the primary ended after wisconsin. this now is just fake ending out playing out.

    i do, however, absolutely agree that obama didn’t need this debate and should have refused it. i can only conclude that internal polling shows this would have negatively affected him.

    the goal is to win in november. hillary = huckabee.

  2. Teri B. 04.17.08 / 1:22am

    This debate was the most fair one yet. I liked that the responses were timed, and each were given an equal amount of time. I liked that the questions were staggered, and that they “flipped a coin” to see who would go first on opening and closings. I was impressed that both were challenged with tough questions and not allowed to wiggle out of fully answering.

    ABC handled this debate in a very admirable way, and I think both candidates’ supporters should have been satisfied with the fairness of the debate, for a change. This is how journalists should handle debates. Both got tough questions.

    My main observation is that Clinton was ASKED questions about her positions on Wright and Obama’s bitter comments, and she responded, owning her position, while Obama hedged on the Bosnia question, admitting his “campaign” was hammering on it, “of course,” yet somehow dodging personal responsibility for what his campaign is doing? That just seemed dishonest to me. If his campaign is doing it – HE is. I’d much rather see the candidates own their positions and actions, than try and appear above the fray, when their actions don’t match the perception they’re trying to falsely portray.

  3. Jonathan Tilkin 04.17.08 / 8:57am

    hi Teri, hmm, I wonder who you’re voting for, you sound nothing like a Hillary campaign plant…

    If you are presuming to paint Barack Obama as two-faced, that is not only false but hypocritical. I could start an entire league of villains with all the characters Hillary has played in the last four months, I think the league would be led by “meet me in Ohio” Hillary, she could easily take down crybaby Hillary1 and crybaby Hillary2.

  4. Bruno Blokke 04.17.08 / 10:03am

    Haha, Tilken you are straight up paranoid. Hillary doesn’t have the organizational skills to put forth a decent get out the vote effort in most of the primary states, yet she’s organized this league of blog plants to go around advocating on her behalf… right.

  5. Jonathan Tilkin 04.17.08 / 11:09am

    hahahahahaha, good point Bruno, I still think the League of Evil Hillarys are out there. Oh, and it’s Tilkin, with an “i”.

  6. Lolo 04.17.08 / 11:35pm

    Okay, all day long, while out canvassing and getting out the vote for Tuesday, what I heard from most voters was “what were they doing spending 45 MINUTES asking stupid **** that’s been covered about stupid **** and what does his PASTOR have to do with the WAR? etc., etc., etc.”

    So. Here in the heart of Bitter, Bitter, PA the folks pretty much think that ABC is ****. Also? The RUDEST people, bar none, in this county have been Clinton supporters who do things like SLAM the door in our faces. Nope, they’re NOTHING like their candidate at all.

Leave a Comment/Shout Out




Safari hates me