Get Control of the Joe Wilson Story

First, the obvious. Obama hit on all cylinders last night. US history, Ted Kennedy, the American character. He framed the debate clearly and all came away with an understanding of the issue's gravity and the cost of doing nothing. He even challenged his own base, positioning himself as a centrist. (By the way, framing the "single payer" as extreme, to make the "public option" more centrist was brilliant.)

But then... there was Joe Wilson. The SC congressman who shouted during the speech. His whole career will likely be remembered for that moment. But, if Democrats don't get control of this story and its message, they'll also carry the heckler's albatross around their necks.

A quick scan of top news reveals the damage. Instead of reviews on the speech, we're seeing the President pitted against his interupter. Now, headlines read, "Congressman Heckles President." Yikes. In some corners of the world (or in college basketball arenas), heckling's even cool. And I'm not just saying that because I once aspired to be heckler-in-chief in college.

Not only are Dems losing control of the post speech headlines, but they're also aiming straight for this guy, talking about he disrespected the office of the presidency.

NO. The Democrats should not position themselves as tattle tails who complain about respect. NO. They have to position this as an example of the opposition being unwilling to engage in serious debate. They started by making a clumsy effort, referencing townhalls. But now, Joe Wilson needs to be become a symbol of obstruction, not disrespect.

It's time, for once in this debate, for the Dems to take control of the message, not the other way around.

Oudin Chops Down Russians

The cold war may be over, but Rocky IV lives on.

Why has no one made the obvious comparison? Oudin is a poor man's Rocky Balboa. She has a classically diminutive stature, a family that looks like they've had zero PR coaching (see: Paulie), and a hometown that adores her.

Not good enough? She's played against vastly superior Russians and proverbially chopped them down (see: Ivan Drago). She comes close to losing every match (see: every bout Rocky has ever fought). She's won over crowds in every tournament she's played (see: "Suddenly Moscow is pro Rocky"). And finally, her basic strategy is to keep taking punches to tire her opponent out (see: "what's he doing?" "he's winning!") Yes, this could also be Simpson v Tatum, but let's not veer off topic here.

The final nail in the Apollo Creed coffin... Oudin talks like a mentally handicapped teenager. Remind you of any fictitious Italian boxers?

Oregon Went Too Far

Oregon went too far in suspending LeGarrett Blount for a full year.

Let's state the obvious. What he did was wrong, and on many levels. First, he sucker punched someone from a different team who taunted him. Second, he fought with teammates who attempted to restrain him. Third, he nearly fought with fans who were heckling with him.

Athletes are taunted and heckled all of the time (by people like this author in college). That they most often keep their cool and maintain a certain level of professionalism is amazing (even though college athletes are not even technically "professionals".) But they do it. In this case Blount crossed a line and should be punished.

But a full year? Here's how I see it. He was provoked and reacted with a punch. Despite chatter that happened before the game, he was not looking for trouble after the game. He was provoked. So, he punched the guy. I very well might have done the same thing, or at minimum pushed the guy, ready for a fight. Some could argue that he punched someone who was defenseless, while he wore a helmet and immediately moved a way for a fight. Fine, but that doesn't change that he was clearly provoked and reacted. For that, I'd give him a two game suspension.

Second, he fought with teammates who attempted to restrain him. I think we have to understand, if not forgive this. When you go into battle with another team, in any sort of fight, your teammates have to be there to back you up. Should they back you up when you sucker punch someone else? Maybe not. Maybe they are the perfect teammates - keeping you out of trouble when you've done something terribly wrong. But the way I see it, if I'm being taunted by another team and I go at it with another player, I have to know that my teammates have my back. This isn't hockey where one on one melees are the norm. This is football.

Third, he nearly fought with fans in the stands. This, to me, is not easily excusable. That's a sacred line that cannot be crossed (see Ron Artest). But at the end of the day, nothing happened. For having the intent to fight fans, I would give him three, maybe four games.

When you add it all up, I think the suspension should have probably been capped at five or six games. But there were other circumstances at play here. First, Blount has a history of poor choices with the team, resulting in a prior indefinite suspension in the spring. Second, he trashed talked Boise State before the game. Third, the coach is in his first year and needs to show that he can exercise authority; he needed to set an example. And finally, though Blount was a dark horse Heisman candidate, he did only have eight carries for negative five yards. Expendable??

In one final twist to all of this. Byron Hout, the defensive end who initially taunted Blount... nary a single game suspension.

At the end of the day, Oregon was right to suspend Blount, but went too far. They had their reasoning, but I'm sure it was related to other factors, not merely what he did on the field.

The Dallas Scoreboard

How is it that the Cowboys build a $1.2 billion stadium and don't test out the suitability of their scoreboard? Bill Polian tried to do the same thing in Lucas Oil but his punter easily hit a 90 foot high beam. Jerry Jones spends the GDP of Monaco and can't ask his punter for 30 minutes of his time?

Maybe Jerry saw the futility of the exercise - the Cowboys' punter, Mat McBriar was quoted as saying that their "game plan is to kick to the sidelines" and "it's not on my mind". Talk about building a stadium to generate a home field advantage.

I love the Jerry Jones continually defends the height of his boards, saying that he's comfortable with it and that they were built to league specifications. I suppose it's a ploy to get the league pay the $2 million to raise the boards, but not even admitting that a punt hitting the board is a problem is hilariously tragic.

QB jumps with a strong WR

A few thoughts on selecting a QB / WR tandems. A phenomenal Wide Receiver can provide a huge incremental boost to a quarterback.

In 2004, Terrell Owens joined the Philadephia Eagles. The year prior, Donovan McNabb played a full 16 game season and threw 16 TDs. In the 4 years prior to TO arriving on the scene, McNabb threw an average of 19.75 TDs. What happened in 2004? McNabb threw 31 TDs.

In 2007, Tony Romo threw 36 TDs with TO on his team. Is Romo a 36 TD QB? Highly doubt it. Look for him to barely top 25 TDs this year.

In 2007, Randy Moss joined the New England Patriots. The prior year, Tom Brady threw 24 TDs and over the course of 4 years prior to Randy joining the Pats, Brady threw an average of 25.25 TDs per year. In 2007 with Randy? 50 TDs.

Even Matt Cassel threw 21 TDs in 2008 with Randy Moss and Wes Welker.

The above seems to indicate that there is some correlation between how well a QB will do, given a stellar receiver or receiver corps. Given that, look for Kyle Orton to do well this year (if Brandon Marshall plays), Trent Edwards to make an improvement, and Matt Schaub to have a great year. Matt Cassell has his rookie year under his belt and should improve. But his supporting cast, Dwayne Bowe, is a huge dropoff from before (Moss, Welker). Stay away from this guy.

The question remains unclear however - does the reverse hold true? If a receiver gets a better QB, will his stats jump? Certainly good receivers need good QBs (see the difference between Moss in Oak vs NE), but I don't think mediocre receivers become great ones with a great QB. I don't see Devin Hester as a monster with Jay Cutler, nor do I see Bernard Berrian jumping through the roof with Brett Favre.

A Bar Leap for Mankind

With an 11 trillion dollar debt, North Korea and Iran behaving badly, and a bloated carbon emissions bill in limbo, celebrations in the nation’s capital have been muted. If not for President Obama’s star power, the eerie flicker from Nancy Pelosi’s smile would be the only source of light in the city.

But despite the general malaise, some have found reason for rejoice. After all, who can resist a good 40 year reunion?

On July 20^th, 1969, two astronauts landed on the moon. To this day, it seems unfathomable: only a few decades before, people wore homespun clothes and mistakenly shouted into telephone earpieces.

“Landing on the moon was an astronomical achievement,” remarked Daniel Heltzer, 30, attorney in Northwest. “We can’t let one of this nation’s proudest moments be eclipsed by an economic downturn.”

To commemorate the event, several lunar enthusiasts are organizing a celebration on Washington’s U Street, Saturday night, July 18^th.

The format? A “bar leap.”

“Crawl? This is one giant leap,” said Matt Segneri, 28, FBI analyst. “Their weight on the moon was what? 1/6^th? Even with a 200 pound suit on, they’re frolicking around like Tom Sawyer in a dewy meadow. No, this is no crawl.

“While we’re at, why do they call it ‘Ovaltine’? The jar’s round, the mug’s round, should be called ‘Roundtine.’” Recession or not, the FBI only picks the sharpest.

Organizers have encouraged attendees to dress in appropriate space garb and make trite observations that start with, “They can put a guy on the moon, but…”

“Let me tell you something about the moon,” stated New York organizer, JJ Singh, 28, “They can put a guy on the moon, but they can’t figure out a way to put AC in subway stations. Amateur hour.” It’s unclear if Singh cares more about Apollo 11 or summer humidity. “Seriously, hang out on the platform in Union Square for 10 minutes, then come talk to me. W. T. F.”

Organizers plan to distribute a detailed map of their route a few days before the event. They will advertise exclusively through Twitter.

World Bank Employee, Ursula Martinez, 30, summed up the event best, saying, “I mean… the guy’s name was Buzz. How can you not drink to that?”

Obama at the Zenith

For those of you on a post-election high, I warn you: I am on a crusade to temper expectations.

There is unbridled enthusiasm in America. We've elected a transformational figure who will shepherd us from recent arrogance and provincialism to a new century of dignified American leadership in the world. President-Elect Obama represents a radically different vision from that of President Bush. Yet while having a vision is critical in a marketing, it often takes a back seat in execution. At the end of the day, campaigning and governing are two different things.

How much can Obama really change? Right now, there is tremendous inertia to pass a bloated bail-out package that does little to address the economic engine of the US: productivity, innovation, and middle-class wage growth. Second, can we really pull out of Iraq in 16 months? Can Obama risk region destabilization and losing the support of the military? He has to be bold and assert his authority, but at what risk?

Many will say that Obama's campaign was bold. In addition, he was a highly effective communicator, manager, and delegator. That should bode well for his presidency... False.

He will have far less control over his presidency than as he did as a candidate. At the end of the day, the presidency as an institution is checked by Congress, the Supreme Court, and significant external conditions, shocks, and crises.

Obama has already done well to appoint Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff in order to keep Congress in check. The Supreme Court represents a lesser threat.

However, when it comes to external shocks, economic conditions, and other crises, Obama is not battle tested. Responding to crises as a candidate is easy: you meet with your advisors, you find a way to pin the blame on your oponent or incumbent president, and you refine, or tweak your vision. You make a few extra speeches on the subject, and devote a little more time to it in your general stump speech. You scream from the mountain tops "Change is what we need", event though there is no clear blueprint for how to do it. President-Elect Obama will not be able to vote "Present" on difficult issues anymore.

Yes, this election was mind-blowing in several respects. To think that only four years ago, we re-elected a mindless dolt and now we have a brilliant, inspirational, and transformative figure. And the racial implications cannot be overlooked either. Only 150 years ago, the government sanctioned slavery and a mere 50 years ago, the government used firehoses to enforce segregation. Today, we've elected a black man as president. I take enormous pride in what we've done in this country by electing Barack Obama.

But the underlying connundrum and question remain: Campaigning is not governing. How will Obama respond once the honeymoon is over?