The late NC State coach Jim Valvano always taught his players that when facing a superior opponent, their main goal was to play hard in order to be in a position to win at the end of the game. And 25 years ago this April, his team used that strategy to perfection, beating Top 10 teams five times in six weeks to win the Wolfpack’s second national championship.
(Unrelated Sidebar – For all the attention that Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill get, it should be noted that up until 1991, NC State was tied with the Tarholes for national basketball championships while Duke had zero.)
Now we are seeing Coach V’s lesson come home to roost in the race for the Democratic nomination for President. Barack Obama is playing hard and is putting himself in a position to win at the end of the game. Granted, Obama isn’t an underdog to the magnitude that NC State was in 1983. However, he is definitely running against an entrenched Clinton political machine with many advantages.
And so far Obama is holding his own. Yesterday there were 24 primaries and caucuses and he won 14 of them. Clinton still holds the lead in delegates because of the party’s system of awarding them proportionally (to which we can thank Jesse Jackson 
). But just like the New England Patriots, the longer she lets the Giants stick around, the more likely it is that Obama will do his best impression of Eli Manning and steal the game.
Frankly, I don’t get why more Democrats don’t see the end game for November and realize that Obama is our best choice to be in a position to win. Let me be clear – the Democrats are my “team” and if Hillary is the nominee I am going to vote for her. Why? Because I believe that more Republican governance will further harm our country.
But dang – if she’s the nominee we’re going to have a hard fight in an election year that should be a slam dunk. Sure, Hillary would win all the so-called “blue states” and she may pick the lock on Ohio or Missouri and indeed win the game. But then we might as well run the year 1993 all over again because if you think the GOP didn’t give Bill a honeymoon, wait until they get their hands on Hillary. Under Clinton II, our country is still split 50-50 and is still at political war with itself. As President, Clinton will have a VERY hard time getting anything done and will certainly not have any coattails in the election, which are important in getting Congress to go along with your program come January 2009.
I can’t seem to make Google spit back the exact quote, but Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern had a great point – The Democrats are very bad at putting forth presidential candidates that people actually like. Stop and think about how true that is.
John Kerry? Al Gore? Sure, those guys could run policy circles around our current President, but neither of those were guys you’d want to have a beer with. They’d both stick out like sore thumbs standing around the turkey fryer at my tailgate party. And that’s what the average non-political voter thinks about. Do I “like” this person? The perception matters more than the reality. For all the – “I’m just a successful Texan who likes to drive a truck and clear brush on my ranch” imagery that President Bush put forth, few people know that the Bushes didn’t even buy the Crawford ranch until 1999 and that Laura has already talked openly on settling in the Dallas area after they leave office.
But hey, I don’t begrudge them. President Bush was smart to figure out early that people like to relate to their Presidents. He built an image that people could relate to.
The Democrats have to do the same thing. And right now, that candidate is Barack Obama. His candidacy puts my party in a position to win at the end of the game. As I’ve talked politics with several of my Republican friends, Obama is the one who makes them at least think of voting Democratic. Only Barack Obama can take the red states and the blue states and make us into a purple nation.
7 responses so far ↓
Diane West // February 6, 2008 at 3:08 pm
I am really disappointed that you are not supporting a female. Hillary Clinton might not have been my first choice but I am disappointed that you are not supporting a women. Plus, Barack Obama’s background of Muslin scares me to death.
That Girl // February 6, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I’m with you 100% SMD. Obama is the candidate who gives me hope and makes me feel optimistic. I shudder at the thought of how the GOP would tear apart Hillary in a general election. I’m tired of living in a 50/50 split country and want a real uniter this time around. I truly beleive Obama could accomplish that.
As for Diane’s comment above - so, should SMD support Hillary just because she’s a woman? Your comment that you’re disappointed that he’s not supporting a woman in itself is disappointing. If you had said, I can’t belive you’re not supporting Hillary Clinton because she’s a democrat and stands for x, x and x, you’d have an argument. To infer that Hillary should be the nominee because she is a woman is very short-sighted. The same as inferring that Obama should be the nominee because he is black would be wrong. The Dems should not use gender or race as the criteria for who they put forth in Novemeber. Let’s look at their platforms, not their skin color or their body parts.
Englewood // February 6, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Obama has no background as a Muslim. While both his father and stepfather were born into the Muslim faith, neither was a practicing Muslim (or anything else). Obama, on the other hand, has been a practicing Christian for over 20 years, having had his religious conversion during his years as a community organizer impressed by the role of the church in working with Chicago’s urban poor.
However, Obama is familiar with Islam. Given that our current President didn’t even know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites until AFTER he invaded Iraq, such familiarity may actually prove useful in preventing things like, say, wars.
That Girl // February 6, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Thank you Englewood - thank you for providing the reality check on the Muslim urban legend that the media and the right wing are hoping people will believe about Obama. It’s so ridiculous you’d think now explanation would be needed.
southernmaledemocrat // February 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Hey Diane - Thanks for checking out the blog!
The previous two posters basically said what I was going to. One should not infer that my opposition (within the primary) to Hillary has anything to do with her gender. And my support for Obama has nothing to do with his race.
My opposition to Hillary was laid out in the original blog posting. As a Democrat, it’s all based on who I think can win in November, and then actually implement their ideas.
Hope to see you soon!
Diane West // February 7, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Thanks for your response. You need to read the response of his wife in the Women magazine interview. His elitist attitude is something to be considered. He is not about being democrat but about being in power. We have had enough of that. Plus he has no answers as what he means when he says change. Change can be good and change can be bad. I need more answers to the hard questions. I don’t see them coming from Obama…and I was partially teasing about the male female issue. But, he has to answer a lot of questions if he wants to make a difference.
Hag // February 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm
“He is a not about being democrat, but about being in power”???
???
Are you high?
Compare HRC’s voting record in the Senate to Obama’s and then to John McCain’s.
Seems to me Obama’s been a lot more dedicated to Democratic causes while Hillary’s been more about casting votes based on polls, political-spin, and her “inevitable” presidency.
The “elitist attitude” comment also left me confused. Hillary would not have TWO THIRDS of her problems relating to real voters if not for her cold, elitist attitude. Does elitist mean something other that “I’m better than you”? How can Obama possibly be considered more Elitist than the Wellsley grad who was far too good for the state of Arkansas, or her home state of Illionis, and had to move to New York to run, and who speaks down to people at every possible turn, including in her own ads?
HRC’s whole “public service” career has been about power, hers, not about advancing any particular cause or agenda other than herself.
Sheesh.
I think if she were a man, she would have been discarded by the voters months ago with a voting record and elitist attitude like hers. Think Joe Lieberman, but without the Droopy-Dog voice.
“Not being a democrat…..”
???