In praise of "Supernatural"

So I’m a late-comer to “Supernatural.” I don’t know why it didn’t register with me when it first premiered. Maybe because it seemed like some derivative teen-centric version of “The X-Files.” For whatever reason, I initially skipped this show about monster-hunter brothers Sam and Dean Winchester, and didn’t think anything of it for years. It’s not exactly a zeitgeist show. But I ended up having to check it out for work midway through season 7. And to my surprise, it was pretty darn entertaining.

I’ve read that it was initially more of a monster-of-the-week procedural in the first few years. But by the time I started watching, it had developed a pretty complicated mythology, much of which was initially lost on me. But that didn’t matter because, while I’m generally a serial/mythology enthusiast, that wasn’t what hooked me.

I liked the clever mix of genuinely creepy scares and sarcastic, quippy humor. It was the closest thing to “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (all hail Buffy!) that I’d come across in the years since that show ended. I’m not suggesting that it was anywhere near the quality level of "Buffy." But just as Johnnie Walker Black can’t compare to Johnnie Walker Blue, a scotch fan isn’t likely going to object to the former.

Eventually I got into the mythology a bit more. It was probably fresher for me than for some who endured multiple iterations of one Winchester brother or the other dying/going to hell/becoming a demon/losing his soul, etc. But that’s not what kept, and keeps, me coming back.

Instead it’s three things:

The willingness to go to truly dark places and let horrible things happen, even to characters I grew to love, like Bobby (may he rest in peace) Charlie (may she rest in peace) and Kevin (may he rest in peace). In fact, a recurring theme seems to be that for anyone who enters the Winchester brothers’ inner circle, no good deed goes unpunished. Many of them have died, some horribly. And Sam and (especially) Dean are well aware of the curse their friendship seems to bring.

The other main draw is the humor. Supporting characters like Crowley, Castiel and (perhaps my favorite villain) Dick Roman all got to have fun even as they wreaked death and destruction. I’m not a big fan of Rowena but not every baddie is going to be a winner. Beyond the recurring characters, there’s always Dean, who I find to be the funniest character on a show that’s not a straight out comedy.

Lastly, what I like about the show is its willingness to take risks, even if they don’t always work. A few seasons ago, they did a found footage episode in which the brothers were only secondary characters. It wasn’t great but I appreciated the effort.

Last season, they did a special musical episode to celebrate the show’s 200^th episode. While not very scary, it was funny, heartfelt and a little mysterious.

And just last week they did it once again, with an episode called “Baby,” told exclusively from the perspective of Dean’s 1967 Chevy Impala. The entire story took place either in or right next to the car. It was a pretty standard, monster-of-the-week episode that only marginally moved the season-long arc forward. But it was creative and so well done that it took me a while to figure out what they were doing with the car.

I appreciate that a series in its 11^th season can still find new and different ways to explore its world without feeling hack-ish. It’s not “Breaking Bad” or “Lost” or “Buffy.” But if you’re looking for a show that effectively brings the dark and the funny in equal measure, you could do a lot worse. Although I’ll still never forgive the producers for killing Charlie.

The Walking Dead- "Thank You"

The name of this episode was "Thank You" but it could more accurately have been called "Nihilism Wins."

Even for a show as relentlessly downbeat at "TWD," this went to a new place. I'm not saying it was bad. In fact, this was the third consecutive episode to start this season to hit on almost all levels, a rarity for a show whose quality seems to wax and wane from week to week. The action was near-non-stop, as was the dread, which seemed to escalate with each passing moment.

But all that tension and excitement reached its inevitable boiling point with (do I really need to say SPOILER ALERT?) the shocking and and depressing death of Glenn. I say shocking because up until the end, I thought the show's MacGyver would find a way out. I say depressing because, while he wasn't the most interesting character on the show (Carol), the most mysterious (Morgan) or the coolest (Daryl), Glenn always struck me as the most relatable.

Glenn was just a pizza delivery guy who rose to the occasion during the most trying of times. He put himself at risk to save Rick at the beginning of the series. He ended up wooing and and winning Maggie (a gal he probably couldn't have dated pre-zombie apocalypse). And he always maintained his decency and regular guy attitude. While the horror of this world has turned Rick into something barely human, Glenn never lost his humanity. So that sucks.

I know the internet is rife with discussion and theories about whether Glenn is actually dead or not, all of which feels very Jon Snow-y "Game of Thrones"-ish. But for today at least, I'm less interested in that stuff than in allowing myself to mourn my personal favorite "TWD" character. Here's hoping someone stabs you in the head soon, Glenn.

A few random thoughts:

It was pretty cool to see Rick take out those zombies while listening to Glenn tell to him about his plan over the radio. Talk about multi-tasking.

A distant (but still disheartening) second to Glenn's death in the "bum me out" department: the guy who got bit in the shoulder not getting to tell his new wife how she gave his life meaning OR getting to have Michonne deliver the note he wrote to her AND getting totally chomped while trying to scale the fence. Couldn't someone have shot him and put him out of his misery?

I am so tired of the gang going into what seems like some abandoned building to hunker down quietly while the zombies pass by outside and not checking out the entire joint, including closets, to make sure there are no walkers inside. Protocol seems pretty standard for these situations:

1) Lock the doors if possible.
2) Check everywhere for stray walkers.
3) Kill said walkers.
4) Stay vewwy vewwy qwiet.

 Michonne's speech to ponytail guy about not knowing what it's like to be out there and sometimes being unsure if the blood on you was yours, a friend's or a zombies seemed heavy-handed even before ponytail dude saw his bloody reflection in the stream.

One small bit bit of solace/happiness/justice: When the gang first took on the zombies in the woods, the bald black guy stepped up to help and was rewarded by an inadvertent shot to the leg by cowardly floppy-hat wearing guy. I thought he was done for. But surprisingly, he survived and the guy who shot him and ran off got mauled real good. That's my glass half full note. I'll take what I can get.

Speaking of survival, one final thought: Black characters so often seem to be the first to get killed in the horror genre. It's become a cliche'. So it was refreshing to see that all (and by all, I mean a whopping total of three) of the survivors of the chaos and carnage were African-American. Progress?

Arrow- "Restoration"

What I'm digging- Felicity being Oliver's sugar mommy.

What I'm not digging- The awkward clunky conversation between Thea and Malcolm about how to deal with PPBD (Post Pit Bloodlust Disorder).

What I'm digging- Oliver and Diggle finally having an honest conversation about their frayed friendship and loss of trust. More please.

What I'm not digging- Having this week's baddie be a meta-human who was changed while getting a tattoo and whose special power is...wait for it...throwing really sharp playing cards at people. It felt like something out of Mystery Men.

What I'm digging- How the show is having the island flashbacks repeatedly call back to the first season. Only now Oliver seems to be serving in the Yao Fei role. It's already way more promising than the awful Hong Kong stuff. By the way, I'm very curious to see what happens with the flashbacks after this season. If my math is right, by the end of this season, the flashbacks will have caught up in time to the start of the series. What happens then?

What I'm not digging- The constant use of the Lazarus Pit as a cheap plot device. Part of the power of this show is how it forces the characters to face the finality and consequences of death (Moira, Shado). The pit diminishes all that. I know it was necessary so Caity Lotz could join the "Legends of Tomorrow" spin-off. But still.

What I'm digging- Thea destroying the Lazarus pit. Maybe the writers were starting to feel the same way I was. Let's hope they throw a tarp over it and never speak of it again.

The Walking Dead- Season 6, Episodes 1 & 2

After several years of meandering plotlines that seemed to tread water (the entire time on the farm in Season 2, the post-prison characters "scattered to the wind" episodes of Season 4), "The Walking Dead," seemed to generally find its footing again last season. Even the episodes that didn't totally work (Beth's solo sojourn to that Atlanta hospital) were ambitious.

So it's nice to see that general level of quality sustained through the first two episodes of Season 6. The premiere, "First Time Again," deserves credit for going all out, with the most massive scope we've ever seen, at least in terms of pure zombie population. And it gave us perhaps the coolest image the show has ever created- Daryl Dixon serving as Grand Marshall for a parade of the undead. The black and white vs. color scenes worked well, both visually and to give clarity and structure to what was a potentially confusing time-jumping episode.

Yes, there were the typical TWD questions about why this character did that totally unnecessary dumb thing or that character made that clueless comment. But that's standard issue for this show and to get overly riled about it is like expecting you dog, who can fetch and roll over, not to lick its butt. That expectation is not realistic. Nor is expecting TWD to logically cohere at all times. Just be happy with the fetching.

And that's what made the season's second episode, "JSS," so much fun. Because, after a brief introductory period involving chats about smokers, it jettisoned any attempt to provide expository jibber-jabber and dove headlong into an "Assault on Precinct 13" -style hellscape that had almost nothing to do with zombies.

Who would have expected that one of most shocking moments in the history of the show would not be in any way related to a zombie attack but rather a quiet, suburban moment undone by out-of-nowhere human-on-human brutality? The lesson- don't take that smoke break.

And from that moment on, the episode turns into a nonstop, unrelenting torrent of unchecked viciousness, pulsing anxiety and Carol ass-kickery. The undercover housewife traded in her apron for a hoodie and blood-stained "W" forehead tattoo, moving through Alexandria like some sort of domestic ninja goddess leaving death and pasta recipes in her wake. Only Morgan was unsurprised by the transition, barely batting an eye at the new look from the woman he already suspected was only play-acting at being Donna Reed.

Speaking of Morgan, let me say that I really appreciate having him around. He's a complicated, fascinating character who I suspect will play a huge narrative and moral role on the show this season. And were it not for him and Carol, Alexandria would have been Wolftown by episode's end.

But what is up with his refusal to kill? I mean, I get it generally. He's a lot like Oliver Queen on "Arrow"- a man who had to embrace his own blood lust to survive but wants to find a way back to his humanity by forgoing killing, even bad guys . But come on!

At a certain point, I think he gets a pass to engage in a little wooden staff termination. And that point is when a wolf dude hiding in a house tries to off him even after he's been warned off and given a reprieve. Morgan did ultimately take the guy out. But his "three strikes and you're still not out" policy is starting to feel a bit outre during, you know, a zombie apocalypse.

That said, "JSS" was one of the most purely entertaining episodes the show has ever proffered. It's hard to imagine the creative team can sustain that level of intensity next week. And trying to may be a mistake. Then again, there is a Mardis Gras-sized zombie crowd headed for Alexandria, so who knows?

Am I back?

It's been quite a while but I'm weighing returning to my hugely popular blog. There's been such a groundswell of interest in my prior posts that not returning may be impossible. I'll keep you posted.

the pageant factor & the interloper attack

2 unrelated thoughts:

1) An acquaintance of mine who has been involved in the pageant culture and used to compete herself made an interesting point regarding Sarah Palin's often-mocked promise to "get back to" Katie Couric on any examples of John McCain being a regulator. She said that pageant contestants are commonly told, if they don't know the answer to a question during the Q&A portion, to say "I'll get back to you on that." She said the theory is that it gets the contestant out of the immediate bind she's in and allows for some levity if said in a charming manner.

Now obviously, someone running for Vice President can't get away with that kind of answer when being asked about issues of national importance that SHE, unlike a pageant contestant, might actually have influence on. But one wonders: Did Palin, in a moment of deep discomfort and uncertainty, simply revert back to her beauty pageant training? If so, that's not stress management we can believe in.

2) In light of the apparent strong and consistent trend toward Obama in most recent state and national polls, I'm hearing from pundits all over the news today that McCain is in real danger of having these numbers solidify UNLESS he comes up with a game changer. They say he needs to hit Obama with an onslaught of negative stuff, now.

Some say to invoke Reverend Wright. Others suggest reviving William Ayers. I think the campaign's recent track record indicates pretty definitively that they don't need plummeting poll numbers as an excuse to make rash, objectionable decisions. But it might be interesting to brainstorm exactly what form the next round of inevitable Obama-bashing will take.

My prediction? They'll hit hard on the idea that Obama is an internationalist, one-worlder type. You know, the kind of UN-loving, culturally "complicated" fellow who puts global interests before America's. On the surface, that may not sound any more objectionable than the stuff they've already been doing. But it's just a short hop from "internationalist" to "other" to "interloper" to "uppity black Muslim." I think that if the McCain campaign hits the first two labels really hard, it'll signal their surrogates to go even further with latter two.

That's really what I think it's come down to at this point- an imminent not-so-subtle full court press playing into latent racial and religious discomfort among many lower-middle-class upper Midwesterners of a certain age.

I think the last two weeks of this campaign are going to include ads that show endless images of Obama alongside vulnerable white women and children. That is, when his face isn't being dissolved into images of Islamic militants and gang members. I think it's coming. Soon. And I fear, despite the current polling trend, that it just might work.

Veepstakes Round 2: The New Top 20- 7/9/08

As we proceed with our second round of Veepstakes Rankings, the most interesting thing to note is how what initially seemed like a really deep crowd of potential VPs has thinned out considerably. That's primarily a result of missteps on the part of possible running mates. Additionally, a few folks have indicated they aren't interested, although only one of them has made a Shermanesque statement that he would definitely not accept the offer and has told Obama as much.

With that in mind, Let's dive in:

THE CURRENT CREAM OF THE CROP

1) JOHN EDWARDS- (formerly #4 in the original 6/4/08 rankings) The former NC Senator is not a dream choice but a solid one. He reinforces Obama's message of change generally, and more specifically, his opposition to special interest influence. His focus on poverty and the downtrodden speaks to many low income and rural voters who might view Obama as an "elitist." His Southern roots won't hurt, even if they likely won't help Obama actually win North Carolina. His wife is an incredibly popular, sympathic figure who is also an effective advocate for national health care. She might also help with older women who supported Hillary and have yet to embrace Obama. As I mentioned in the last rankings, he wasn't a super running mate for Kerry in '04, but one senses his enthusiasm for Obama is more genuine than for Kerry and that he would be a better surrogate this time around. And from a purely optics-oriented perspective, the two men looked awfully well-matched when Edwards endorsed Obama in Michigan in May.

2) BILL RICHARDSON- (formerly # 3) As mentioned previously, the current NM Governor's resume is impeccable- former UN Ambassador, former Sec. of Energy, former Congressman. He's got foreign policy experience, executive experience and credibility as a westerner (he's a gun rights advocate). Unlike a military man running mate, he can still reinforce the national security message effectively without highlighting Obama's lack of experience in that arena. He's from a swing state and being a Hispanic westerner will also help in Colorado, Nevada and even Arizona. A bit of a DC insider, that concern is effectively mitigated by his ethnicity and recent time outside Washington. Still, he's been known to go off message, say silly things, engage in unneeded resume puffery and is rumored to be a bit of a pig when it comes to the ladies. I also remember him stumbling badly though a question about gay rights in a debate last fall- he didn't seem to understand the question being asked. Still huge electoral and policy pluses may outweigh those minuses.

3) EVAN BAYH- (formerly # 11) Ugh. The IN Senator moves up almost by default. The same blandness that makes him unobjectionable to most also makes him a pretty uninspiring choice. But from a purely strategic perspective, he makes a lot of sense. A former Governor, he has executive experience. He has some foreign policy knowledge from his Senate service. Attractive and still relatively young, he jibes with Obama's generational message. He was a big Clinton supporter, which may help heal wounds between the two camps. Plus, he's from a possible swing state. Then again, his support for Hillary didn't seem to help her much in the state, as Obama nearly stole it form her in the primary. This dullard would be a boring, safe choice. But maybe Obama feels he offers enough excitement on his own and would prefer boring and safe for the number two slot.

4) TIM KAINE- (formerly # 7) Current VA Governor lepas to the top of the Virginia Three, mainly because of Warner aand Webb's asserted lack of interest in the job. Moderate views and executive experience could help nationally, but especially in his own potential swing state. No foreign policy background though and progressives don't love him.

5) SAM NUNN- (Formerly #2) Former GA senator still regarded as a steady hand with vast foreign affairs knowledge. But he's 70, almost as old as McCain, which doesn't mesh with Obama's message of generational change. Plus, his early '90's opposition to gays in the military still rankles many progressives. Depending on one's level of idealogical purity, that can be either a good or a bad thing.

THE SECOND TIER

6) MARK WARNER- (formerly #1) This former VA Governor and current senatorial candidate topped the rankings last go-round. Nothing has changed to make him less appealing- executive experience, business experience, Southerner froma swing state. But he has indicated pretty strongly that he wants to focus on winning the his Senate race. Beyond that, he's promised his teenage daughters he wouldn't seek national office until they all graduated high school. Still, hard to imagine he'd say no if Obama asked.

7) JOE BIDEN- (new) The longtime Delaware Senator makes a huge leap from nowhere to serious contender. Highly respected for his foreign affairs knowledge and an eloquent voice for Obama's messge, he knows the world of DC intimately. That's also the problem- he screams Washington insider, which undermines Obama's change message. Additionally, Delaware isn't exactly a swing state. Finally, Biden is known for his tendency to go on and on ...and on. He' s kind of a blowhard, albeit a very smart blowhard.

8) HILLARY CLINTON (formerly # 8) The clamor to pick the NY senator has diminished significantly in recent weeks. She remains a polarizing figure who may motivate conservatives more than she helps Obama, but for all the obvious reasons (passionate supporters, image as a tough, experienced hand), she still has to be considered a real possibility.

9) CHUCK HAGEL- ((formerly #10) Outgoing Republican NE senator remains on the list because of his opposition to the war and his ability to effectively match McCain's war hero bona fides. But despite his seeming openness to the position, he is a social conservative, which makes his selection awfully hard to see reaching fruition.

10) TOM DASCHLE- (new) Former SD Senator and Democratic leader has supported Obama since the very beginning. He's respected and has loads of experience. But if anyone ever contradicted Obama's messgae of moving on from the same old thing, it's Daschle.

LEGIT BUT LONGSHOTS

11) KEN SALAZAR- (formerly #15) Moderate CO Senator moves up because he's Hispanic, from the west and hasn't screwed up his chances yet. Still a longshot.

12) BRIAN SCHWEITZER- (new) Montana Governor is my new darkhorse. From a western state, the farmer and rancher has got executive experience and has worked all over the world, including seven years in Saudi Arabia. Still an unlikely choice, but getting less so.

13) ED RENDELL- (formerly # 5) PA Gov. may be charming, politically astute and from a swing state. But he' still Jewish, which remains tough to imagine working for a wide swath of voters in conjunction w/ an African American at the top of the ticket. Plus, he's said publicly that he wouldn't be a good number two.

14) KATHLEEN SEBILIUS- (formerly # 13) Big-time Obama supporter from a midwestern state but offers little else. Besides, as with all other female possibilities, it's hard to justify anyone other than Clinton.

15) JANET NAPOLITANO- (new) Arizona Governor may mitigate McCain's edge there and help in the west generally. But see Sebilius above.

DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH

16) MIKE BLOOMBERG- (formerly # 17) Still a Jew from New York so hard to see it, although the attrition rate of other contenders keeps his hopes alive.

17) CLAIRE MCCASKILL- (new) Missouri senator is a big Obama supporter. She might help swing the state but see Napolitano and Sebilius above. May be more helpful in the Senate anyway.

18) RICHARD GEPHARDT- (new) The former Missouri congressman, House minority leader and presidential candidate has been mentioned lately as political veteran who can help in the Show Me state. But his insider status and repeated failure as a national candidate give him the stink of a loser.

19) AL GORE- (formerly #16) Still a near impossibility, but "near" isn't the same as "total".

20) TED STRICKLAND- (formerly # 9) OH Gov. and Clinto supporter says he's not interested. Unless we hear something different, best to take him at his word.

OFF THE TOP 20 LIST COMPLETELY:

JIM WEBB- (formerly #6) He of the Shermanesque statement, the VA senator now says he will not accept. Rumors suggest he may have balked at some of the info required during the vetting process. Latent problems with women's groups probably doomed him anyway.

CHRIS DODD- (formerly #14) Always a longshot, the CT senator's preferential mortgage loan makes his selection politically unfeasible.

WESLEY CLARK- (formerly #12) Whatever the merits of this retired general's claim that being a POW and war hero doesn't inherently qualify McCain for President, the comment moved him from 'unlikely" to "untenable."

Obama Veepstakes 6/04/08

Now that the Democratic presidential nominee has been determined, it's time to move on to the next big parlor game: Who's Obama going to pick as his Vice Presidential running mate?

What follows are the preliminary "Lyons Veepstakes Rankings," as of June 4, 2008. They may change as the summer progresses. But as of now, this is the best cheat sheet you're gonna find.

I should make it clear up front that these rankings are not based on personal preference, but are instead a prediction of who the most likely selectee will be, based on careful analysis and keen insight.

You're welcome.

-Andirant


THE RANKINGS


1) MARK WARNER- Former Virginia governor who is currently running for the Senate seat of retiring Senator John Warner (no relation), he brings moderate views, executive experience and a business background. A Harvard Law grad like Obama, this politically astute campaigner could help steal VA, a borderline swing state. An IT and telecommunications expert (he was an early Nextel investor), this 21st century politician reinforces Obama's message of generational change. Unlikely to alienate anyone, he won't hurt with downscale whites either.

2) SAM NUNN- Former moderate Georgia senator is a foreign policy expert who is highly regarded in DC. He may appeal to southern white men and help make GA competitive. He's been out of office long enough that he doesn't have the stink of incumbency. But he's older and doesn't exactly reinforce the change message. Sort of a Dick Cheney without the dickishness, he's a safe, smart but unspectacular choice.

3) BILL RICHARDSON- Former presidential candidate and current New Mexico Governor came out for Obama despite massive pressure from the Clintons. He has a superb resume as a UN Ambassador, a Cabinet member and a former US representative. As a Hispanic, he could help buttress Obama with a group that hasn't taken to him in droves. Plus NM is a serious swing state. But he's sometimes clumsy with his words, is prone to gaffes and has a reputation for being a little too chatty with the ladies. He also padded his pre-politics resume regarding his baseball career and whether he'd been drafted.

4) JOHN EDWARDS- This southern white male certainly offers strengths where Obama is weak. The former North Carolina senator complements the nominee's change theme nicely and is viewed as a fighter for the downtrodden. But he didn't do well as an advocate for John Kerry when he was the VP candidate in '04 and he couldn't help carry NC for the Dems that year. His time may have passed. Besides, word is he'd rather be Attorney General.

5) ED RENDELL- Politically savvy, charming, popular Governor of Pennsylvania, a state Obama must win. A Clinton advocate, he might help win back alienated supporters of her. But Obama should not need him to secure PA, and oh by the way, he's Jewish. That may help in Florida. But a Black & Jew combo may be too much for even some Democrats people to handle (said a fellow Jew).

6) JIM WEBB- Former Reagan Navy secretary brings military experience, a moderate reputation and support from a possible swing state (Virginia). Also brings a surly demeanor- he's a bit of a loose cannon. Why give up a Democratic Senate seat if there are other, stronger options from that state?

7) TIM KAINE- Current Virginia Governor could also help in the swingable state. He has executive experience and appeals to conservatives, in part because he's pretty conservative himself, maybe too much so. But as with Webb, why give up a current Democratic office-holder in a state where they rarely get them.

8) HILLARY CLINTON- Experienced and respected for her command of the issues, selecting her could quickly unify the party. She would bring in millions of passionate supporters. But she would also alienate many Obama supporters and seriously undermine his change message. Beyond that, currently uninspired conservative Republicans will finally have a reason to turn out to vote. Plus, there are lots of questions about potentially sketchy financial sources of Bill Clinton's foundation and library. And does Obama really want Bubba loitering around the White House again?

9) TED STRICKLAND- Another Hillary surrogate, the Ohio Governor helped her win that state and could do the same for Obama. But that's not a sure thing and other than executive experience and geography, he doesn't offer much to compensate for his bland demeanor.

10) CHUCK HAGEL- Retiring Nebraska senator is a Vietnam vet, a strong opponent of the Iraq war, and oh by the way, a Republican. Picking him could prove that Obama is trying to end the partisan gridlock in Washington. But Hagel is a traditional conservative on most non-war issues, including abortion. It's hard to imagine rank and file Democrats would go for him. He might get consideration for Secretary of Defense but probably not VP.

11) EVAN BAYH- Current senator and former Governor from Indiana, this strong Hillary supporter offers a pretty face, some influence in an almost-swing state and little else.

12) WESLEY CLARK- The former general and '04 presidential candidate, this Hillary supporter would offer military experience and the chance to compete in his home state of Arkansas. But he has little experience in the political trenches, ran an unmemorable campaign when he ran for President and highlights rather than mitigates Obama's lack of military chops.

13) KATHLEEN SEBILIUS- Kansas Governor could appeal to women and offer support in a typically red state. But she's unlikely to turn KS blue and Obama might alienate lots of Hillary supporters if he picks a woman other than Clinton.

14) CHRIS DODD- Connecticut senator and former presidential candidate came out early for Obama so he'll get a look. But he is unlikely to guarantee CT for the nominee and a Dodd VP would mean one less Democrat in the senate. Besides the fact that he just doesn't give off a presidential vibe, the long-time legislator doesn't reinforce the "change Washington" mantra.

15) KEN SALAZAR- Like Richardson, the Colorado senator is also Hispanic and also represents a possible swing state. Unlike Richardson, his resume is thin, he's very conservative and him joining the ticket would mean one less Democratic Senator.


16) AL GORE- Mentioned here mostly as a formality, he'd provide executive experience, respect from virtually every Democrat and star power. But why would this Oscar and Nobel saturated media darling want to be a second banana again? He wouldn't.

17) MIKE BLOOMBERG- Also a Jew. From New York. Who's rich. And short. Not gonna happen.

Spurs breakdown 2008-09

You thought I was going to talk about the NBA finals? I don’t think so.

Rather, let’s focus on what’s important- how to get the Spurs back in the winner’s circle in 08-09. The pieces remain for a very competitive team. But for the first time in three or four years, SA is unlikely to be considered one of the top threats to win a championship next season.

The Lakers will only be stronger with the return of Andrew Bynum from injury. The Jazz and Hornets are both likely to be as good, if not even better, than they were this year. The Suns and Mavs may be a step below those others. But both are still 50-win teams and may be better than that with a full season to incorporate their big-name mid-season acquisitions. Houston will have Yao Ming back at full strength. Denver and Golden State will remain competitive. And next season, with a healthy Greg Oden, Portland is likely to make the leap into the middle of the Western Conference playoff pack. That’s nine quality teams for the Spurs to compete against. And that’s not even including the Pistons or Celtics, nor the ever-improving Magic.

So what must the Spurs do to return to the mountaintop? After careful analysis, and with the research assistance of the good folks at the Express-News and espn.com, I’ve come up with our areas of deficiency and some possible solutions.

Let’s first acknowledge where the Spurs faltered this year.

-They were too dependent on their three top players, often requiring all three of them to play their best in order to win against elite teams. If one of them was injured or had a bad game, the chances of victory dropped precipitously. The Spurs need an additional, consistent scorer, someone who can provide 12-14 points a night, preferably a wing player who can break down defenses by creating offense on his own, but who can still hit the open three that’s so crucial to the Spurs’ offensive philosophy.

-They only had one legitimate post-up threat. Other than Tim Duncan, there was no one the Spurs could consistently rely on to get a bucket down low in a back-to-the-basket situation. That limitation forced the team to change its offensive scheme any time Timmy wasn’t on the floor. The team needs to acquire another post player who can provide some sort of offensive punch. It would be great if he could also fit into the Spurs “force the driver baseline to the post defender” defensive scheme. But at this point that’s almost secondary to finding a player who can relieve some of the low post offensive workload when Tim’s resting.

-The backup point guards this season were abysmal. Jacque Vaughn could have applied for membership in the bricklayers union and Damon Stoudamire was a waste of space. The team needs a reliable backup point guard who can provide some semblance of an offensive threat. Vaughn, who will likely be back next year, is serviceable defensively and can make a decent third string PG, but the team needs a player who can at the very least, hit an open jumper when left unguarded.

-The team is old. This was the year the Spurs crossed the line from veteran to aged. No one can blame the front office for trying to squeeze one more year out of a group that won a championship last year. But ultimately, the wear and tear, as well as the lack of youthful energy, was too much to overcome. The Spurs need to better incorporate the few younger players they do have into the regular rotation and add some others. It would be nice if at least two of the three needs I mentioned above were addressed with players closer to 25 than 35. I’d actually prefer a veteran backup at the point, but greater youth at the wing and in the post would be wise additions.

Now that we know what the team needs, let’s look at what they currently have and how to add to that.

According to the Express News (EN), the following are players who are under contract next season. The players with a (p) next to their names have player options according to espn.com:
Tim Duncan
Manu Ginobili
Tony Parker
Bruce Bowen
Ime Udoka
Fabricio Oberto
Matt Bonner
Ian Mahinmi
Brent Barry (p)
Jacque Vaughn (p)

The following are unrestricted free agents:
Kurt Thomas
Michael Finley
Damon Stoudamire
Robert Horry
DeMarr Johnson

They have the mid-level exception, which provides about $5.8 million to spend on free agents.

They also have three draft picks- the 26th in the 1st round and the 45th and 57th in the 2nd.

And finally there’s Tiago Splitter, last year’s first round draft choice, who was supposed to be the heir apparent next to Tim Duncan (the reason we didn’t sign Scola), but who appears ready to re-sign with Tau Ceramica for the next two years for much more than he can make here (damn you, value of the American dollar!)

So let’s look at the Spurs depth chart, first based on who the team actually has signed:


POINT GRD SHOOTING GRD SML FORWD PWR FWD CENTER
T. PARKER M. GINOBILI B. BOWEN T. DUNCAN F. OBERTO
J. VAUGHN I. UDOKA B. BARRY M. BONNER
I. MAHINMI


There are obvious strengths to the team as it stands now. Every starter (if you include Manu) returns, including the team’s top three players, all of whom are locked in through at least 2010. There is depth and flexibility at the wings with four players who can play multiple positions. And there is a wealth of battle-tested veterans who know how to win.

But this chart shows some equally obvious flaws with the Spurs’ squad as currently constituted. There is little depth at point guard. Every wing player is 30 or older and none is taller than 6-7. There is no quality depth at either post position and what depth there is includes players with little experience, no bulk and minimal low-post offensive skill.

Some of these problems can be addressed with free agents who played for the Spurs this last season. The fallout from Splitter’s apparent decision to remain in Europe means the team is likely to do everything it reasonably can to re-sign Kurt Thomas, who provides toughness, rebounding, credible defense and a decent mid-range jumper.

He does little to make the team younger, but considering the Spurs’ dire situation down low, there’s not much choice. There are other free agents available on the market and I will address our options there momentarily. But for the time being, let’s assume Thomas gets re-signed.

A note on the Splitter situation: Reports suggest that the Spurs didn’t sign Luis Scola last summer in large part because they believed Splitter was a better fit next to Duncan. But that maneuvering was too cute by half. Scola, an Argentinian who has played for years with longtime teammates Ginobili and Oberto, ended up finishing third in rookie of the year voting for a DIVISION RIVAL. And now Splitter is probably not an option until 2010, if at all.

Based on all this, it can be reasonably said that the Spurs’ (generally justifiably) vaunted front office team truly screwed the pooch on this one. Letting a player of Scola’s ability go for nothing and then losing the player who justified the decision to let him go may go down as the single worst player personnel decision them team made in the last decade. Scola sure would have come in handy during the recent playoff run and one can’t help but wonder if having him in the lineup might have complicated things for Gasol, Odom et al. The Spurs sheen of management invincibility has clearly started to fade. They need to find a way to buff it up.

Let’s move on to the other free agents. Damon Stoudamire is clearly gone. DeMarr Johnson would likely have been gone even before his recent DUI arrest. Now we can remove the “likely.” There’s been lots of speculation about Robert Horry retiring. Regardless of what he decides, the team should and will end their fruitful association with him. That leaves us with one big question mark- Michael Finley.

There’s a decent argument for retaining him. He knows the Spur system. He’s still a gunner who can heat up quick. He can play two positions. He’s improved defensively in his time with the team.

But none of that mitigates the more compelling reasons to dump him. If ever there was a Spur that epitomized the transitional position the Spurs are in, it’s Finley. He can still play some and he’s the kind of player the Spurs have repeatedly plugged in with great success in recent years- veteran, skilled, professional. But he’s also old, at risk of injury, prone to long droughts of ineffectiveness and likely to going to cost more than the team wants to spend.

This is exactly the opportunity for the team to get younger and more athletic, whether through free agency, a trade or the draft. SA still has enough quality 3-pt shooters that they can sacrifice Finley for a player who may not hit from beyond the arc but can play above the rim. So let’s thank him for his service and dump him.

Assuming we re-sign Thomas, that leaves us with 11 players under contract. We need four more.

So we’ve solved part of our post problem but not our wing or PG issues. If we sign Thomas, that will likely allow us to sign only one other free agent, two at most, and probably not for much. We’ll have to fill the other hole through the draft.

We could fill the point guard hole with a veteran free agent (my preference) or we could go for a wing player. If we go the point guard route, our options will include Chris Duhon, Lindsey Hunter or Tyronn Lue. My favorite would be Duhon, who fits the Spurs mold, has experience but is still in his twenties. I’d pick Lue next. And 38 year old Hunter only as a last resort.

If we decide to spend free agent money on a wing player, there are a number of options. The EN mentions both Mickael Petrius of GS and Carlos Delfino of Toronto as possibilities, although espn.com says Delfino has a player option w/ Toronto, which may affect things.

Unfortunately, neither has played big minutes in the league and both are listed at 6-6, a little short to go up against the likes of Tayshaun Prince, Lamar Odom and other lanky threes. It’s hard to see either being that 4th scorer I said we need. Of the two, I’d prefer Delfino, who’s offensive numbers are better and who is from Argentina and has played a lot w/ Manu and Fab.

Other possible wing players to consider:

Quinton Ross- more of a 2 than a 3 at 6-6, but would come cheap. He can defend and hit treys. Kind of a skinny Udoka, which may make him superfluous.

Eduardo Najera- plays more 4 than 3, but is a tough, hustling rebounder with a mean streak. Could also be an option if Thomas falls through.

Trevor Ariza- He has a player option so one would think he’d like to stick with the Lakers. But if nabbed he would be a good Bowen-in-training. He’s 6-8, athletic and a superior defender. Not much for offense though.

Stromile Swift- I mention him because he’s available, although his inconsistency and the money he would demand make him doubtful.

There are also a few power forwards and centers that might be available if Thomas passes on us or even if he sticks around at a reasonable price. They include two guys who wouldn’t require much time to get up to Spur speed. But first:

DeSegana Diop- Wouldn’t add a thing offensively but could really work for the defensive system, esp. if we got Thomas too.

Francisco Elson- He was marginally effective the first time around and would probably come even cheaper than before. Not a solution but a stopgap option.

Rasho Nesterovic- I actually like this idea a lot. Nesterovic played his role perfectly when he was a Spur. It’s just that didn’t seem to do enough for the money he made. But if he provided the same thing (good mid-range jumper, solid defense, surprisingly effective shot blocker) at a cut rate, I’d snatch him up in a second.

Note that none of the guys listed above are older than 32 and Duhon, Petrius, Delfino, Ross, Ariza, Swift and Diop are all under 30.

If the team follows the course above, using their mid-level exception to secure two or three solid but unspectacular veterans (the most probable scenario by far, I believe), that would leave us either 1 or 2 slots to fill via draft and/or trade.

Chad Ford at espn.com currently has Kansas’ point guard Mario Chalmers as the Spurs 1st round pick in his latest mock draft. He’s a solid player with grit, a defensive mentality and the ability to hit big long range shots (as we all saw in the championship game).

But as I said, considering Vaughn’s limitations, I’d much prefer our backup point guard be someone who’s proven he can lead a team at the professional level, should Parker suffer an injury. Putting a rookie (unless it’s Derrick Rose) in charge of a contender seems foolhardy. There’s no reason we can’t get a quality backup for a decent price.

We could alternatively use the pick to find an athletic big man. It’s hard to find a good NBA big who can play both post offense and defense. And they never come cheap. So hoping to find that combination in the draft is understandable.

But those guys are almost always gone by the end of the lottery and guys who get selected lower are usually projects. The Spurs need someone who can contribute now. An impact swingman is far more likely to be available at # 26 than an impact big.

That’s partly why I’d prefer we use the pick to lock up a wing player who can provide scoring and athleticism from day one. Finding that at pick # 26 won’t be easy, which is why I’m not averse to trading all three picks to try to move up into the teens.

I also wouldn’t oppose packaging the pick with a player or two to get even higher. Would all three picks and Matt Bonner get us in the mid-teens? Would all of that and Brent Barry get us into the bottom half of the lottery. It’s worth investigating.

If we stay at #26, I’d consider French swingman Nicolas Batum. If we could move up to the late teens or low 20’s, I’d pursue super-athlete, head case and great shooter Chase Budinger of Arizona. If we could somehow get to the mid-teens, I’d go for Joe Alexander or Brandon Rush, both of whom are athletic, can shoot and can play right away.

A couple of other considerations:

If we use or free agent money to sign a wing, I could easily see us trying to move up a half dozen picks to snag Robin Lopez, a 7-footer with mediocre offensive skills but who could prove a great energy guy who will rebound, defend and play hard every minute.

Also, Ford says Portland is itching to trade the 13th pick because they already have a wealth of youngsters. Maybe current Blazer GM and former Spurs staffer Kevin Pritchard would be open to securing the veteran savvy of Barry and/or the size and shooting of Bonner in combination with a lower pick or one next year. That scenario might get us in the range of Danilo Gallinari, the highly touted Italian point forward.

If we ended the summer with deals that include: Gallinari, Rush, Alexander (my personal fave) or Budinger, along with Chris Duhon and either Kurt Thomas or some combination of him and Najera, Elson, Diop or Nesterovic, I’d consider that a success and very do-able.

Now let’s step away from the probable into the possible but unlikely.

I had hoped we’d make a play for this guy last year but we didn’t. I remain convinced that if there were some way to get it done, we should trade for Shane Battier. He’s a younger, taller, thicker Bruce Bowen, who can defend and make 3’s. And while he isn’t going to win any dunking contests, he’s better than many of the free agents we’ll be considering. Perhaps the Barry/Bonner/draft pick chips could be busted out one more time to make it happen. As I said, possible but unlikely.

Next we move into the land of theoretically conceivable but seriously dubious.

There are two free agents I didn’t mention above, mostly because the chances of getting either are remote, if not impossible. Ether would resolve our low post offense issue immediately, but not leave room for anything else.

First is Elton Brand. He’s a free agent, and based on some inside info from one EC, he’s looked great in private workouts. Obviously getting him would be a coup of enormous proportions. Unfortunately, to do so, we’d have to find ways to dump tons of salary/players or convince the Clips to go for a sign and trade. Neither is likely. And even then, the Clips can offer significantly more than any other suitor. Plus, he loves LA, and who can blame him? This deal is pretty much dead before it even gets off the ground.

Slightly (but only slightly) more realistic is Antawn Jamison. Why? He’s a little older than Brand (32 vs. 29), not quite as good, and may be slightly more willing to give up some money for the chance to join a winner at this point in his career. Would he be willing to go down to the $5.8 million exception, even extended over four or five years? Hard to see that happening. But it’s not inconceivable. I actually think that of the two crazy free agent scenarios, this one is preferable, as Jamison can play a little three as well, creating more roster matchup flexibility. If it could be made to work, I could see SA going for it. But it’s a loooong shot at best.

An important note: many observers have pointed out that the Spurs have structured their contracts so that only Duncan and Parker will be locked up in the summer of 2010. Some say that’s so they can make a big splash in the supposedly impressive free agent market that summer.

My issue with that? There’s no guarantee that any of those free agents will actually be available in two years. And even if they are, they’ll all be able to command more money from their current team than we could offer, even with a maximum deal.

Finally, in two years, Tim will be 34 years old. By then, the appeal of playing next to him may be diminished, depending on how effective he is that point.

Many experts claim that 34 is the age when most top big men (Olajuwon, Malone, Ewing, Shaq, the Admiral) start to see serious drops in the their effectiveness. I would contend that the drop is earlier, around 32, Tim’s current age. I think we can still count on two more years of 18 points and 10 rebounds per game. But that’s obviously not 22 and 12. And at 34, I think we’re likely to see a bigger dip. Since his game isn’t based on athleticism, Tim should still be able to get stuff done, but that will mean 14 and 8 more often than 18 and 10.

Parker should be in his prime in 2010. He’ll be 28 and I’ve always felt that ages 27-30 are the peek years for an NBA player. But he’s been in the league since he was a teenager so there may be wear and tear. Besides, Parker and 2/3 of Duncan are no guarantee that free agents will be clamoring to join the squad.

My point? 2010 is a crapshoot. So let’s take advantage of the next two years, while we still have Timmy, Tony and Manu, to try to win 1 or 2 more titles.

Let’s move on to the most troubling/intriguing/anguish-inducing option I’ve heard so far. It came from one JL and it goes like this. He ponders the idea of a Manu Ginobili trade for the #2 pick currently held by Miami.

It’s not as crazy as it might seem. Chad Ford suggests that Pat Riley isn’t a big fan of likely #2 pick Michael Beasley, who has had some personal problems and has what might be called a fun-loving disposition. He suggests Riley might prefer to trade down to get O.J. Mayo, whose skill set he prefers and who thinks would fit well with Dwayne Wade.

If Riley is considering Mayo, the notoriously hard-driving GM would surely love a competitor and winner like Ginobili. In combination with Wade, Udonis Haslem and Shawn Marion, the Heat would immediately become competitive again. Plus Manu would be certain to attract fans and season ticket buyers in the heavily Latino community of South Florida.

The Spurs, if they could get comfortable with the idea of Beasley would get a 19-year-old stud who is ready to contribute right now and can play both the 3 and 4. He’s like a young Rasheed Wallace in terms of talent. Of course, he’s shown signs that he might also be a young Rasheed Wallace in terms of personality quirks. The team would have to be convinced that the kid is up to the challenge.

Then there’s the Manu factor. He brings a lot more to the Spurs than just the stats he provides.

He’s a consummate professional and team player who does whatever needs to be done to help the team win. He plays with a reckless abandon that is inspiring to both teammates and fans. And he is a winner of the first order- the only man ever to win an NBA championship, an Olympic gold medal and the European Championship.

He was instrumental in three Spurs finals and played his best in the 4th quarters of the final games vs. New Jersey and Detroit. Tim Duncan is still the rock of ages for the Spurs. But Manu Ginobili is the team’s beating heart. As he goes, so go the Spurs.

It’s hard to imagine they’d have the same drive and passion without him. And since he’s my favorite player in the league, I’m personally conflicted about even the suggestion of parting with him.

But as with most of the other scenarios listed above, it’s very unlikely, so I won’t expend too much emotional energy on it right now.

One last factor to consider: A development that could preclude the need for dramatic roster changes is the growth of Ian Mahinmi.

After marinating for two years in Europe, he spent most of last year in the developmental league with the Spurs’ farm team, the Austin Toros. His numbers were impressive and the team was impressed with his steady progress. If he’s given the chance to become a regular part of the rotation next season, and takes advantage of the opportunity, he could be a real difference-maker.

At 6-10, and with freakish leaping ability, he can play three positions, although he’s best suited for the 4. He need not be a star or even a starter just yet, although it would be nice if he could achieve the latter by 2009-2010. But if he could consistently play 15-18 minutes a games next season and provide 7-8 points and 4-5 rebounds, that would reduce much of the pressure on the Spurs aging frontcourt. If Mahinmi is the first big man off the bench for the team by February, look for Buford and Popovich to shop another piece for a scorer or high draft pick by the trade deadline.

So, let’s review shall we? I’m going to now provide what I believe is a realistic but hopeful depth chart, based on what I think are possible transactional scenarios over the course of the summer. Here we go:

DEPTH CHART

POINT GRD SHOOTING GRD SML FORWD PWR FWD CENTER
T. PARKER I. UDOKA B. BOWEN T. DUNCAN F. OBERTO
c. duhon M. GINOBILI c. budinger I. MAHINMI k. thomas
J. VAUGHN drft pick/free agent B. BARRY diop or elson


A few notes:

First, you’ll see that I have 14 players listed, not 15. Obviously, it’s very hard to determine every player on a roster. I could as easily see Najera or Rasho on the team in place of Diop or Rasho. And I assume that cap limitation will require the 15th player, and maybe even the 14th, to be minimum salary free agents or rookies. They will hopefully be young and able to run for days.

Additionally, by having the team draft Budinger, I’m assuming they will have moved up in the draft, which would require giving up the 26th pick and another piece, in this case Matt Bonner.

Note also that this roster replaces AARP members like Horry, Finley and Stoudamire with twentysomethings like Duhon, Budinger, Diop. It also assumes an increased role for Mahinmi.

Finally, you’ll see that I have Ime Udoka starting. That’s because I firmly believe that the Spurs need Manu in top form to win a championship (refer to the Lakers series if you have any doubts). For him to be in top form, he needs to be healthy and rested. And that means keeping him below 30 minutes a game.

This roster addresses most of the concerns I have about the Spurs. It gives them a credible backup point guard. It gives them greater depth and (some) offensive punch in the post. It gives them a rookie wing player with breakout scoring ability. It gives them an increased role for the two most promising upstarts from last season (Udoka and Mahinmi). It still leaves them with multiple 3-point shooters. It allows for quality contributors from players 1-12. It adds youth without sacrificing too much veteran savvy. It doesn’t mortgage the future. It allows for success in the present.

This is a team that can win a championship. It won’t be easy, of course. But it’s conceivable, even possible.

Thus it is written. Thus shall it be.

Why George W. Bush is the Jeff Hostetler of Presidents

So I recently got into an e-mail debate with a VERY conservative friend about whether all of Bush's recent missteps are temporary or a sign of things to come. He claimed that Bush may, despite how things look now, ultimately be able to pull a political rope-a-dope and will continue to outmaneuver those who underestimate him. He said that Bush always bounces back. I responded that Karl Rove, far more than Bush, is the one skilled at orchestrating bouncebacks. And I suggested that if Rove is indicted and has to leave the White House, Bus's chances of ineffective flailing about increase pretty dramatically. Why the blathery premable? Because, to illustrate my point to my friend, I went into an extended, mildly oversimplified, convoluted analogy that involved...wait for it...football. I thought some folks might get a kick out of it. I've included it below:

___________

"To use a loose analogy, Bush has always been the starting quarterback. He's the face of the team and its biggest star. He's got the quarterback/presidential look. He's decisive when he has to make a pass, even if it's a bad pass. He's got a strong arm, although his footwork is only so-so. He doesn't kick himself over interceptions or botched plays. He's very coachable. He can follow the plays his coach sends in. And as long as the defense doesn't throw too many curves at him, he can lead the team down the field with confidence.

But he's not a creator. He's not going to come up to the line of scrimmage, see that the defense has changed and be able to come up with an effective audible. He's limited to running the play that was sent in, even if it might not be effective against the defense he's facing.

Obviously, Rove is the head coach. He was W's coach in college. Then they moved to the NFL together. He comes up with the plays. He usually sticks to his QB's and his team's strengths, using his offensive line's superior size and speed to mow over the opposition. Sometimes, he throws in a trick play, some of which are brilliant misdirections. He's even been known to effectively intimidate refs and league officials from time to time.

But lately, he's been dealing with off the field issues and even though he's usually still on the sidelines during games, much of the play-calling is being done by the offensive coordinator, who may not be up to the job. The QB has started calling some audibles lately too and most of them have resulted in incompletions, fumbles or interceptions.

Plus, it's getting to about the 11th game of the season and the QB is really beaten up. He's awful sore and can't always make the passes he used to. Sometimes, he has trouble avoiding sacks he could have easily sidestepped before. The backup is a wily veteran, but he's riddled with injuries and doesn't get along with teammates, fans or sportswriters. The team would rather keep him on the bench.

A lot of his former teammates have moved on to other teams or retired. The wide receivers he used to throw to, who he knew would catch that sideline pass or the deep out, aren't playing with him anymore. His tailback has been conveterted into a free safety and hasn't adapted well. He's working with aging players, subs and free agents, many of whom were late-round draft picks. The talent just isn't what it used to be.

Plus, don't forget that this QB is used to winning. He's never really had a losing season. As a youngster, he saw the NFL up close. His dad was a QB too, who spent much of his career as a backup. Then dad managed to win a Superbowl after the starter retired, mostly because the rest of the team was pretty much made up of the same players who won with the starter. The remainder of his career was unmemorable. W, the star QB, didn't want to end up viewed that way.

At first, he didn't. Our QB has won two Superbowls and he's made the playoffs every year since he teamed up with this coach. They won two BCS bowls together when they were back in college, in part because their conference schedule was so weak.

This year, the team started off this season pretty strong, going say, 5-1. But they're 0-4 since the coach's problems have gotten really bad. And they haven't even been playing great teams. There is that constant rival that always seem to be a thorn in their side. In fact their only loss in the early season was to that rival (those Baghdad boys play rough). Yeah, that Gulf Coast team was stronger than expected, although some good scouting could have netted a victory. But recently it's been turnovers and poor play-calling that's sabotaged them. Some of the team's own players have been bad-mouthing the quarterback

They're 5-5 now. Obviously, there's still enough time to come back with a winning record and make the playoffs. But the QB's legacy and the team's prospects for the next few years are on the line. He's retiring at the end of this contract so this is his last chance for glory. Players are threatening to leave the team after the season. Some of them are even threatening to quit right now, in the middle of the season. People who used to compare him to Brady and Starr (although never to Montana, Favre or Elway) are starting to mention him in the same breath as Trent Dilfer or even Jeff Hostetler (although never, ever to Doug Williams).

He COULD come back, it's true. But it's not like he's got any impressive rookies to speak of. None of the subs have stepped up. There aren't any free agents available. And this QB's never been known for his scrambling ability or, as mentioned before, his audible skills. He's never been great at reading defenses. He likes to just plow ahead, ignoring the defense completely. It's worked in the past, because he usually knows how to use the talent aroud him. He likes the first 15 plays (okay, let's make that the first 150) laid out for him.

But unless the coach throws a hail mary of his own, there's a pretty good chance that because of his off field issues, he'll have to leave the team for the rest of the season, and maybe for good.

So what does that mean? What are the likely scenarios?

1) 6-0 for the rest of the season, 11-5 over all and another Super Bowl and a place as a legend in NFL history. Conceivable, especially if the coach makes a full recovery from his off-field issues, but not likely.

2) 0-6 for the remainder, 5-11 overall and a fall from grace of stunning proportions? Possible but there's still enough talent to win a few games and the remainder of the schedule has got to be easier than the last few games.

3) More likely is 2-4. In a weak division (the political NFC North), he'll stay in the playoff hunt longer than he has any right to but those last few weeks will be painful as he limps to season's end with the knowledge that he's not getting to the promised land. 7-9 and lots of coulda, woulda, shoulda articles in the The Sporting News and SI.

Only after the season and in the years that follow, will it become apparent that the QB stumbled into the perfect situation, was given chances others wouldn't have gotten because people remembered his dad's pro days, because he was pretty good up close with fans, and most of all, because he trusted his coach without reservation. As time passes, it will become clear that without that coach, the QB probably would have made a Division I program but likely wouldn't have ever been a starter there. He would have gotten his degree, joined Dad's firm as an overpaid executive and led a charmed, if uneventful life.

But he did meet that coach. And even though Coach Rove was generally considered to be dirty and thought to have cheated and lied about other coaches and players, he knew how to call a play and he knew how to lead a team. And that coach led his QB to the promised land... twice. But now the coach is on the ropes, which means the QB is on his own for the first time in years. We'll see, but I suspect that without Coach Rove, this quarterback is going to be revealed as a scrub."

-Andirant

VERONICA MARS (10/5/05 episode)

I’ll admit that I was a little underwhelmed by the big season premiere. It was still clever and snarky but there was just too much going on. Plus, I didn’t buy the whiplash Logan/Duncan love switch. It made Veronica seem too needy- like she had to be with someone, regardless of whether it was believable.

The second episode was much stronger. The “Logan sinks back into his bad old ways” plotline looks promising. That Kendall Casablancas affair is going to get ugly (I hope). Nice to see Wallace getting a sniff of some play, even if the girl looks like trouble. Nice also to see Kristin Datillo getting a little work. The Whedon-Buffy-Angel connections seem to even have rivulets that finger out to guest-starring roles. And any epsiode that ends to the strains of a Pixies tune deserves The Rant's respect.

THE WEST WING (10/9/05 episode)

The ratings suggest that few others do, but I’m getting a kick out the revitalized show, now that Jimmy Smits vs. Alan Alda has taken center stage. It’s still hard for me to imagine the writers will ultimately go with any outcome other than a Matt Santos administration but getting there sure has been fun so far.

NUMB3RS (in general)

Diane Farr has been solid as the Sabrina Lloyd replacement (mourning period slowly fading) but how much more interesting would it have been if last season's guest star, Sarah Wayne Callies, had stuck around the office as Don’s (Rob Morrow) ex. His character seems pretty combustible as it is. Imagine the stakes if he was dealing with harrowing cases, protecting his genius little brother and navigating the pitfalls of working with his former love. Oh well, Numb3rs’ loss is Prison Break’s gain.

Top 10 TV Shows- 2004

Best TV -2004

1) The Wire- This show will not cater to you. You have to come to it. You have to invest some time and energy and brainpower and focus to get the most out of the best show on television. But the rewards are well worth it. Epic in scope, with over thirty major characters, plotlines that crisscross each other and head off in directions unmapped, The Wire is nothing if not ambitious. Chronicling the complicated world of Baltimore cops, drug dealers and politicos, it gets deep under the leprous skin of a city seemingly leeching with decay and corruption. We are immersed in multiple universes, spending time with the special police task force trying to infiltrate a ruthless drug ring, the drug dealers themselves, and the local politicians who are trying to work every possible angle.

Good people do terrible things, terrible people have moments of grace and fate lays its heavy hand down on all of them the same. In the world of The Wire, like the real world, no one is perfect and human frailty rules the day. But flaws can be overcome, if only temporarily and decency still has a place at the table.

This show is not safe. Major characters are killed off and whole plotlines can take sudden, radical turns. The Wire is rich with detail and certainty of purpose and it rewards the patient viewer with moments of truth so crystal clear, they can sometime be hard to face. And all the while, the people of this Baltimore continue their mighty struggles, though few seemingly ever escape the city’s inexorable pull back to the center, back to the Pit.

2) The Daily Show with Jon Stewart- I don’t think I would have made it through the campaign season this year without Jon Stewart. His sarcastic, seemingly cynical (but secretly hopeful) rants against all things politically hypocritical, was a salve for my wounded civic soul. And this from a comedy, which he constantly reminds us is a “fake news” show. It’s cliché by now to point out that his fake news is sometimes more probing and incisive than much of today’s real television news. In addition, the in-the-field- correspondent pieces are often perfect little snippets of semi-improvised street theater. When Stephen Colbert went to the Democratic Convention and put together a forum for all the wronged demographic representatives (whom he proceeded to directly address by their most basic characteristics- black dude, tree-hugger, Jewish guy, gay chick, etc.) to discuss their gripes, well I’ll just say, that was some funny stuff.

3) Scrubs- There aren’t very many traditional sitcoms on my list, but this fresh, offbeat treasure packs enough laughs in its 22 minutes to make up for a dozen other crappy so-called comedies. Verbal humor, slapstick, surreal flights of fancy, extended non-sequiturial riffs- Scrubs has it all. This show takes on everything from life and death, to race and class, to sex to love, to pretty girly names, to janitorial revenge plots with the same brio and enthusiasm. And just when you think you’ve got a bead on what’s happening, the show hits you with moments of such real, heartfelt emotion that you fear you’ll need a few minutes to regroup and take on the funny again. Brendan Fraser’s guest starring episode last spring had the single most stunning take-your-breath-away moment on TV this year.

4) The Amazing Race (Seasons 5 & 6)- Hooray! A reality show that doesn’t make you feel dirty. My only shame comes from missing the first four installments of the best reality program on television. There is something oddly riveting about watching complete strangers melt down (or rise to the occasion) as they dash around the world in a non-stop, sleep deprived, physically and intellectually draining race for a million dollars. Was there anything more impressive on TV this year than watching little person Charla overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles (and the most annoying, self-pitying teammate/cousin in the world) as she proved that you don’t have win the race to win over the American viewing public?

5) Lost- 48 survivors of a plane crash no one should have survived? Polar bears on a tropical island? Wheel-chair bound men rising up and walking? Crazy French chicks? Unknown monsters that eat pilots for lunch? What the hell is happening on this island? I have my own theories, as does everybody else who watches this jigsaw puzzle of a show. Of course, I’m probably wrong. And of course, none of the narrative intrigue would work if the mysteries surrounding the characters weren’t as captivating as the mystery of the island. I don’t know where this show is headed but I do know that I’m following close behind.

6) The Sopranos- Not that this show has ever had a truly bad season, but let’s just say that season 4 was not up to Sopranos snuff. That’s why it was great to see such a smooth return to form in Season 5. So much going on, so little space. Whether watching Carmela’s slow drift back to the easy comfort of Tony’s world or FBI informant Adriana’s descent into a stress-induced shell of her former self, this was the season where the ladies really got to shine. Too bad it all ended so badly for one while the prognosis doesn’t look good for the other. I can’t wait to see how these people, living in the rank sweat of an enseamed bed, stewed in corruption, live out their final, Shakespearean (yes, the allusions are appropriate) season.

7) Entourage- The last of HBO’s three shows in the top seven. How can a show be this inside Hollywood AND completely accessible? Maybe because it focuses as much on friendship and loyalty as on movie star minutiae. Plus it’s just damn funny.

8) The Office- The second (and final) season, along with the two-hour special set three years later, was an amazing combination of side-splittingly funny and so-painful-you-have-to-cover-your-eyes moments. Ricky Gervais’s desperate to be loved but impossible to like boss felt so real, you could only pray it wasn’t based on a real person.

9) Joe Schmo 2- This overlooked Spike TV gem (and its precursor) was endlessly inventive. A reality show and a comedic riff on reality shows (two contestants don’t realize everyone else on a Bachelor-type dating show is an actor) tweaked all the conventions of reality TV while maintaining genuine suspense about the final outcome. Plus, Montecore the falcon was the king of the pratfall.

10) TIE
The Apprentice- The penny’s a little worn in round two, but the first go-round was a hoot. The competitions and back-biting were great but the real fun came from Trump’s endless supply of self-promoting, self-aggrandizing comments- “I built this building for 400 million dollars and it has the best views and the most expensive rent in all of Manhattan…”

Touching Evil- A twelve episode revelation on USA, Jeffrey Donovan plays a detective who specializes in hunting serial killers. But upon his return to work after a leave of absence to recover from a gunshot wound to the head, his behavior makes his co-workers (and even him) question his instincts and stability. Moody and brooding, with a dark sense of humor, this was a pleasant, and totally unexpected, surprise.

Top Ten extra (Old show)

The Prisoner- Okay, so this show actually originally aired in 1967, but I only caught it this year on BBC America. Its one season is a crazy psychedelic roller-coaster about a British secret agent imprisoned at a remote island village for mysterious reasons. I didn’t always understand it, but I was always fascinated.

The Next Five (actually, seven) Best

11) Alias- The third season meandered a little (the promising Sydney-Vaughn-Lauren twisted love triangle turned simplistic around mid-season) but the action was still great, the twists still surprised and Jennifer Garner and Victor Garber continue to shine as they deepen the most compelling father/daughter relationship on television.

12) TIE
Jack & Bobby/Veronica Mars- Both shows are brand new so it’s a little premature to rave too much but…

The conceit of Jack & Bobby, looking back on a future president’s youth, has been surprisingly effective. Plus the show is sustained by two great performances- Christine Lahti’s brittle, brilliant professor and Matt Long as her too-wise-for-his-years elder son.

As to Veronica Mars, it’s the closest thing to Buffy I’ve got these days, with spunky, independent grrrl power poster child Veronica (Kristen Bell) snarkily solving crimes and sorting out her own high-school demons as she tries to determine who murdered her best friend.

13) 24 – A solid rebound from a lame second season. A lot happened: Jack has to chop off his partner’s arm to save L.A., a whole hotel full of people died of an engineered virus and quiet Michelle emerged as a steel-willed heroine. Bring on season 4. And keep it dark please.

14) TIE
Curb Your Enthusiasm/ Da Ali G Show- Both shows are so awkward and painful, I sometimes forgot to laugh because of all the cringing. If Larry David or Ali G ever stopped by The Office, the building might implode from generalized discomfort.

15) Arrested Development- Sometimes there’s almost too much funny stuff going on. It’s like the writers are afraid the show is about to be cancelled so they throw every gag possible into each episode. Non-stop, chuckly weirdness.

Honorable mention (in order of preference)

Nip/Tuck- I didn’t watch this show the first season on principle. But once I checked it out, I was hooked by the parade of endless, amoral bed-hopping and double-dealing.

Without a Trace- The best TV procedural going, partly because it’s not afraid to go dark (they don’t save everyone) and partly because we actually get to know the characters.

Joey – It’s no Friends and there’s nothing edgy about this show but Matt LeBlanc’s facial expressions and line readings are good for a half dozen belly laughs each week.

America’s Next Top Model- Tyra means well but this train wreck (in a good way) reinforces every model stereotype. Destroyed self-images have never been so much fun.

Best Week Ever- Hit and miss but when it hits, it packs a comedy punch.

Kevin Hill- Teeters on the edge of cliché but manages to stay charming & avoid cloying.

The Assistant- Who wants to be Andy Dick’s Next Top Assistant? Absurd and hilarious.

Road Rules X-treme- Was I this dysfunctional at 19? Did others get amusement from it?

The West Wing- Jimmy Smits + staff infighting= way better than last year.

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition- More reality TV that actually makes you feel good.

My Big, Fat Obnoxious Fiancé- Reality TV that makes you feel bad for laughing so hard at something so wrong.

-andirant


*I'd like to extend a special thanks to the good people at Tivo, for making all this viewage possible.

Salutations, dullards & rubes and THE REASON (first official blog posting)

So here it is. My very first blog. I've seen them. I've read them on occasion. I understand that a few people who write them even got political party convention access. I'm a little intimidated to keep typing, considering all the attendant, blog-related pressure. But I will press on.

I'm not sure yet what the ultimate incarnation of this weblog will be. I suspect that it will have a few rants about American politics and policy. I have the occasional opinion. I might even try to offer a few constructive suggestions for how to change the troubling, increasingly polarized cultural dynamic in this country. There may be a movie review or two. Maybe a little venting about issues in my life that I don't care to verbalize with an actual human-type person. Perhaps even a little anonymous raging against the dying of the light. After all, this blog isn't called "andirant" for no reason.

I'll be general to start- sort of a dip-my-toe-in-the-pool post to get in the swing of things. I live in California, bastion of liberalism, the bluest blue state not on the Eastern Seaboard and I like it here. I feel comfortable here. Mostly.

You see, I'm a transplant. And a transplant from the South, no less. And if there's anything about my adopted home state that I find irritating of late, it's the pervasive mentality that all those red state people who voted for Bush are either stupid or just "don't get it." Now I voted for Kerry. Not so much out of enthusiasm for the guy but (like so many others) because of an almost tangible distate for the incumbent.

But I know a lot of people who voted for that incumbent. And almost none of them are stupid. And with few exceptions, they "get" it. Let me clarify . They "get" the concept that our country faces incredible challenges at home and abroad. They get that our our national conversation has turned into a shouting match. They get that the things that unite as a people are fast being overwhelmed by the things that divide us. They are aware that the world is being re-made and that not everyone likes the new look.

What they don't "get" is that their entire worldview is wrong, that everything they believe is unworthy of anything but contempt and that their support for President Bush will lead to the destruction of the America we know and love. They don't "get" that.

Many of my more liberal friends and associates subscribe to the notion that the above description of President Bush's supporters is pretty much spot-on. They either shake their heads with confusion or cluck sympathetically at the dullards and rubes who handed President Bush another four years.

The arrogant assumption on the left that the people who supported President Bush this time around were either suckered, psycho or sinister has permeated the collective consciousness. Thus, the e-mails circulating that have a map which refers to most of the US as "Jesus Land" or the e-mail that includes a (false) study indicating that the average IQ in blue-voting states is substantially higher than in red ones.

When you boil it down to the most basic level, this kind of highbrow, self-deluding name-calling of the opposition is the adult equivalent of one kid losing a race at recess and saying "Well, you may have won the race, but I'm in Honors Math and you're not, Dumbhead."

Whatever, Math Boy. You wanted to win the race. You trained hard for it. You could almost taste victory. And you lost. Talking about your math class doesn't change the fact that you lost. And you're not fooling anyone, except maybe yourself. Maybe you should take a look at why you lost and focus on improving your technique for the next race. Telling the winner and everyone who cheered him on that they're Dumbheads isn't winning you any friends and it's distracting from the job at hand- winning the next race, winning races consistently, leaving that other kid in the dust.

Clunky, extended metaphors aside, I think my point is clear. Senator Kerry did not lose the race because President Bush's supporters were lemmings who jumped off a political cliff. Kerry lost because (well, there were a bunch of reasons, but for the purposes of this discussion) the Republicans, and more generally, the conservative movement, found a way to connect with voters, to convince them that they shared those voters' values and understood their concerns, more than the Democratic Party did.

That's it. That's the reason. Not because the Democrats didn't effectively get their message out. Or because Republicans used dirty tricks or fear tactics. Those things may all be true but they're not THE REASON. The Republican party won a pretty convincing win this time around and that kind of broad-based victory at local, state and national levels is not the result of strategic errors or dirty tricks. It is the result of a fundamental inability to connect with huge segments of the American voting public.

Now what to do about that? Well, this first post is getting a little long, so I'll have to hold off on that one for now (I swear I'm not wussing out- I just have other things to do right now). Frankly, I'm not sure I have any answers, but I know that to come up with good answers you have to at least be asking the right questions.

More questions to come.

-andirant