Not for This President

In case you didn't notice, I'm a fan of this President. I obviously want him to succeed, much more so than the average Republican wants him to succeed. I also have to admit, I want him to succeed more than I wanted George W. Bush to do so, or more than I would want any of the Republicans running right now to, if they won. Even so, I never really root against the American Presidency, because I live here. This is my country. If a President's time in office is a failure, the country was failing at that time. No one really wins under that scenario.

The Republicans in the U.S. Senate are currently calling for a Supreme Court seat to sit vacant for at least eleven months, rather than to allow a rightfully elected President to appoint a member. In fact, it took them less than an hour after Scalia's death to call for blocking any nominee President Obama puts forward. Yes, everyone on the right will note Robert Bork and Harriet Miers, both appointed by Republican Presidents, were never confirmed- but both had Republican opposition to their nominations. It's also important to note that current judges Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas were confirmed by Democratic Senates, one of them during an election year. If you use the Republican logic that this President shouldn't be allowed to appoint a judge in an election year, maybe the Senate shouldn't vote on anything this year.

Let's not BS ourselves though, this is not an isolated incident of the Republicans saying no to this President. All but a hand-full voted against his Stimulus package, and virtually none supported Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act, or any piece of legislation this President passed. They would not allow a House vote on immigration reform, despite the support of more than 218 members being out there, and they won't pass much of anything now. Within the Republican Party, they can't even settle that he's a citizen of natural birth in this country. The Republicans have spent the past seven years denying this President is the President. They don't take him as legitimate. This isn't new.

The shame is, this isn't how it has to be. I remember Senator John Breaux of Louisiana going to meet with George W. Bush shortly after his controversial election in 2000. There is a history of Presidents getting the benefit of the doubt, and the opportunity to do things in this country. There's just no such history of that under President Obama.

I'm Swearing Off Philly Sports Talk Radio

Today, the Phillies will open Spring Training. The Sixers and Flyers are currently playing real games. One would think that both WIP and the Phanatic in Philadelphia would be talking about one of those three teams. They are all very young teams that are moving in a new direction, and may be on the rise. Instead though, Philadelphia sports talk radio is all about Sam Bradford, and whether the Eagles will put the "franchise tag" on him. It's all about a 7-9 team that hasn't won a title in over 55 years, has a new, unproven coach, and who consistently insists on having their drama play out on the front pages of the city's papers.

I just don't care.

The Eagles haven't been a real Super Bowl contender since 2008, and nothing involving their current quarterbacking situation is going to change that status. They refuse to rebuild, and their owner refuses to commit to a defense-first attitude that could make them a serious force.

I just don't care.

So, until the radio stations want to start discussing some of the teams who are trying to build a champion, I don't have a need to listen. I don't need to hear twelve different opinions on whether they should (obviously) sign Fletcher Cox to a long-term deal. I certainly don't need to hear terribly mistaken fans who think signing Bradford back is the difference between 4-12 and 12-4. I'm sorry, I'm least excited about the Eagles, of the four teams in the city right now. This isn't to say I have no interest, it's to say that my interest was killed long ago by being continually fed constant Eagles talk on the radio. I get it, they have an off-season. They're a 7-9 team though. Let's stop acting like anything all that big is going on with them.

Happy Thursday

On the Chris Dodd Campaign

I recently read my former colleague Jason Mathews' Playboy piece on the Dodd campaign, and actually suggest you do too. I'm not saying I agree with everything he wrote, but he wrote nothing that wasn't either his opinion or actually factual about it. It was a tough go of things out in Iowa in 2007 and early 2008. We had some unique personalities associate with our campaign. It is very tough being on a losing Presidential campaign.

I have to say I had a more positive experience in Iowa though than perhaps this article puts forward. First off, I can't say enough good things about Chris Dodd the Senator and person- he was a tremendous boss, and his career makes me proud that I worked for him. I also had an incredible experience in Iowa. I made friends I still talk to out there. I learned so much about politics, both on the local and national level, while I was out there. I was absolutely pushed up to a job level I wasn't ready for yet, at that time, but that has helped me infinitely moving forward. The challenge of it was enjoyable, and the battle was a motivator. I concur with Jason's feeling that the friends I made during that campaign are people I want to keep in touch with for life. I actually really did love that experience in Iowa.

I did it for very different reasons though than perhaps anyone in that article said. I wanted to do a national campaign. It was my goal. It wasn't really so much about career advancement (I didn't expect to do campaigns this long, at the time). I wanted the experience. As Jason described in his article, we all certainly had an experience. Some days were funny, some sad, and some really amazing. I wanted to do the Iowa Caucus. I did it. It was awesome.

To be fair, the experience wasn't all about failure either. In my region, we had support from state legislators, county elected officials, state Democratic Party members, union leaders, and some good people who didn't hold any offices, but were smart, savvy, solid folks. It didn't add up to contention, but I think it's clear to most people that the deck was stacked against Senator Dodd from an early point in 2008. We did about as well as we could, and frankly we all knew long before Caucus night that this didn't mean we were going to do so well. That was clear.

The year 2007 was an amazing time for me, mostly because I spent close to a year in the Hawkeye state running a twelve county region for Senator Dodd. I absolutely had some bad days. I absolutely had some days that were so ridiculous, I couldn't believe they were happening. I'd love to write something more descriptive of my time there, but that's not really going to happen in a blog post today. Let me just say that while it was a struggle, I'd actually go back and do it again- and not for the paycheck, ideology, or political calculation. It was the absolute most unique year of my life.

It's Time for Baseball

You look outside, and you see Winter. It is Winter, in fact. It's cold. It's damp. It's dreary. For weeks now, that's been most of what you get. Some days it's 50 degrees, and you say it feels fine, but then it's 30 the next time you're outside. You're waiting for it to end.

Well, today is your lucky day. Pitchers and catchers begin workouts in Clearwater for the Phillies today, and the end of this dreary season is fast approaching. In a couple of weeks, actual baseball games will be on, and you'll see the light at the end of the tunnel. The long, dark Winter is over. Spring is here, whether it is officially or not.

Today is a holiday to me, every year. I'm excited that the best professional sport in America is back. I'm excited that the Phillies rebuild is entering a new phase. Young talent is here. There is hope again. I'm looking forward to games at Citizens Bank Park, again. 2008 is long ago, but there is reason to have hope. Soon, the smell of Bull's Barbecue will drift through the right field air, and the weather will be hot. I'll have myself a Victory Beer in hand, and life will be all good. Even a bad day at the ball yard beats anything else.

For the record, my prediction at this time is the Phillies go 70-92, and finish 4th in the NL East.

Bernie's Impressive Numbers and His Path Forward

I'm not shocked that he had more, just shocked that he had so many. Bernie Sanders filed with over 16,000 signatures at last I heard (someone said it is over 17,500, but I can't verify that) to be on Pennsylvania's ballot. It was the most of the candidates for President, and it was impressive.

A few days back, I wrote about how his New Hampshire win was Bernie's last, best chance to challenge Clinton in this race. I believe that to be true still. Of course, he may be making good on it. He's picking up steam in Nevada and even in South Carolina right now. Hillary's lead in the Palmetto State has shrunk down to just 20%, and if Sanders can win Nevada, it might shrink more. In short, I don't think things are settling in. I don't back Bernie. I don't necessarily think he's going to win- but he might.

Bernie's numbers are generally impressive, and not just his signatures in Pennsylvania. He has a lot of small donors. He does well on Facebook. He has a lot of volunteers. I'm not saying it adds up to victory. Howard Dean didn't win. I'm saying it's time that people that don't support him stop believing it can't happen. It can happen.

I've Been Off Wasting My Time on Petitions

I've been writing a lot less lately. That's because I've been very busy. I had a collection of clients this year that I needed to get on the ballot for the 2016 primary. All of them filed enough signatures and should be appearing on the April 26th ballot. It's a long, tiring process, and frankly it's mostly a waste of time. We make candidates gather up signatures from "qualified" voters (those in their party), get the petitions notarized, and turn them in three weeks later. What does that prove? To the proponents, they say it shows minimal support. I don't agree.

Frankly, this is an exercise in asking your volunteers to do something that won't end up helping you much. If you are in Philadelphia or some other areas though, there are no volunteers, and you pay people off of Craigslist, the street corner, or God knows where else, and hope they do the job for you. I'm not sure either of these prove you have real support. They certainly don't have much meaning for the election. Still, we do this every year, because we have to.

I don't really see the point of this, I have to admit. I do it, because candidates need it, and it pays some bucks. I even volunteer for a few (they get a lot less). Petitions are pointless though. Pennsylvania should eliminate the process and have a flat fee to be on the ballot. You'd eliminate real lunatics with the fee, and you'd skip this huge waste of time.

Happy Sunday

Decisive Saturday is Coming

The Nevada Democratic Caucuses and the South Carolina Republican Primary are coming up next Saturday. In a year of tumult in our elections so far, this Saturday could begin to sort out the two races. A look at both:

• Nevada Democrats- The big question about Bernie Sanders has been what he would do after New Hampshire. The polls leave a big question mark here. If Bernie is to win, he may be able to withstand even losses in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday to get to April states that he can win. If she wins in Nevada, she may be able to roll to victory in March.
• South Carolina Republicans- Donald Trump should win, but the pack behind him is going to continue getting smaller. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich are all running in a pack, but there's no way all four can survive and still have a shot to win. Cruz appears to be in a solid second, while Rubio is in a more fluid third. Jeb seems to lead Kasich more often than the opposite, and I think both really need to beat the other. Rubio, Jeb, and Kasich are on the clock in the Palmetto State, and at least one or two will be done after this.

A week from now, Hillary could be cruising to the nomination, or in a complete free-fall. A week from now, there will be three Republicans still really standing, and maybe one on ice. Either way, we'll begin narrowing the field with this Saturday's results.

Democrats, Accept Reality- Republicans Will Continue to Obstruct

Once upon a time in America, elections were the final say. If you won, you got to govern. "The people spoke," and that was that. Not today. The Republican Party has decided that elections don't matter anymore. Even if they don't win, they have to get their way. Let's stop pretending this isn't the case. It's obvious.

Mitch McConnell is in Washington saying he won't let President Obama seat a new nominee on the U.S. Supreme Court, basically because he disagrees with him. Out in Harrisburg, the Republican legislature isn't even attempting a vote on the agreement they had forged with Governor Tom Wolf on a budget, even though it had the 102 votes to pass around Christmas, because they don't like that he's governor. Whether it's in the nation's capitol or your state capitol, if a Democrats leads the executive branch and the Republicans can stop them from doing stuff, they are.

Let's stop pretending you can appeal to the hearts and minds of Republican elected officials. You can't. You either make deals with them that give both sides what they want, or you strike the fear of God into them, but you won't just impress them with the morality of your argument.

Without Precedent- The GOP Will Make America Suffer to Keep the Court

The United States Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority on most matters it has decided in recent years. That changed yesterday when one of the five judges on that court, Antonin Scalia, died in his sleep. This vacancy makes the court 4-4 on most major matters, and constitutionally means that President Obama should appoint a nominee to the high court, subject to Senate approval. This is the system of government we live under. This is what is supposed to happen.

That is, unless you are a Republican in Congress. It is February of 2016, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says that the next President, who takes office on January 20th of 2017, should appoint the new judge. That means eleven (11) months of time will pass before there would even be a nominee, and probably more in the neighborhood of 13 or 14 months will pass before there would be a judge on the bench. If you have a case that is pending before the court, your case might go down in a 4-4 split in the meantime, but McConnell doesn't care about that. He just wants the next President to appoint a nominee to the bench.

Why does McConnell want to violate our system of government and make the court not work for a year plus? Because President Obama is a Democrat, and McConnell will not like his nominee for the high court. Nothing more and nothing less can be made of it. It is not better for the court itself to have a vacancy for a whole year. It is not better for the country to have a non-functioning court. It's simply better for McConnell and his party.

Obviously, there are repercussions if President Obama gets to appoint a judge, albeit I agree with them all. "Citizens United" allowing money to flow virtually without any regulations on our political process would be reversed 5-4, rather than it's current status. Scalia wrote the "Heller case" opinion that weakened any gun regulations in this country, and an Obama appointee would probably rule to over-rule that 5-4. Scalia was a part of the 5-4 vote to make George W. Bush President, and also a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The 5-4 ruling supporting marriage equality would become 6-3, and so on. Yes, an Obama appointee to this seat would have consequence, even if they weren't as liberal as say Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I get that completely, and I understand that this is why McConnell won't allow a vote for an Obama nominee.

This is not how our country is supposed to operate though. Just because you don't like who the President is, doesn't mean you grind everything to a halt. President Obama has nearly a year left in his Presidency, but the Republicans in the Senate want to declare his Presidency over with. They want to deny his ability to appoint someone to a constitutionally necessary seat, a nomination that is his duty under our system of law.

President Obama should nominate someone. He should nominate someone the Senate has confirmed, maybe even unanimously in the past, to fill Scalia's seat. That person should get a hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then a vote from the full Senate. That is the system of government we have. President Obama is our duly elected President. Any talk of not naming someone until next year is both ridiculous and stupid.

Couldn't Happen to Nicer People

Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina, two of the nastiest bullies in the yard, are both off of the yard. I can't say I feel bad for them. Christie who bullied and shoved his way to national prominence, and Fiorina, who never saw a truth she liked, were some of the meanest candidates in the field for President. Both are gone.

Christie was probably in the more competent tier of the Republican Primary, a candidate who somehow appeared less scary than he was when matched against a Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Even so, those of us from the East Coast know just how ruthless Christie can be. We saw him yell at teachers, hand out Sandy relief based on politics, and he or his staff (I only write it this way because he hasn't been formally charged, while some staff has been.) close down lanes on the George Washington Bridge to exact political revenge. He's a nasty, nasty guy. His arrogance, his desire to fight any time he could, and his need to always be right did not do him any favors in this race. I hope beating up on all of the enemies was worth it for him. I'm glad he at least torpedoed Marco Rubio on the way out.

Carly Fiorina is a special case. I take great satisfaction watching her drop her White House bid. She's not all that qualified for the job, and she's not at all likable. She tanked HP as the CEO, and she did terrible as a Senate candidate in California. Despite all that, she ran for President anyway, and made making stuff up her top talent. She flat out lied about "seeing videos" of Planned Parenthood harvesting baby organs. There is a special place in hell for someone who can lie like she did. I can't say that she really did anything nice in this race.

I'm very happy to see these two go away. The Presidential race is a better place without them. I guess this failure couldn't happen to two nicer people.

Sometimes You Just Have to Let it Roll

The Clintons liked to view themselves as being New Hampshire royalty. In 1992, Bill's second place finish propelled him to national prominence, and the nomination, on the way to the White House. In 2008, Hillary stormed back from a double-digit deficit in the closing days to win the primary and save her White House run. There's a sentimental value to it, and losing in 2016 crushes some of that.

There's not much you can do about that though, nor does it matter so much. Hillary did not lead in New Hampshire for months, and was not expected to win. One would think that means tamping down the importance of the state, yet some of her surrogates went pretty hard after Sanders and his supporters in the closing days. It was a bruising battle in the Granite State. It wasn't really necessary.

Hillary Clinton holds every advantage still in this race for the nomination. Scorching the Earth to try and win one state doesn't hold much value. The reality is that Sanders still faces an uphill climb to cut into her leads in the next few states. Certainly, Gloria Steinem's remarks don't make those odds any worse.

When this process is over, Hillary Clinton will need Bernie Sanders' voters to support her, if she is the nominee. Attacking doesn't help that cause, nor does it necessarily help much in putting away this nomination now. As crazy as it seems after two contests, Hillary is strongly positioned to still win. Sure, it's painful to lose New Hampshire, but it's not overly relevant. Hopefully she can reel in the surrogates and keep them on a more positive message, rather than worrying about small battles.

Marco Just Isn't Up To It

Photo by Connor Corpora

I get it- Republican operatives want Marco Rubio to be a thing. He's young, he's attractive, he smiles a lot more than most of their candidates, he's Hispanic, and he's from Florida. He's basically their dream candidate, on paper. For months, they and the Washington "beltway media" have consistently predicted that "this will be the Rubio bump" after just about anything they perceived as going well for him. It never happened though, at least not until he got third place in Iowa, and gave the most ridiculous "victory" speech for a non-winner I've ever seen. Then it seemed like the process was moving his way. Endorsements, money, big donors, they all were coming over to Marco. It seemed like he would rise to second in New Hampshire and then run off with the nomination.

Of course, along the way, Chris Christie happened, and the Jersey Governor's last stand included a complete dismantling of Rubio on the debate stage last Saturday. Once again, under the spotlight of being a favorite, Rubio failed to actually impress voters, and in this case actually damaged himself. Christie called him out, and destroyed any credibility that Rubio had.

The truth is that Rubio just doesn't do well under scrutiny. It's not just that he looks young, or has to fight biases against him, it's that he's actually just not that smart. He doesn't think well on his feet, and his strength is that he memorizes what his handlers tell him, and never strays off of that. The comparison of him to President Obama is laughable in part because President Obama is very good at responding to attacks in debates. Rubio just isn't very good if he has to leave his script. In many ways, I think Rubio knows this and is self-conscious of his own abilities, which causes things like his "water moment," or yesterday, when he blamed the media for his failings. Rubio just doesn't do well when put up to scrutiny, which is why he has never broken out away from a chaotic field of Republicans.

On paper, Marco Rubio excites Republicans. In reality, he's not a very good candidate. He says dumb things, and fails in the clutch. Republican operatives in Washington may see an opportunity in him, but reality says that won't go so well. Democrats don't fear him so much anymore, and frankly they shouldn't.

Bernie's Best, Last Chance

Bernie Sanders has run a fantastic campaign. Last night he won a landslide. He's closing the gap nationally, and he's winning big amongst some demographic groups. By all rights, Bernie seems to have the momentum. He's running well.

He's on his last chance.

You see, the calendar favors Hillary Clinton. We can argue over whether or not that was intentional, but the reality is that the next couple weeks favor her. On February 20th and 26th are the Nevada Caucus and South Carolina Primary, events that are less filled with white liberals, and more filled white moderates, Latinos, and African-Americans. After that is Super Tuesday, this year an event filled with Southern primaries, especially rich in African-American voters. Bernie Sanders has trailed badly amongst all of the groups of voters in the states coming up, through most of the process. You can argue that Nevada does give him some openings (a heavy labor presence, voters who want to talk economics), but he is not going to be favored in any of the states that come up between now and early March. He will have to survive a few beatings, if nothing changes, and then hope that he can continue to win blue-collar whites in states after that.

Bernie's momentum is not insignificant after a couple of good weeks, but he'll have to capitalize now. By winning such an amazing landslide in New Hampshire, Bernie will get another look from voters who have not yet bought in, helped by media attention like his appearance on Colbert and SNL in the last few days. He will have to convince people in Nevada and South Carolina particularly that he is a viable option after his victory, and perform better than expected, if he wants to keep his momentum into Super Tuesday and beyond.

Obviously, Bernie always was going to have issues with the super-delegates, or "party leaders," as he was not a member of the party officially until recently, but the calendar does not favor his electorate against Clinton's. To the extent that New Hampshire matters, it will be because he does or does not close the gaps with demographics that do not currently support him. If he doesn't use this opportunity in front of him now, the race could be over fast.

What New Hampshire Means

Well, I don't think you saw that one coming. Oh sure, maybe you thought that Bernie and Trump would win- did you think both would win by roughly 20%? I don't think many people did. I certainly didn't. I thought both could win by double-digits, but that they won so easily was a bit jarring.

What does it mean? Well, on the Democratic side, maybe nothing. We don't know if Bernie can turn it into longer-term momentum or not. On the Republican side, New Hampshire has often acted as a buffer against the Iowa results, and no Republican nominee in modern times didn't win either Iowa or New Hampshire. You would still have to be a bit arrogant to suggest that last night tells you how things will go now.

We do know this though- the anti-establishment won New Hampshire. Bernie and Trump are both tapping into an unrest (one with an agenda, the other with anger), and running with it. New Hampshire bought in, completely. This does not mean that everyone else will. Iowa and New Hampshire are both incredibly engaged states, and states that get an extraordinary amount of attention from the candidates. The idea is that they get that personal touch, that time to engage the candidates, and are supposed to let the rest of the country know who is under and overrated. The rest of this campaign moving forward is not like that. So while it's clear that New Hampshire bought into the challenges to the status quo, let's see if other states follow suit.

Ugh, That Halftime Show

Coldplay isn't bad. Bruno Mars is pretty good. I'm not a Beyonce fan, but whatever. If one of them had done the halftime show, they may have done a decent job. As a group, they really didn't fit. The show, as a whole, was not great. In fifteen years, we've went from Britney, Aerosmith, Nelly, and N' Sync, to this. We're not advancing.

The New Hampshire Republican Party Prediction

It's time for the New Hampshire Republican Primary, a crucial test in the fight for the GOP nomination. For the candidates in the "pile up" for second, tonight is make or break. They may be separated by only a few points, but who's in second and who's in fifth will matter a lot.

First off, Donald Trump will win by a 10% or more margin. That's the easy part. After that, New Hampshire has been a back and forth battle between Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Kasich, and Bush. With the exception of Cruz, anyone else who finishes sixth place is finished. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina will not be big factors tonight, in the back of the field.

Coming out of Iowa, Rubio had all the momentum, but he bombed the debate very badly the other night. Usually I'd dismiss that as inside ball, but New Hampshire has a history of debates turning the tide. Reagan in 1980 and Clinton in 2008 stand out to me. I do think this will change the ball game tonight. The question is really whether or not Christie will benefit from tanking Rubio. I think that is an open question. Kasich and Bush feel like they are on the rise to me.

Trump will come in around 30% tonight. I believe Kasich will come in around 17% tonight and Jeb Bush will surprise us all at 15%. Christie and Rubio will both come in at 11%, with Christie edging out Rubio. Cruz will come in around 9%. Fiorina, Carson, and other names on the ballot will fill out the rest.

New Hampshire Democratic Prediction

Well, it's the day of the New Hampshire Primary. For a few months now, Senator Bernie Sanders has lead in New Hampshire. Tonight, that means he has to win. A loss would be devastating to his campaign. A win could give him a huge shot of adrenaline.

Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire eight years ago. Bill Clinton's career pretty much took off in 1992 here. They know this state, and many people there have voted for them. They've been behind here before, and they manage to come through.

So what will happen tonight? Sanders should win the state tonight, and I believe he will. Will he win by 20% or more, like some polls showed in the recent past? No. I believe more independent voters will vote in the Republican primary tonight, which will help Clinton come through tonight. I believe that Bernie Sanders will win by 7-8% tonight. Sanders will have 52-53%, Clinton 45%, and the other names on the ballot will collect 3%.

Peyton Manning

I don't make much secret of my dislike for Peyton Manning. It actually goes back to his college days, when I strongly disliked Florida, and wanted Manning to beat them every year for his highly ranked Tennessee teams. His Volunteers lost, basically. Then he was drafted to Indianapolis, and he quickly had a rivalry with the New England Patriots, who I hated at the time. In those days, Manning was almost an automatic loss against Brady and Belichick.  Peyton's ability to choke in big games that I wanted him to win made me begin to not like him. Over the years, I grew to have other reasons for disliking him, but it mostly came down to his inability to win the games I wanted him to win. So I started cheering for Pittsburgh, for New Orleans, for whoever faced him in big games. I even became a Brady fan. Manning went from Indianapolis to Denver, and at that point, I became a real hater (I'm not a John Elway fan).

Despite all of that, I have to hand it to Peyton Manning that he had a pretty amazing career. His stats are second to almost none. He's got the NFL record for games won, and he has two Super Bowl rings. He has passing records, and generally has few statistical peers. He is an iconic star in the history of the game, a guy who did a lot of winning, and a lot of succeeding.

I think this Wikipedia passage on him sums up a lot of what I think about him:

He has been named the NFL's most valuable player a record five times (four times as a Colt, once as a Bronco), has been named to the Pro Bowl 14 times (a record) and named first team All-Pro seven times. As a starter up to the end of 2015 season he had a career winning percentage of .702 in the regular season. He holds the NFL record for career touchdown passes and career passing yards, achieved in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

The most commonly cited criticism of Peyton Manning's professional career is that despite great success and gaudy statistics during the regular season, he has not enjoyed similar levels of success in the post-season. Although Manning has won two Super Bowls (Super Bowl XLI, in which he was named MVP, and Super Bowl 50) and played in two others, his career post-season record as a starter is a more modest 13-13. By comparison his regular season record through the 2015 season was 186-79.

I think that about sums it up for me.

Flashback Monday

2015 NIT Quarterfinals, at Temple's Liacouras Center

The Mediocre Super Bowl is Over, Time for Baseball

The Denver Broncos defense was great. Their team won the championship in last night's Super Bowl. Von Miller was great, as were many of his defensive line mates. Peyton Manning had a great career. There are some greats to go around from last night's win.

Let's be clear though, last night's Super Bowl was far from great. On and off the field, it was pretty much mediocre. Carolina and Denver's offenses were very, very mediocre in a game that featured a lot of penalties, a pretty decent number of drops (both official and unofficial), and mental miscues (missed opportunities to tackle Jordan Norwood on his long kick return, Cam not going after his own fumble, a missed field goal, etc.). The game ended up a two score game, and frankly for the number of absolutely unforced errors they made, they're lucky it was that close. Their defense kept them from getting run out of the place. The game was sloppy on the whole, and not really that close. The better team won fairly convincingly.

The game was still better than the sideshow that is supposed to be the Super Bowl. Lady Gaga's National Anthem was really good (though I'm not prepared to put it in Whitney Houston territory at all). That was probably the night's highlight. The advertisements were largely unmemorable. There was no Clint Eastwood or Eminem GM ad, no Bud Bowl, no Go Daddy ad, or anything else that stands out in the history of Super Bowl ads. I was largely left not laughing. For it being the biggest day in advertising, it felt like a dud. Then there was the halftime show. Yeah, I'll pass on that. I was not a big fan.

If I were a Denver fan, I'd tell you how great the Super Bowl was. It's always great when your team wins. I just wasn't impressed with much on the night. I'm ready for spring training, and my favorite sport, baseball to be back.

I'll Pass on the Revolution, Thanks

I like Bernie Sanders. There's something authentic and endearing about him, his style, and his message. I think he believes it. I think his values are right. I admire that even after 35 years in public life, he still wants to fight for what he believes in. I admire that he's made reaching out to young people and people outside of the political process such a central point of his campaign. I agree with his broader values, that the American economy is rigged against the working class, that health care is a human right, and that education should be affordable. In short, I really like Bernie Sanders and his platform, and I'm not going to vote for him in the Democratic Primary.

Bernie Sanders is running as the change candidate when we have a Democratic President. His argument is essentially that this President did a good job, but that a Senator Sanders would go much farther, and would make real bold change in the areas of bank regulation, health care, higher education, and the wages of our workers. For one thing, I don't believe that a President Sanders would have much more success in making these changes than President Obama has, so I have my doubts. Second, because I have my doubts, I also am looking for someone who I think can at least make some incremental changes, which is exactly what he espouses against really. Third, I'm not even sure I want to go from the ACA to Medicare for all over night, or some of his other more immediate changes.

Even if I believed that Senator Sanders could win the general election, which I sincerely doubt, I'm not sure I really want his brand of change right now, or believe that these fights would be fruitful for the American public. When I hear him say he'll keep his army of supporters and they will pressure Congress to make his changes, I wonder if he understands that President Obama at least partially tried that with OFA. I have serious doubts about the particulars, across the board, and I'm not willing to take this chance at this time. Yes, I know, I'm saying no to free college education for everybody and Medicare for all. That's kind of a downer. I have serious doubts about their viability, and on their merits.

Most of the case that Sanders' supporters make against Hillary Clinton fall equally flat with me. I don't necessarily feel that she is a slam-dunk to be elected, or that the Republicans will want to help her achieve many goals, but I feel better on both of those fronts about her. I think arguments that she is a corporate shill or Republican-lite are silly and not grounded in reality. I think she's been a strong change agent. I think she's a solid Democrat. I think she's our best chance to win. I also think she's our best chance to get things done. There are arguments against some of these points, but they aren't the arguments I accept.

Bernie has run a great race. Some of my friends who work for him have done amazing work, and deserve the commendations they are receiving in the press. I think his overall vision for the country is beautiful. I'm just not buying all the way in though, right now. I get that there is a political revolution being attempted right now- I just have to pass on joining it.

Flashback Sunday

2008 World Series, Game 3

The "Boy in the Bubble" is the Most Incompetent and Scary

Rarely does Chris Christie say something that I not only agree with, but is 100% gospel truth. Last night, history happened:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie tore Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) apart on Saturday night for repeating the exact same line about President Barack Obama three times in four minutes during ABC’s Republican presidential debate, calling it his “memorized 25-second speech.”

I don't like giving Christie credit for much of anything, but he's got Rubio figured out:

Christie, who has been a vocal critic of Rubio, pounced on what he called Rubio's "scripted" response and argued that the Florida Republican's one term in office was insufficient experience to become President.

“You have not been involved in a consequential decision where you had to be held accountable,” Christie said. “You just simply haven't. And the fact is—when you talk about the Hezbollah sanctions act that you list as one of your accomplishments, you weren't even there to vote for it. That's not leadership. That's truancy."

"I like Marco Rubio and he's a smart person and a good guy, but he simply does not have the experience to be President of the United States," he added later.

Rubio fired back by accusing Christie of worsening New Jersey’s debt problem before pivoting back to his attack on Obama.

The New Jersey governor jumped in, saying: “This is what Washington D.C. does. The drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech. That is exactly what his advisers gave him.”

I know, it's not fun to beat up on Rubio. He's hopeful and he smiles, and he talks nice- but he's easily the scariest candidate. He's both not very smart and somewhat threatening in the general election. The DC media likes him, and has not described him for what he is. Marco Rubio is a ball of ambition, with mediocre talent. Marco Rubio is an abortion extremist. Marco voted to make single mothers print their sexual history in the local paper to put their babies up for adoption, Florida's "Scarlet Letter Law."  His idea of foreign policy is calling for a "clash of civilizations" with Islam, or a modern day Crusade. Marco Rubio is even personally beholden to billionaire ex-Eagles owner (a bad one at that) Norman Braman, who pays his bills for him. He did more to kill immigration reform as a Senator than anyone else in the country by abandoning his own bill. I guess at least he showed up to turn his back on that potential achievement. It's no wonder Rick Santorum can't name anything Rubio's done as a Senator.

I never give Chris Christie credit, he's a bad guy. I will say this though- he's right about Marco Rubio. The "boy in the bubble" is easily the scariest Republican running for President. He's bad at his current job, not very bright, and gets covered as though he's somehow less extreme than the other guys in the field. Marco Rubio is a bad dude, and I have to give credit to Christie for beating him up on it last night.

Hillary- Devil of the Left?

Hillary Clinton is the devil. That's what you'd think if you talked to some Democrats. They call her a Republican, a fascist, a corporatist, the establishment, and everything up to and including "the Ice Queen." They don't want her. They didn't want her in 2008, against a candidate who held very similar policy positions. They don't want her in 2016 against a self-described socialist. They don't want her, ever.

Look, I will whole-heartedly admit that I am both voting for Clinton, and would be absolutely fine with voting for Bernie Sanders in November if he wins. I don't find this ferocious negativity to be helpful. If for no other reason than denying the ability to govern to a neanderthal like Marco Rubio, with a Congress lead by Paul Ryan, I would vote for both Democrats. I actually tend to like and agree with both Democrats though. Do I think that Bernie's agenda is my ideal one? No. That's not because I think he's completely wrong about health care, education, or banks though either.

This idea that Hillary Clinton is a Republican is a joke though, ask a Republican. That she would be "status quo" is ridiculous. That she is reasonable enough to operate within the confines of what "can be done" is not a reason to call her a corporatist. Most of these attacks are silly, and frankly don't come out of reality. Again, if you think Hillary Clinton is a conservative, you should ask a conservative if they agree.

The Democrats Had a Bad Night in Iowa, Might Have One Again in November

I'm getting sick of it. I'm getting sick of my fellow Democrats. I'm getting sick of my fellow Democrats celebrating the defeat of Donald Trump in Iowa. For real. You're celebrating what was a terrible night, if what you want is a Democratic President. Nothing that happened in Iowa was a positive for the party's chances of winning the White House.

Look, I know you hate Donald Trump. He's run a white-nationalist, or racist, campaign for the Presidency, and riled up hillbillies and swamp people you didn't want to believe exist. I understand. He also would have been the easiest general election opponent to defeat, most likely. He has a track record of saying crazy things, shady business dealings, and bad personal morals. He would helped Democrats win over independents, and win back down-ballot races. Had he won Iowa, he would have rolled New Hampshire easily, and possibly walked to the nomination of the Republican Party in 2016. Even if he hadn't, a few more months of peak-Trump would have forced even the "establishment" Republicans to say more and more crazy, Trump-esque things. In short, him winning helps hurt the Republican Party's chances of victory in November. If you are a Democrat, you want that.

Then there's what his defeat meant within the GOP's race more directly. Ted Cruz "out-Iowa'ed" him, and may or may not have a pathway forward from there (Iowa usually gets Republican primaries wrong). The problem is that Marco Rubio finished third, and quite close to Trump at that. Republican political operatives all over DC awoke from their decade or so slumber, and realized that they had a pathway for an "establishment" candidate to take the nomination. They are now frantically trying to kill off the other "establishment" candidates like Bush, Kasich, and Christie, and leave Rubio to fight the dual-crazies of Cruz and Trump. Because Cruz won, Trump won't be able to clear him out quickly, leaving Rubio with an actual pathway to victory now. Is Marco Rubio that scary? Electorally I don't think he's stronger than Romney was in 2012, but we're not running President Obama against their nominee either. As an actual President, someone as scripted and stupid as Rubio is absolutely horrifying. He will literally do the bidding of his corporate masters who fund him.

I won't go too far into depth about the Democratic race, other than to say that nothing good happened on Monday. If nothing else, the Bernie crowd feels he was cheated. If either candidate's people walk away feeling cheated at the end of the process, it will make it that much harder to win in November. Beyond that, Bernie raised another $3 million and looks like a serious candidate now, leading to what is likely to be another drawn out, brutal battle for the nomination. I think we all know that Hillary Clinton won't be getting out of the race any time soon. We're now going to have a left-wing brawl over whether we should have more access to health insurance or Medicare for all. I'm not sure I see that as helping us.

Look, I get it- you get to call Donald Trump a "loser." Continuing to focus on Trump's follies is not helping us win an election though. If we don't win the election, who's the loser then?

I'm a Fan of the Iowa Caucus

I get it- you think Iowa's the worst. It's too rural, too white, too old, the people have nothing to do- you're way over-generalizing, but you're entitled to your opinion. Maybe you hate caucuses, because you know, there's more process than a mindless push of a button, which is also fine. You're just wrong.

I love that the Presidential election process starts out in a place where television buys are cheap, and you can get a crowd out to watch any Presidential candidate on any day of the week. The people are engaged, reasonable, and yet passionate. You can't do this on the East or West Coast, the public just wouldn't engage all the candidates like this. You shouldn't do it in a larger state either, the retail aspect will be gone. If you had a national primary day, or rotated the "first in the nation" status, the nominations of the two parties would simply be put up for sale to the highest bidder, and all that would matter is fundraising numbers, as though they don't now.

Maybe you wouldn't like to visit Iowa- that's your loss. It's a great place, and I enjoy visiting. If you don't like it, don't run for President, no one is making you. Just cool it with your, "why Iowa?" questions every four years. You'll never quite understand.

To close, here's the Iowa Democratic results, by county. I'm looking forward to Iowa 2024.

The President's Visit to the Islamic Society of Baltimore

Pussy Riot is Awesome

Navarro Era Chili Peppers

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is anything you want her to be. To some Democrats, she is an iconic figure associated with a great period in our history, a fighter for those who need a fighter, and a leader who takes on the tough issues. To others, she is everything "establishment," a quasi-Republican that is completely corporate. She is both the most admired woman in America, and one of the most polarizing. There are few people that evoke so many views of themselves.

On Monday she added yet another piece of history to her name- she is the first woman to win the Iowa Caucus, just as she was the first to win the New Hampshire Primary in 2008. She's been First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator, Secretary of State, and a Presidential candidate now, twice. Almost no one can boast of her resume. She still has a better than 50% chance of being the Democratic nominee for President, which gives her at least a coin-flip's chance of being the first woman President. She's had a very remarkable career, not just for the resume lines, but for the length of it. Bill and Hillary Clinton the tandem have been in the public eye since the mid-to-late 1970s. Four decades after it began for them, and almost a quarter century after they became household names nationally, she is still able to win the Iowa Caucus. It's pretty amazing, actually. Find me another national figure with that staying power. Perhaps you'd compare the Bushes, Kennedys, or Nixon, but no one of them lasted like she has.

And yet, the criticism goes on. She's polarizing. She's not "warm enough" on the trail. She's not tough enough/too tough. Her speeches aren't good. She's willing to say what she needs to for votes. Her campaign isn't so good. You've heard them all. Some of them have some truth to them. Others are BS. Even with all of her achievements, even with her amazing staying power, she still has to answer to these attacks. As incredible as her career has been, Hillary Clinton has some genuine shortcomings that continue to plague her campaign.

A campaign does not make a trend, but some of these things have to just accepted as part of who she is at this point. Yes, her campaign will be a constant struggle, and yes she will worry Democrats sick. She won't have it easy, nor has she ever. She'll never be as fun or cool as a Bernie or President Obama, but if you give her the job, she'll do it well. That's her strength in this campaign, competency. Now she just has to show that as a candidate.

The New Hampshire Democratic Primer

The Iowa Caucus ended in a dead-heat. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton fought to a near draw, and now they move on to the Granite State. Eight years ago, New Hampshire rescued Hillary after an Iowa loss, giving her a stirring come-from-behind win. Bernie has lead New Hampshire for a while now, and has served neighboring Vermont in Congress for many years. Who will win?

My sense here is that this race may be over before it starts. Bernie Sanders did very well last night, and has the lead by nearly twenty points. Barring a mistake, he should win. If he does win, it will be a huge story next Wednesday morning, despite the expectations. I'd be shocked if this isn't a good state for him.

Hillary will get her votes, but really has low expectations here. For her, she just has to give an honest showing. She's supposed to lose here. Don't make the big mistake, and things should be fine.

The New Hampshire Republican Primer

Photo by Connor Corpora

Ted Cruz won Iowa. I'd be very surprised if he wins New Hampshire too. He ran a great race there, but the Granite State is far less Evangelical, and far more secular. The formula is very different.

The current state of the New Hampshire Republican Primary is very different than Iowa was. Donald Trump holds a fairly large lead, right now. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush were all hanging around in a close race for second. Obviously Iowa isn't going to decide New Hampshire, but it does re-set the race.

• Donald Trump now gets to show us if he can take a punch. His lead is solid enough that he should be able to win. If he melts down from losing Iowa though, he could lose.
• Marco Rubio now has an opening to a strong showing. If he can pull in Kasich, Christie, and Bush people in New Hampshire, he could possibly win. He has the momentum.
• Ted Cruz will be fascinating to watch. I don't see his strategy to win. I do see his momentum from a huge victory. 
• So much for the "Republican Comeback Team." The Governors bombed Iowa. Will they bomb New Hampshire too? Kasich didn't do great last night, but he did much better than Christie. Technically, Bush beat both, though it doesn't feel like it. All of them could be finished in New Hampshire. No way they all survive.
• Rand Paul did not do so well in Iowa. Can he do better in New Hampshire? If not, it might be time to get out. Same for Carly Fiorina. Rick Santorum will be a non-factor here. Ben Carson doesn't appear interested in contesting the Granite State.

Thoughts on Iowa

It's over. The Iowa Caucus is over. The results are in, we know who won, and we know who won. The first votes were cast in the race to be the 45th President of the United States. The caucus-goers are the first real signs we have of who has the momentum in this race.

First off, for lack of any other way to put it, the Democratic race was a tie. Hillary Clinton currently has 699 delegate-equivalencies to the state convention, while Bernie Sanders has 695. Given that there are eight Martin O'Malley delegates won last night, it is fair to say that no one will know who won Iowa until those folks select which side they want to go to. I do know that people are disputing how we should count this race, but there's not many ways to slice a race this close.

The Republican race was shocking. Donald Trump turned out the second most caucus-goers in Republican history. He lost. I would not have predicted that. Ted Cruz had an incredible organization, and shocked even me. Marco Rubio also shocked me, not by finishing third, but by finishing so close to Trump.

Here's my winners from last night:

1. Bernie Sanders- No, he didn't really win. He also isn't Howard Dean. While there was a quiet thought that this man might be a flop once real voting happened, he showed us that his campaign is real. His speech felt like the "victory" speech on the Democratic side, and he showed that he can turn out the kids, the newcomers to the process, and the more progressive base. He has a big lead in New Hampshire, and it's fair to say that last night should not change that. While he didn't get the decisive victory that would change the race over night, his position is no worse than it was.
2. Hillary Clinton- If the results hold, she will be the first Clinton to win Iowa. She will also be the first woman to ever win Iowa. She avoided a repeat of 2008, which was really the bar to clear. She is in a good position to win the nomination, and last night didn't change that.
3. Ted Cruz- I mean, he won the Iowa Caucus. He got the most votes in the history of the event too. His base of Evangelicals and arch-conservatives won the night. 
4. Marco Rubio- He's one step closer to being the "establishment" Republican. He's going to take some serious fire in New Hampshire now, but I'd rather be in his position than anyone else's.

I was almost tempted to put Donald Trump in here for handling the loss with modesty, but I'll pass for now. The night is a loss for Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Christ Christie. All of them did considerably more poor than I thought. 

On to New Hampshire!

Final Prediction- Democratic Iowa Caucus

The last two Iowa Democratic winners

It's time for my final prediction for tonight's Iowa Democratic Caucus:

1. Hillary Clinton 50%
2. Bernie Sanders 48%
3. Martin O'Malley 2%

Final Predictions- Iowa Republican Caucus

Alright, the Iowa Caucus is underway. It's time for final predictions. Here's my final Iowa prediction:

1. Donald Trump 28%
2. Ted Cruz 27%
3. Marco Rubio 15%
4. Rand Paul 11%
5. Ben Carson 9%
6. Jeb Bush 5%
7. Carly Fiorina 2%
8. John Kasich 2%
9. Chris Christie 1%

Happy Iowa Caucus Night- Stevie Wonder- "Signed, Sealed, Delivered"

"The Movement" and History

In a little while, the Iowa Caucuses will happen, and the very first "votes" will be cast in the race to become the 45th President of the United States. It is a historic moment, and it is a moment that people around the globe will watch closely.

Bernie Sanders is trying to shock the political world. If he wins the Iowa Caucus, he will set himself up to sweep the Iowa and New Hampshire contests to start the process, and take his "political revolution" national. He started this process down by a 61-5% margin in the state, and now is within just a couple of points in most polls. Many find this pretty unbelievable, even unprecedented. It is unbelievable. It is not unprecedented.

Whether you call them "movements," anti-establishment, underdogs, or just "more liberal," candidates like Bernie Sanders have existed in the past. President Obama somewhat fit that mold in 2008, though history now shows us that he was much more "mainstream" and moderate than perhaps he was cast in 2008. Howard Dean was certainly this candidate in 2004, as was Bill Bradley in 2000. Go back further and you find Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern. In case you're noticing this, most of these candidates didn't win, besides President Obama. In other words, this isn't easy to do.

Furthermore standing in Bernie's way is the current condition- Democrats hold the White House. It's not really a "change" election, let alone a revolution, to Democrats who will vote in this process. Bernie has made his differences with the President, particularly on banking and health care, front and center in this race. Is it doable? I'd suggest it's pretty hard to be the "change" guy against the President with 90% approval in the caucus.

Iowa does have a way of bringing surprises out, and that could happen tonight. It's not as likely as a Clinton victory though. If Sanders wins tonight, it's pretty much a huge upset. History tells us that tonight, if Sanders does well, that is a very big deal.

Re-Visiting the "Old World"

On Saturday afternoon, after attending to political, professional, and family commitments, I realized it was 2 pm. I realized that at 3 pm over at the Easton Middle School, the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference was having their "Day of Champions" wrestling dual meets. I decided it would be good to catch a match for an hour or two. I got there just in time for the 3 pm "finals" session, with three matches going on at once- Easton and Parkland, Liberty and Emmaus, and the championship between Nazareth and Bethlehem Catholic. I had a few takeaways-

1. Bethlehem Catholic is really, really good. I get that they have some unfair advantages as a non-public school, and I get that people don't like them for that and other reasons, but those kids are really good. They have some serious talents, and it is always more fun to watch people who are good at what they do.
2. Easton and Parkland wrestled to an old-school tie, but criteria H gave Easton the 29-29 win. What is criteria H, you ask? No one in the gym knew, to be honest. About 30 minutes after the match ended, we learned that Easton won on the account of scoring the first point in more bouts than Parkland did. In other words, the teams won the same number of bouts, falls, technical falls, major decisions, and probably takedowns, back points, and some other criteria too. When it's that close, I'm not sure what the point of awarding a win is, unless it's for a championship. 
3. Lehigh Valley wrestling is almost back. I know, we've heard in recent years about how the western part of the state, or the central part of the state for that matter, has caught and passed the locals. I think when they get to Hershey this year, you will see several wrestlers from Bethlehem Catholic, Nazareth, Easton, Liberty, Northampton, and Parkland place very high in the tournament. I believe Bethlehem Catholic will win the state duals as well. I get that it's maybe not where it was fifteen years ago, but the kids currently wrestling locally are really good.

Last year I went to just one wrestling match all season, a college match between Penn State and Rutgers. This was my third Easton match this season. I'm glad i'm getting back to some matches this year. My last match was in 2001 (!), or 15 years ago this month. While life does go on, my time on the mats was fun, and did have a lot of molding me into the person I am today. Being back around the sport I competed in for eleven years is entertaining, and I enjoy both reminiscing in the past and enjoying the competition today.

Happy Iowa Caucus Day- Bruce Springsteen- "No Surrender"

The Kids Keep Getting Better at this Stuff

When I was working the Iowa Caucus in 2007 and 2008, we thought we were pretty awesome at innovation. Smart phones were relatively new, votebuilder was a new thing, Twitter was brand new, it was the first "Facebook election," and campaigns were using text messaging to reach their audience. It's only been one Presidency, eight years, and it seems like a lot less. We were stone age compared to this election though.

Last night I was out with my cousin when my phone gave me an "alert" from Facebook: Hillary Clinton was live from Lincoln High School in Des Moines, IA. Of course, being intrigued I clicked it, and watched her rally live-streamed. In that live-stream, I could communicate in real time with others watching the speech. The campaign could also communicate to me. We thought Podcasts and blogs were a big deal in 2008.

I believe that eight years from now, elections will probably be largely contested over the internet. We're simply moving into a more technological nation and world, and it only makes sense that our politics would follow that direction. I'm kind of amazed at how fast the advances are happening, and really how much has changed in eight years. I can only imagine what it will look like eight years from now.

Oscars So White? C'mon, You're Missing the Point

I don't really watch the Oscars, even though I absolutely am a fan of movies and cinema in general. I'm just not much of an award show guy. I know people do take them seriously though, so they tend to get a lot of attention. This year they're getting a lot of negative attention. It seems the Oscars are really, really white. Like totally white. Minority actors, actresses, and directors are basically completely left out in the cold. Some are saying this is a sign of the racism in Hollywood. I think they are missing the larger point.

I'm not sure that the Academy actually got their nominees wrong, or that this is the sign of Hollywood's racism. In fact, I'd suggest that's not at all the issue. You don't get many minority nominees in a field that is extremely white. It's simple math, the law of averages, and the law of chances. How many minority actors or actresses get major casting assignments in Hollywood? How many minority directors get major assignments? I'd argue the issue isn't who got nominated for an awards show that reflects what went on last year, I'd argue the issue is who was even given the opportunity. If your not in the cast in the first place, you can't win an award for your work.

I know, I'm not sticking to the progressive script here, but that's because the argument being made is stupid. I really don't care all that much about the Oscars, I care about the opportunity for an African-American or other minority to get major acting roles. If you're arguing over who gets a gold statue, you're arguing over a symptom, not the illness. Hollywood could use an injection of diversity, not a lecture about who gets awards.

Happy Iowa Caucus Day- Fleetwood Mac- "Don't Stop"

Bernie Showing the Easton Area Some Love

It's hard to get a delegate slot for Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. It's very hard to get an at-large slot in Pennsylvania, and it's very difficult to do so at the district level. There were only seven slots and one alternate in the 17th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Both of the main candidates in this race had a lot more than seven or eight applicants.

The Sanders campaign did something pretty unprecedented. They selected five Easton area activists as delegate candidates in the 17th Congressional District. Adrian Shanker and John Ferguson of Palmer Township, Blandine Mballa-Fonkeu and Sheila Ferguson of Forks Township, and Tara Stephenson of Easton all were selected to appear on the ballot as delegates for Sanders. If Sanders wins enough delegates and they receive the needed number of votes to win one of those slots, they could end up in Philadelphia in July.

Obviously this doesn't change my view of the race, but I think it's great to see our little area of the country get so much love from a major national campaign. I'm happy for all of them.

Cam Newton is Not Controversial, It's Just Prejudice Showing

Rob Gronkowski likes to point down the field when he catches a first down. He likes to spike the football when he scores a touchdown. He shows his emotions when he plays football. No one considers him controversial for it.

Aaron Rodgers likes to do his "Discount Double-Check" (previously known as "putting on the belt) when he throws a touchdown pass. He's even made commercials about it. He shows his emotions when he plays football. No one considers him controversial for it.

Cam Newton likes to dance when he makes a good play. He dabs, he hands footballs to kids, he does the "Superman." He shows his emotions when he plays football. He's controversial, apparently.

Say what?

Let me be clear- I like Gronk and Rodgers. I also like Cam. I can't find a reason that he's controversial, for the life of me. The only thing I can come up with is race. Is dancing a bad thing? Is having fun a bad thing? Is giving footballs to children a bad thing? Of course not. Yes, college-aged Cam did make some mistakes, but that really shouldn't still be following him around. The only reason I can come up with for people not liking Cam Newton is prejudice.

As we go through this week, it's worth ignoring any discussion of Cam Newton as "controversial." It's not based on anything that exists in reality. This man is one football game away from immortality, from achieving everything a football player can achieve in life. That's what we should discuss this Super Bowl week- not some made up debate about his being controversial.

Good Morning

It's already the second month of 2016. That doesn't quite seem right. The weather feels like it's month four though, as yesterday was a really beautiful day. Let's hope it stays that way all month.

Today is February 1st, 2016, a significant day to me for two reasons. One, today is the tenth anniversary of my grandfather, Richard Wilkins Sr.'s death. Two, I thought I'd be in Iowa today for the caucus until a few months ago. I know that all sounds kind of sad, but I'm not really feeling sad this morning. I'm actually feeling pretty good though. As the years go by, while I do miss my grandfather, I remember him so fondly that I only seem to remember the great times. As for my work, while I do miss the thrill of the Iowa Caucus, things just didn't work out this time. I've got my own consulting business now though, and a half dozen candidates currently to work on, keeping me plenty busy. I'm certainly not starving.

Opportunity wasted is opportunity lost. Time with people that you waste is life lost. Today's going to be a beautiful day. Go out and enjoy it.

Happy Iowa Caucus Day- Bon Jovi- "It's My Life"