A source on the ground in Missouri has told me that Barack Obama will be holding a rally in Columbia, Missouri on Thursday. This information has not been released to the media or the public, so those readers of the "Press Box" are the first to find out.
The rally will take place in the Mizzou Stadium, home of the Missouri Tigers.....I wonder if Heisman hopeful Chase Daniel will throw a pass to Barack Obama at the rally. Now that would be a fun thing to watch.
Missouri is a pivotal state in this election that not many people are talking about. According to my source in Missouri, no candidate has won the presidency without winning Missouri, except for in 1914. Woodrow Wilson was the lucky one to win without Missouri.
Barack Obama could easily win the election without Missouri because of his popularity in the other battleground states, but if John McCain loses Missouri, he can watch his hopes of becoming the next President of the U.S. go straight out the window.
Two polls right now have the candidates in a tight race. In one poll, Barack Obama has a 1 point lead and in the other, John McCain has a 1 point lead.
This rally could be pivotal in swaying the undecided voters in Missouri. A good speech by Obama could mean winning the state of Missouri.
We are only 8 days away until we find out who will be our next president. On that note, GET OUT TO VOTE! Do not assume that Obama will win your state just because he is ahead. Polls don't mean anything. Actual votes do!
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Palin for President in 2012?
We are only 10 days away from our country selecting the next President of the United States. It will be either the unknown senator from Illinois turned celebrity named Barack Obama or it will be the veteran of the U.S. Senate, John McCain.
So our attention right now should fully be on these two candidates, right? Eh, not so fast. There is already talk about who is going to run in 2012 and you might be surprised to find out who is the most likely person to represent the Republican Party. It’s not Mitt Romney. It’s not Rudy Guiliani. It’s not Mike Huckabee. It’s the Tina Fey look-a-like….Sarah Palin. (this is the time you get out all of your expletives).
Yes, you heard me right the first time. The governor of Alaska may be positioning herself for a run at the presidency in 2012 if Obama is to win on November 4th. It seems completely ridiculous at first, but it actually does make a little bit of sense…not much, but a little bit.
Just look at the campaign thus far. Palin has been getting in the news for disagreeing with McCain on several issues. The first issue came up about a month ago when McCain said he was giving up on Michigan, a key battleground state. Palin came out the very next day in the media to say that she completely disagreed with the move.
One of the most recent issues that Palin has disagreed with McCain on has been the robo-calls that are hitting battleground states across the country. Palin was asked what she thought about the robo-calls and she said she would reach the voters in a different way; she said the campaign would be better off going door-to-door and talking to the voters face-to-face.
Now on the surface, it seems pretty ludicrous for the running mate of John McCain to publicly dispute moves by the McCain campaign, but if you look deeper, it makes complete sense. By disagreeing with McCain on some issues, Palin will be able to come out after November 4th and say it wasn’t her fault that McCain lost.
As hard as it is for me to say this….I completely agree with Palin’s decision. Sarah Palin is not the reason why McCain is behind in the polls. McCain is behind in the polls because the economy is in complete shambles. Voters may not be going to the polls on election day to choose the person they think will be the best person to lead the country; instead, they will be pushing the pen onto the ballot to select the candidate that they feel is best suited to get the economy in better shape. Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the economy.
If it weren’t for Sarah Palin, the evangelical Christians and the hardcore Republicans would not be too thrilled with Senator McCain. McCain chose Palin so she could excite the base. Palin didn’t do a good job of this…she did a GREAT job.
So, while people may say that Palin was good for the Republican ticket in the short-term and bad in the long-term, to Sarah Palin all that matters is that she continues to keep her celebrity status, because look what’s happening to a senator from Illinois.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
So our attention right now should fully be on these two candidates, right? Eh, not so fast. There is already talk about who is going to run in 2012 and you might be surprised to find out who is the most likely person to represent the Republican Party. It’s not Mitt Romney. It’s not Rudy Guiliani. It’s not Mike Huckabee. It’s the Tina Fey look-a-like….Sarah Palin. (this is the time you get out all of your expletives).
Yes, you heard me right the first time. The governor of Alaska may be positioning herself for a run at the presidency in 2012 if Obama is to win on November 4th. It seems completely ridiculous at first, but it actually does make a little bit of sense…not much, but a little bit.
Just look at the campaign thus far. Palin has been getting in the news for disagreeing with McCain on several issues. The first issue came up about a month ago when McCain said he was giving up on Michigan, a key battleground state. Palin came out the very next day in the media to say that she completely disagreed with the move.
One of the most recent issues that Palin has disagreed with McCain on has been the robo-calls that are hitting battleground states across the country. Palin was asked what she thought about the robo-calls and she said she would reach the voters in a different way; she said the campaign would be better off going door-to-door and talking to the voters face-to-face.
Now on the surface, it seems pretty ludicrous for the running mate of John McCain to publicly dispute moves by the McCain campaign, but if you look deeper, it makes complete sense. By disagreeing with McCain on some issues, Palin will be able to come out after November 4th and say it wasn’t her fault that McCain lost.
As hard as it is for me to say this….I completely agree with Palin’s decision. Sarah Palin is not the reason why McCain is behind in the polls. McCain is behind in the polls because the economy is in complete shambles. Voters may not be going to the polls on election day to choose the person they think will be the best person to lead the country; instead, they will be pushing the pen onto the ballot to select the candidate that they feel is best suited to get the economy in better shape. Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the economy.
If it weren’t for Sarah Palin, the evangelical Christians and the hardcore Republicans would not be too thrilled with Senator McCain. McCain chose Palin so she could excite the base. Palin didn’t do a good job of this…she did a GREAT job.
So, while people may say that Palin was good for the Republican ticket in the short-term and bad in the long-term, to Sarah Palin all that matters is that she continues to keep her celebrity status, because look what’s happening to a senator from Illinois.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Undecided Voter
It is a rare endangered species for 45 months and then with about three months before the election, it creates offspring in the form of attention-seeking animals, which dominate the political world. This specie is the undecided voter. Apparently, the undecided voter has been sent from the election heavens to decide this presidential election. However, political experts and the media are making too much of the undecided voter, because in actuality, the undecided voter most likely has made up his or her mind.
If you watched the last presidential debate on Wednesday night, you definitely know who ‘Joe the Plumber is.’ Even if you didn’t watch the debate, you have to have been locked up in a cage to have not heard anything about him. His name isn’t important, especially since his name isn’t even Joe…it’s Samuel. What is important is the candidate Joe is going to vote for. Right now, he is still undecided which puts him into the category of an undecided voter. Joe the Plumber is one of the people in our world who goes to bed every night not knowing who they are going to vote for.
The undecided voter has been a focus of the election, especially in the debates and polls. Some examples of it being on display is on CNN’s debate coverage with the line at the bottom of the screen that is based on positive or negative feedback from Ohio uncommitted voters, as well as the town hall format for the second debate where every audience member was supposedly undecided. There is also have the post-debate coverage from every station where they get together a group of these undecided voters and ask them if they have suddenly decided who to vote for after the past debate, as well as the polls released right after the debate where the people questioned are those infamous undecided voters.
It’s very hard to understand how someone can be 17 days away from the election and still not know who he or she is going to vote for, but the fact of the matter is that 8% of our nation, according to a recent LA Times poll, is undecided.
However, Barack Obama and John McCain may be wasting their precious time and money trying to sway the undecided voters. The poll put out by the LA Times may say that 8% of our nation is undecided, but Bertram Gawronski, PhD, of the University of Western Ontario, believes the voters just may not know that their decision has been made. "It's not that people are lying to the pollsters, it's that they may not consciously recognize the automatic associations that influence their decisions," said Gawronski.
An example of someone who says he is an undecided voter but when he talks about the issues and what he thinks about both candidates is the aforementioned ‘Joe the Plumber.’ He was interviewed after the debate and said he disagrees with Obama’s tax policy and feels McCain did the best job during the debate. Then, CNN came out with a story today saying McCain has invited Joe to campaign with him. If all of this evidence isn’t enough to sway you to believe Joe has already made his mind, then I don’t know what will.
So while Obama and McCain are spending money on ads being played in swing states and their time in these states, they really should be spending their time getting the 40-45% of the population that is their base to vote. If they spend their resources getting voters to the polls and getting people to register, they would be in much better shape.
So, when you turn on the television tonight or anytime in the next two weeks before the election, don’t be fooled when the media and political experts talk about the undecided voter and how critical he is to either candidate winning the election, because in reality, the undecided voter isn’t as undecided as he is made out to be. In conclusion, the undecided voter will rule the media for the next few weeks but after November 4th, it will become just another endangered specie until 2012.
If you watched the last presidential debate on Wednesday night, you definitely know who ‘Joe the Plumber is.’ Even if you didn’t watch the debate, you have to have been locked up in a cage to have not heard anything about him. His name isn’t important, especially since his name isn’t even Joe…it’s Samuel. What is important is the candidate Joe is going to vote for. Right now, he is still undecided which puts him into the category of an undecided voter. Joe the Plumber is one of the people in our world who goes to bed every night not knowing who they are going to vote for.
The undecided voter has been a focus of the election, especially in the debates and polls. Some examples of it being on display is on CNN’s debate coverage with the line at the bottom of the screen that is based on positive or negative feedback from Ohio uncommitted voters, as well as the town hall format for the second debate where every audience member was supposedly undecided. There is also have the post-debate coverage from every station where they get together a group of these undecided voters and ask them if they have suddenly decided who to vote for after the past debate, as well as the polls released right after the debate where the people questioned are those infamous undecided voters.
It’s very hard to understand how someone can be 17 days away from the election and still not know who he or she is going to vote for, but the fact of the matter is that 8% of our nation, according to a recent LA Times poll, is undecided.
However, Barack Obama and John McCain may be wasting their precious time and money trying to sway the undecided voters. The poll put out by the LA Times may say that 8% of our nation is undecided, but Bertram Gawronski, PhD, of the University of Western Ontario, believes the voters just may not know that their decision has been made. "It's not that people are lying to the pollsters, it's that they may not consciously recognize the automatic associations that influence their decisions," said Gawronski.
An example of someone who says he is an undecided voter but when he talks about the issues and what he thinks about both candidates is the aforementioned ‘Joe the Plumber.’ He was interviewed after the debate and said he disagrees with Obama’s tax policy and feels McCain did the best job during the debate. Then, CNN came out with a story today saying McCain has invited Joe to campaign with him. If all of this evidence isn’t enough to sway you to believe Joe has already made his mind, then I don’t know what will.
So while Obama and McCain are spending money on ads being played in swing states and their time in these states, they really should be spending their time getting the 40-45% of the population that is their base to vote. If they spend their resources getting voters to the polls and getting people to register, they would be in much better shape.
So, when you turn on the television tonight or anytime in the next two weeks before the election, don’t be fooled when the media and political experts talk about the undecided voter and how critical he is to either candidate winning the election, because in reality, the undecided voter isn’t as undecided as he is made out to be. In conclusion, the undecided voter will rule the media for the next few weeks but after November 4th, it will become just another endangered specie until 2012.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Journalism Over the Years
A major story doesn’t find itself, but rather it takes a man or woman with motivation and determination to go out and share with the world what he or she has found. This is a job journalists take on each and every day. It doesn’t matter if it is a reporter for the local Fox station in Los Angeles, a newspaper writer for the Washington Post or a radio talk show host in Chicago, all three have to find something that would interest the public; over the years these findings have been called news. However, the news that is delivered to the public is a lot different than it used to be. Over time, Journalism started to change from one kind of news based on actual news stories, such as World War II, the Holocaust and the civil rights movement to another type of news based on stories such as Paris Hilton going to rehab or Britney Spears losing custody of her child to Kevin Federline. There are a number of dates in history that experts can point to as the turning point of journalism, but one event that undoubtedly shifted the change in the type of news desired by the people was Watergate. Pre-1974, there wasn’t a lot of pressure amongst newspapers or television stations to find and deliver the “big story,” but Watergate changed all of this. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post first broke the story of Richard Nixon and his aides conspiring to bug the headquarters of the Democratic Party in Washington D.C. It was "the single most spectacular act of serious journalism [of the 20th] century," said media critic Ben Bagdikian (American Journalism Review). This may have been a true example of serious journalism, but it was also a turning point of journalism. Because of Woodward and Bernstein, other newspapers and television stations were being pressured to first report the next big story, which has led to an increase in sensational journalism and in turn, journalism that is no longer based on its straight facts and validity, but instead on its timeliness and intrigue to the national public.
Once Woodward and Bernstein broke the story of Watergate, every network set out to find something new about Watergate that hadn’t been released. It didn’t matter if the information found had a credible source or even no source at all, it just mattered that the network find the information and be the first one to do so. Competition arose amongst the networks and managers started to realize that news could become highly profitable; this is when journalism turns into networks feeding rumors to the public. After the Congress and the courts started to expose the unlawful acts going on in the White House, the media started finding whatever it could. For example, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite “falsely implicated White House aide Patrick Buchanan in money-laundering” (American Journalism Review). A writer for the New York Times, Jeff Gerth, “claimed that Nixon’s supposed financial ties to Mafia financier Meyer Lansky and Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa meant that ‘organized crime…put its own man in the White House’”(American Journalism Review). Both of these examples show how the validity of the reporting is not as important as being the first to get the information out to the public.
In today’s era, it is much harder to report news that hasn’t been verified because if you are wrong, a lawsuit could arise, and in the case of a television station, it could lose its license. However, while it may be risky to release information to the public that hasn’t been verified, if the news is something that wouldn’t harm the network to a large degree, attract a lot of viewers and get ratings, it will be released. The drive for ratings has changed the type of journalism we see in today’s world. Because of the fear of lawsuits, networks are no longer focused on stories such as Watergate, but instead on stories that have more leeway in terms of their validity. For example, accusing George W. Bush of cheating on his wife and being wrong could ruin a network and bring it to the ground, but accusing Britney Spears of the same charge wouldn’t harm the network. This is why celebrities have become the focal point of today’s news. News executives are no longer focused on finding the “hard-hitting” story, but instead on getting a story that is interesting in the public’s eye.
One of the main reasons why the “hard-hitting” story is no longer as popular in today’s news is because of the way our society has changed as a whole from one that is willing to wait for the “big story” to one that wants the news instantly. “Who, today, is willing to wait a month for breaking news? We want our news now” (Nieman Reports). Whether it is text messages with the latest sports scores of your favorite team to one push of a button on your Blackberry to get on the Internet, people want the latest news as soon as possible. I even became a victim of this myself last week when waiting for the O.J. Simpson verdict. I watched the verdict being read live but I wanted to see how long it would take for CNN.com to post the verdict. It took three minutes before the page had updated. Twenty years ago, someone would have laughed at the idea of news on the Internet only three minutes after it had occurred. However, our world has changed so much over the past two decades that it would reflect negatively on the network if the breaking news weren’t updated immediately. This need for news right away has brought about the concept of a 24-hour news cycle, which has introduced “the fact that there is no deadline, or that every second is a deadline” (American Journalism Review). News channels such as CNN and Fox News were created for the sole purpose of giving news every minute of every day. It is impossible to find a new story to report every hour, so stories that would have the potential to last longer and be talked about for weeks or months became prominent in news. A few examples of this happening were the O.J. Simpson murder case and the Elian Gonzalez story (The Columbia Journalism Review). These cases may not be about health care, the economy or other huge issues in the world today, but they do have a spectacle to them. The Boston Globe put it perfectly when saying, “The past few decades have also seen a shift from stories with in-depth coverage to those with “speed and spectacle” (Boston Globe). It takes time for a big story such as Watergate to develop, but it takes five minutes for someone to see Paris Hilton on her way back from rehab, call the news station and then send a helicopter to the scene to follow her. As unfortunate as it is, the desire of people wanting news immediately has led journalists to become more like the paparazzi than a Pulitzer winner.
While timeliness has become one of the key factors in the type of news being covered, another factor is the intrigue of the news itself. An expert in health care may be thoroughly fascinated by the subject, but he or she doesn’t want to hear about it for thirty minutes. However, a story like Hurricane Katrina or the Dow Jones dropping below 10,000 for the first time in over four years is something that all people are interested in. There is one story that is found on “both the front-page and the evening news: a human-interest story” (Columbia Journalism Review). Human-interest stories may be something as important to our lives such as a hurricane or the economy, but it also could include stories such as a man having the ability to become pregnant. This exact story was on the cover of People Magazine last April. Now, while this story may not be as hard-hitting as other stories, it is intriguing in the public’s eye. The fact that it was on the cover of People Magazine, a magazine with its own website that had 51.7 million hits on the day after the Oscars in 2007, proves that the editors of the magazine felt like it would attract enough people to read it. It has the shock and startle factor that is interesting and makes people want to know more. Moreover, while the timeliness of a story is crucial in getting people’s attention, it also has to have the human-interest aspect.
There are many differences between our world today and the world we lived in thirty years ago and this clearly shows in the field of journalism. The introduction of the Internet and cable news has forced the journalism industry to adjust in order to keep people interested. News stories used to sell themselves and some still do today, but because of the way our society has changed over the past few decades, the media has to do more to sell its product. Whether it is making the news released to the public timelier or adding a human-interest aspect to it, it definitely takes something extra today to get people interested. Twenty years from now, the journalism industry definitely won’t be the same and there will be something new and exciting that gets people interested. Someone living twenty years ago would have balked at the idea of news alerts via text message or Internet on a cell phone, but this just shows how journalism is continuing to change. As we reflect back, journalists were defined as reporters who delivered solely factual news, while today many of them are viewed simply as sensationalists whose intent is to provide news with dramatic and artistic expression, while the question arises as to what the future of journalism will hold and how it will be defined.
Once Woodward and Bernstein broke the story of Watergate, every network set out to find something new about Watergate that hadn’t been released. It didn’t matter if the information found had a credible source or even no source at all, it just mattered that the network find the information and be the first one to do so. Competition arose amongst the networks and managers started to realize that news could become highly profitable; this is when journalism turns into networks feeding rumors to the public. After the Congress and the courts started to expose the unlawful acts going on in the White House, the media started finding whatever it could. For example, CBS anchor Walter Cronkite “falsely implicated White House aide Patrick Buchanan in money-laundering” (American Journalism Review). A writer for the New York Times, Jeff Gerth, “claimed that Nixon’s supposed financial ties to Mafia financier Meyer Lansky and Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa meant that ‘organized crime…put its own man in the White House’”(American Journalism Review). Both of these examples show how the validity of the reporting is not as important as being the first to get the information out to the public.
In today’s era, it is much harder to report news that hasn’t been verified because if you are wrong, a lawsuit could arise, and in the case of a television station, it could lose its license. However, while it may be risky to release information to the public that hasn’t been verified, if the news is something that wouldn’t harm the network to a large degree, attract a lot of viewers and get ratings, it will be released. The drive for ratings has changed the type of journalism we see in today’s world. Because of the fear of lawsuits, networks are no longer focused on stories such as Watergate, but instead on stories that have more leeway in terms of their validity. For example, accusing George W. Bush of cheating on his wife and being wrong could ruin a network and bring it to the ground, but accusing Britney Spears of the same charge wouldn’t harm the network. This is why celebrities have become the focal point of today’s news. News executives are no longer focused on finding the “hard-hitting” story, but instead on getting a story that is interesting in the public’s eye.
One of the main reasons why the “hard-hitting” story is no longer as popular in today’s news is because of the way our society has changed as a whole from one that is willing to wait for the “big story” to one that wants the news instantly. “Who, today, is willing to wait a month for breaking news? We want our news now” (Nieman Reports). Whether it is text messages with the latest sports scores of your favorite team to one push of a button on your Blackberry to get on the Internet, people want the latest news as soon as possible. I even became a victim of this myself last week when waiting for the O.J. Simpson verdict. I watched the verdict being read live but I wanted to see how long it would take for CNN.com to post the verdict. It took three minutes before the page had updated. Twenty years ago, someone would have laughed at the idea of news on the Internet only three minutes after it had occurred. However, our world has changed so much over the past two decades that it would reflect negatively on the network if the breaking news weren’t updated immediately. This need for news right away has brought about the concept of a 24-hour news cycle, which has introduced “the fact that there is no deadline, or that every second is a deadline” (American Journalism Review). News channels such as CNN and Fox News were created for the sole purpose of giving news every minute of every day. It is impossible to find a new story to report every hour, so stories that would have the potential to last longer and be talked about for weeks or months became prominent in news. A few examples of this happening were the O.J. Simpson murder case and the Elian Gonzalez story (The Columbia Journalism Review). These cases may not be about health care, the economy or other huge issues in the world today, but they do have a spectacle to them. The Boston Globe put it perfectly when saying, “The past few decades have also seen a shift from stories with in-depth coverage to those with “speed and spectacle” (Boston Globe). It takes time for a big story such as Watergate to develop, but it takes five minutes for someone to see Paris Hilton on her way back from rehab, call the news station and then send a helicopter to the scene to follow her. As unfortunate as it is, the desire of people wanting news immediately has led journalists to become more like the paparazzi than a Pulitzer winner.
While timeliness has become one of the key factors in the type of news being covered, another factor is the intrigue of the news itself. An expert in health care may be thoroughly fascinated by the subject, but he or she doesn’t want to hear about it for thirty minutes. However, a story like Hurricane Katrina or the Dow Jones dropping below 10,000 for the first time in over four years is something that all people are interested in. There is one story that is found on “both the front-page and the evening news: a human-interest story” (Columbia Journalism Review). Human-interest stories may be something as important to our lives such as a hurricane or the economy, but it also could include stories such as a man having the ability to become pregnant. This exact story was on the cover of People Magazine last April. Now, while this story may not be as hard-hitting as other stories, it is intriguing in the public’s eye. The fact that it was on the cover of People Magazine, a magazine with its own website that had 51.7 million hits on the day after the Oscars in 2007, proves that the editors of the magazine felt like it would attract enough people to read it. It has the shock and startle factor that is interesting and makes people want to know more. Moreover, while the timeliness of a story is crucial in getting people’s attention, it also has to have the human-interest aspect.
There are many differences between our world today and the world we lived in thirty years ago and this clearly shows in the field of journalism. The introduction of the Internet and cable news has forced the journalism industry to adjust in order to keep people interested. News stories used to sell themselves and some still do today, but because of the way our society has changed over the past few decades, the media has to do more to sell its product. Whether it is making the news released to the public timelier or adding a human-interest aspect to it, it definitely takes something extra today to get people interested. Twenty years from now, the journalism industry definitely won’t be the same and there will be something new and exciting that gets people interested. Someone living twenty years ago would have balked at the idea of news alerts via text message or Internet on a cell phone, but this just shows how journalism is continuing to change. As we reflect back, journalists were defined as reporters who delivered solely factual news, while today many of them are viewed simply as sensationalists whose intent is to provide news with dramatic and artistic expression, while the question arises as to what the future of journalism will hold and how it will be defined.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Post Season Baseball and an Early Look at the Clippers
After enjoying some bagels and cream cheese, some kugel and some dessert, I sat down to watch the end of the Dodgers-Phillies game. I was extremely excited by the end result: a 3-2 win by the Phillies. It took almost six innings for the Phillies to get to Derek Lowe. A huge error by Rafael Furcal was followed by a huge home run by Chase "Mr. April" Utley. It was only Utley's 2nd home run in 38 games but it came at a perfect time. Two batters later, Pat Burrell hit a solo shot to put the Phillies up for good.
Besides for Andre Ethier and Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers looked awful. The rest of the team will be happy to know that they won't be seeing Cole Hamels again until Game 5. Give credit to the Phillies fans for sticking in there and rooting on their team for more than one inning. I don't think there is any way Chad Billingsley loses tomorrow afternoon to Brett Myers, so I am predicting a 5-2 Dodgers victory. As my friend Jason says, "Billingsley will have a very similar run as Josh Beckett when he was a Florida Marlin."
After I watched the Phillies win, I decided to watch my Los Angeles Clippers against the Los Angeles Lakers in a pre-season game. I only caught the end, but I have a few thoughts on what I saw in a short time period from the Clippers rookies.
1. The Clippers draft picks from this year are going to end up being VERY good. I didn't get a chance to see Eric Gordon play but I have heard good things and I think his shooting will be a very valuable asset to this squad.
2. Also, DeAndre Jordan is for real. This kid looks good. He somehow ended up slipping to the Clippers in the 2nd round even though he was one of the top 25 guys in the draft. He is 6 foot 11 but he has a huge wingspan and will be very similar to another Clipper player...Marcus Camby. Both are long, athletic rebounders. Jordan should learn from Camby this year, which will help Jordan and the Clippers a lot. I expect big things from this kid.
3. The Clippers got a kid by the name of Mike Taylor in the late 2nd round. The Clippers got the pick from the Houston Rockets and it might be one of the best quiet moves the Clippers have ever made. The Clippers will need a point guard after Davis leaves town and hopefully Taylor is the guy. He definitely impressed today by making 9 of 12 shots for 20 points. He did have five turnovers but I will turn my head on that one and give the rookie a break.
4. Baron Davis looks great in a Clippers uniform.....FINE, he's not a rookie but he still looks like he belongs in the red and blue.
I will be blogging all year on the Clippers so look forward to it!
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Besides for Andre Ethier and Manny Ramirez, the Dodgers looked awful. The rest of the team will be happy to know that they won't be seeing Cole Hamels again until Game 5. Give credit to the Phillies fans for sticking in there and rooting on their team for more than one inning. I don't think there is any way Chad Billingsley loses tomorrow afternoon to Brett Myers, so I am predicting a 5-2 Dodgers victory. As my friend Jason says, "Billingsley will have a very similar run as Josh Beckett when he was a Florida Marlin."
After I watched the Phillies win, I decided to watch my Los Angeles Clippers against the Los Angeles Lakers in a pre-season game. I only caught the end, but I have a few thoughts on what I saw in a short time period from the Clippers rookies.
1. The Clippers draft picks from this year are going to end up being VERY good. I didn't get a chance to see Eric Gordon play but I have heard good things and I think his shooting will be a very valuable asset to this squad.
2. Also, DeAndre Jordan is for real. This kid looks good. He somehow ended up slipping to the Clippers in the 2nd round even though he was one of the top 25 guys in the draft. He is 6 foot 11 but he has a huge wingspan and will be very similar to another Clipper player...Marcus Camby. Both are long, athletic rebounders. Jordan should learn from Camby this year, which will help Jordan and the Clippers a lot. I expect big things from this kid.
3. The Clippers got a kid by the name of Mike Taylor in the late 2nd round. The Clippers got the pick from the Houston Rockets and it might be one of the best quiet moves the Clippers have ever made. The Clippers will need a point guard after Davis leaves town and hopefully Taylor is the guy. He definitely impressed today by making 9 of 12 shots for 20 points. He did have five turnovers but I will turn my head on that one and give the rookie a break.
4. Baron Davis looks great in a Clippers uniform.....FINE, he's not a rookie but he still looks like he belongs in the red and blue.
I will be blogging all year on the Clippers so look forward to it!
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
VP Debate
It was touted as a must-see debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. It was the only debate between the two Vice Presidential candidates that the nation was going to see. One could call it David vs. Goliath. Click here to see the debate.
Sarah Palin, aka David, came in to this debate well-liked by conservatives and hated by liberals. The pundits said she was going to get the floor wiped by Joe Biden. Biden, aka Goliath, has been in the Senate ever since Palin was in 2nd grade. He has proven he knows how to debate....and he showed the nation why he is ready to become VP. Palin also showed the nation why it is a freaking scary thought to think she is a heart beat away from the presidency.
One of the main reasons why I thought Palin didn't do a good job on Thursday was because of the way she debated. Every time she talked, it seemed very scripted. We all know she had spent the past few days in debate camp and it absolutely showed.
Just a quick thought...Does this mean that if Palin were to become Vice President she would need to take a 'How to Be a Vice President' tutorial?
Joe Biden didn't need any debate camp. He knew his stuff and shined. He knew what he wanted to talk about when it pertained to every issue, unlike Palin who pivoted to discuss the issues she wanted to talk about. At one point, Biden even called Palin out by saying how Palin didn't even answer the question. Palin responded by saying she may not say what the moderator or Biden wants to hear, and she only cares about informing the American people of the issues they need to be concerned about. (In a nutshell, this mean Palin will only discuss the few issues that 'Debate Camp' taught her.)
Let's be real here...Joe Biden could have made Palin look awful and attacked her on foreign policy, her experience, etc...but instead, Biden concentrated on attacking McCain. The nation, especially the undecided voters, don't want to hear how bad of a vice president Palin would be, but instead why they should vote for Barack Obama over John McCain. Biden accomplished just this, because he attacked McCain at every moment possible, which meant Palin couldn't go after Obama because she had to spend her time defending McCain.
Therefore, I give Biden an A in this debate and Sarah Palin a C. She exceeded expectations because she didn't say anything moronic, but she told lies and wasn't able to attack Obama at all. Next up....Presidential Debate #2 on Tuesday. Should be a great one.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Sarah Palin, aka David, came in to this debate well-liked by conservatives and hated by liberals. The pundits said she was going to get the floor wiped by Joe Biden. Biden, aka Goliath, has been in the Senate ever since Palin was in 2nd grade. He has proven he knows how to debate....and he showed the nation why he is ready to become VP. Palin also showed the nation why it is a freaking scary thought to think she is a heart beat away from the presidency.
One of the main reasons why I thought Palin didn't do a good job on Thursday was because of the way she debated. Every time she talked, it seemed very scripted. We all know she had spent the past few days in debate camp and it absolutely showed.
Just a quick thought...Does this mean that if Palin were to become Vice President she would need to take a 'How to Be a Vice President' tutorial?
Joe Biden didn't need any debate camp. He knew his stuff and shined. He knew what he wanted to talk about when it pertained to every issue, unlike Palin who pivoted to discuss the issues she wanted to talk about. At one point, Biden even called Palin out by saying how Palin didn't even answer the question. Palin responded by saying she may not say what the moderator or Biden wants to hear, and she only cares about informing the American people of the issues they need to be concerned about. (In a nutshell, this mean Palin will only discuss the few issues that 'Debate Camp' taught her.)
Let's be real here...Joe Biden could have made Palin look awful and attacked her on foreign policy, her experience, etc...but instead, Biden concentrated on attacking McCain. The nation, especially the undecided voters, don't want to hear how bad of a vice president Palin would be, but instead why they should vote for Barack Obama over John McCain. Biden accomplished just this, because he attacked McCain at every moment possible, which meant Palin couldn't go after Obama because she had to spend her time defending McCain.
Therefore, I give Biden an A in this debate and Sarah Palin a C. She exceeded expectations because she didn't say anything moronic, but she told lies and wasn't able to attack Obama at all. Next up....Presidential Debate #2 on Tuesday. Should be a great one.
Until next time, goodnight from the press box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)