Irish Trojan in Tennessee

Does anyone really believe...

By Brendan Loy

...that Obama can "close the door on the nomination with...a narrow loss in Indiana" and a win in North Carolina? Why on earth would Hillary, after a "split" on Tuesday, drop out of the race -- immediately before literally her best two states, outside of Arkansas, in the entire country (West Virginia and Kentucky)? That's crazy.

The only way Hillary drops out, maybe, is if she loses both of Tuesday's primaries outright, and her fundraising dries up as a result -- and even then, I'm not sure. Her path to the nomination no longer depends primarily on the voters; her strategy is centered on the superdelegates, not the pledged delegates (of which probably less than a dozen really hang in the balance in Indiana anyway). We already know she's going to finish way behind in the pledged delegate count; a win in Indiana won't change that, and by the same token, a loss in Indiana won't make the situation meaningfully worse than it already is.

What Indiana will do, of course, is play a big role in shaping the media narrative, which the superdelegates are susceptible to being swayed by. But Hillary knows perfectly well that West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico will swing the narrative back in her favor, if she stays in. Besides, we all know what will happen, narrative-wise, on Tuesday. Even if the media sets "a solid win in Indiana" as Hillary's goalpost now, it will inevitably get moved at the last minute, because on election night, the OMG! EXIT POLLS!! will show Obama winning Indiana by 6 points and North Carolina by 18, or something like that, and every idiotic, short-memoried pundit will declare Clinton's campaign over... whereupon she'll "rally" to win Indiana by 1 (which will look like 3 when Tim Russert goes to bed) and lose North Carolina by "just" 8 (which will look like 5 at Russert's bedtime). Another Clinton comeback!! She's a "fighter," don't ya know!!

*sigh*

Anyway, all things considered, I think this idea that Obama is (again) on the verge of "clinching" the nomination is wishful thinking. Unless the USOs (Uncommitted Superdelegates for Obama) decide to come out of the closet en masse in the wake of Hoosier/Tar Heel Tuesday -- which I suppose is possible, but I think it's unlikely -- or, again, unless Clinton just plain runs out of money, I don't see any "doors" being "closed" yet, and certainly not if Obama loses Indiana by any margin.

In fact, oddly enough, I think Obama's back may be, in a certain sense, more "against the wall" than Clinton's. If he loses Indiana and, let's say, scores a weaker-than-expected victory in North Carolina (let's not even contemplate the horrific prospect of a loss there), the media narrative will turn irrevocably against him for the rest of the primary season, and things could get very ugly. The rest of the calendar is almost all Hillary territory, with no significant Obama "firewall" opportunities. Tuesday is his last chance to even try and force her from the race. If she survives to spin another day, Obama's "run out the clock" strategy is going to become increasingly difficult to maintain through several more weeks of news cycles. The MSM will increasingly portray the race as having no clear winner, with Obama winning the early races but losing all the late races because of Wrightgate and so forth (never mind that geography and demography are way, way more important than "momentum" or scandals or other shifting events in the campaign; the media likes its storylines chronological, dammit). Hillary's "popular vote" arguments will gain ever-increasing traction, and Obama's process-based rebuttals will look increasingly desperate (no matter how correct they are). Michigan and Florida will be front-and-center. And the race will most definitely go on into June, at least.

The only way Obama can even hope to prevent all that, in my judgment, is to win Indiana on Tuesday. A "narrow loss" will not cut it.

P.S. Incidentally, here's a good analysis of what's probably causing Obama's exaggerated exit-poll numbers. (Hint: it's not the Bradley Effect.) The article also contains a good explanation of why some leaks Pennsylvania had Obama up 5, while others had him down 4.

ASU cheerleading team axed over raunchy photo

By Brendan Loy

[Warning: All of the links below are at least marginally SFW, in that they contain no actual nudity. However, some contain scantily clad women, suggestive material, etc., so depending on your situation and location, you may want to steer clear.]

The Arizona State cheerleading squad survived the uniformed ex-cheerleader in a porn movie scandal, but apparently the specter of six current cheerleaders in their underwear, baring their not-quite-naked bodies on the Internets for all to see, was too much for the university to handle:

[T]he cheerleading squad that performed at Arizona State football and basketball games has been eliminated. Arizona State will instead have "spirit squads" that will be led by the band director.

Why the change? It's not entirely clear, but the Fox TV affiliate in Phoenix suggests that it's because TheDirty.com posted photos of Arizona State cheerleaders in their underwear.

More on this story -- including the photo -- after the jump.

The Democratic primary in 7 minutes

By Brendan Loy

Well, 7 minutes and 26 seconds to be exact. Very funny -- and complete with two Lord of the Rings references and a Star Trek reference!

(Hat tip: the excellent DemConWatch.)

No way!

By Brendan Loy

I don't know if this is actually brand new, or if I just missed it until now, but Google Maps now has a public transit feature. SWEET!

I freaking love Google Maps.

More "gotcha" crap

By Brendan Loy

A widely circulating YouTube clip, referenced in comments earlier, that supposedly shows a top Clinton adviser insulting Indiana voters and using the n-word, was apparently doctored. (More here and here.)

Doctored or no, this is one of those "gotcha" things I've been complaining about. Who cares? Are we really arguing about what some campaign surrogate did or didn't say in 1992? Jeez.

Because 32 bowls just aren't enough

By Brendan Loy

I mentioned yesterday that college football's powers-that-be have once again decided, in their infinite wisdom, that the BCS is just fine & dandy, and playoffs r teh suxx0rs. But I missed this detail: the NCAA has certified two new bowl games, bringing the total to 34.  Because, as AOL Fanhouse says, "that's what the nation really wanted."

This means a total of 68 teams will be goin' bowling. Last year, 71 teams finished with records of 6-6 or better. We're seriously getting into the territory where, in a given season, there might not be enough bowl-eligible teams to fill out all the slots. I expect we'll soon see a rule change allowing in teams with 5-7 records if there aren't enough .500-or-better teams available. (Remember, 6-6 teams have only been allowed in for the last two years, and that change coincided with the expansion from 28 to 32 bowls.)

In any event, 34 bowls means that more than 57 percent of all Division I-A teams will be playing in the postseason. Remember when a bowl bid was actually a meaningful reward for a good year?

Anyway, the new kids on the block are the Congressional Bowl in Washington, D.C., and the St. Petersburg Bowl in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mercifully, a 35th bowl -- the Rocky Mountain Bowl in Salt Lake City, which would have pitted the fifth-place Mountain West team against the fourth-place WAC team -- was rejected.

The St. Petersburg Bowl is still in need of a corporate sponsorship, which gives me an idea. If every college football fan who supports a playoff, and hates the endless proliferation of meaningless bowls between 6-6 teams, were to donate, say, $5, couldn't we make these folks a sponsorship offer they couldn't refuse -- and force them to name their bowl something like the "Utterly Meaningless St. Petersburg Bowl" or the "St. Petersburg Bowl Brought To You By Shameless Greed" or the "Let's Have A Freakin' Playoff Already St. Petersburg Bowl" or the "F***-the-BCS St. Petersburg Bowl"? Cuz that'd be sweet.

Meanwhile, another AOL Fanhouse blogger wonders how on earth USC lost two games (and played poorly in a bunch of other games) each of the last two seasons, given that seven former Trojans were drafted during the first two rounds of the NFL Draft last weekend -- which continues a trend of Trojan dominance on Draft Day. It's a fair question.

Things to think about when criticizing college athletes

By Jay Johnson

I know that I have personally been guilty of being overly critical of some college athletes about their performance on the field of play.  Someone's not giving full effort, a step too slow, or otherwise just not putting it all out there on the floor for their team and their fans.

Here's a story that should make everyone check that attitude for a minute.

Tennessee's preseason All-America guard, Chris Lofton, started off the 2007-08 season in an absolute funk.  He wasn't scoring, his play seemed a bit lackluster, and couldn't hit a three to save his life.

Well, the facts were really that he was battling to actually save his life. 

Diagnosed with testicular cancer following a random NCAA drug screen after the 2006-07 season, he fought a private battle with the cancer, with only the closest of the close among his family and friends knowing what he was going through.

Meanwhile, local sports fans and commentators were critical to varying degrees about Lofton's performance.  There were calls for him to be benched along with wild speculation about what his problems on the floor were.

I just think that this is a good opportunity to remind everyone that college athletes are young kids, from divergent backgrounds, with any number of personal problems that can impact their play.  So, before you take time to bash someone on a message board, call in to a talk show, or otherwise express an opinion without all the facts, slow down and take Chris Lofton's situation to heart.