The Saints Go Marching In! The most exciting Super Bowl I can remember (that the Steelers didn't win, that is) and very well played--few penalties and I believe only one turnover--and that was a doozy, a perfectly timed Saints interception and 75 yd. run for the TD that sealed it. Lots of dramatic moments, several surprising running plays and of course lots and lots of passing. That New Orleans won it--and deserved to win it, with skill, grit and fearlessness--makes this one to remember. Probably no city outside of Pittsburgh has a closer identification with its team, and the Saints identify with their city more than anybody. So a great win for a beleaguered city with an amazing history.

The Who rocked halftime--not as great as the Boss, but fun anyway. Great music--from what's turned out to be the high times of rock.

The commercials were appalling, in their confusion, violence, and what they say about American culture. The one with Jay Leno and David Letterman, with Oprah between them, was funny, and Hundyai had some good ones, scoring with a funny Brett Favre bit and voiceovers from the likely Best Actor winner this year, Jeff Bridges. Otherwise, more efforts to turn women as well as men into beer-sucking infants. Ugly, ugly, ugly. But everything else was fun.

The Politics of Health Care

President Obama outlined the process for health insurance reform at a Democratic National Committee function on Thursday, and it's pretty interesting, pretty shrewd. It also illuminates for me what conclusions he's drawn from the debacle in MA.

Immediately after the unthinkable (and unthinkably embarrassing) loss of the 60th Senate seat in a solidly Democratic state--the seat held by John and Edward Kennedy for a half century--Obama announced that he wasn't going to try to rush the healthcare bill out of conference and through the House and Senate before the Dems lost their filibuster-proof 60 (which coincidentally happened officially on Thursday.) This upset some people, because it seemed a kind of surrender. He also seemed to step back from the process, letting congressional leaders hash out how to accomplish the final bill, and some feared he was abandoning health care completely.

But in his State of the Union and in every forum since, he's made clear that he's still committed to healthcare reform. But why he backed off a bit became
clearer today. Apart from the complacency that allowed the Senate seat to slip away (and Obama addressed that immediately by bringing David Plouffe back to ride herd over all the congressional races this year), Obama clearly saw that the GOPers had succeeded in distorting the healthcare package enough so it didn't have the support it should. And the lack of public support was showing up in declining support among Democrats in Congress.

So his plan is to organize a meeting of legislators--Dems and GOPers--along with the relevant experts, make it public--televise it--and hash out the plans that were passed, and what should go into the final bill. Then put it to a vote. The process, he indicated, should take only a few weeks, and might be the next order of business after the jobs bill he says is his first priority right now.

“What I’d like to do is have a meeting whereby I am sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts and let’s just go through these bills,” Mr. Obama said. “Their ideas, our ideas. Let’s walk through them in a methodical way, so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense. And then I think that we have got to move forward on a vote. We have got to move forward on a vote.”

Part of what Obama clearly wants to do is clear the air of distortions, and focus public attention on what the bill will really do, and what it won't.

Mr. Obama said that Americans were apprehensive about the health care legislation because there was too much misinformation that he would now work to clear up.
“They are certain that they would have to go onto a government plan, which isn’t true,” the president said. “But that’s still a perception a lot of people have. They are still pretty sure that they would have to give up their doctor. They are still pretty sure that if they are happy with their health care plan, that it’s bad for them. They are still positive that this is going to add to the deficit. So there is a lot of information out there that people understandably are concerned about.”

He presented the rest of the process in a matter-of-fact manner: He continued, “That’s why I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks and then let’s go ahead and make a decision. And it may be that if Congress decides, if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that’s how democracy works, and there will be elections coming up and they will be able to make a determination and register their concerns one way or another during election time.”

But there was a more aggressive message under the calm. Because clearly he believes this is an argument he can win, and once the actual undistorted plan is clarified for the public, there will be a political price to pay for not passing it.

It's a gamble, but you have to like his chances. GOPers are still reeling from his dismantling of them and their arguments at the Republican House caucus. The other very powerful element in his favor is the fact that both the House and Senate have already passed comprehensive health care bills, 90% of them (the President says) the same. So all the painful months of this process so far may not have been wasted. It still will take some heavy lifting, but the process that Obama outlined is both rational and politically shrewd. GOPers have been crying that nobody is listening to their ideas, and they've criticized Obama for not conducting a more public--and televised--process. After the televised caucus Q&A, they may not be as eager for that--but if it's handled right, they're going to get it.

If it works, the process will be persuasive, polls will reflect increasing public support for reform, and legislators will have to decide which side of history to be on, and what they want to face the voters having done or not done.

At one point, as the president insisted that he would continue to fight for the health care bill, the crowd chanted, “Yes, we can! Yes, we can!”

Play The Damn Game

Since I stopped watching political shows, I tend to eat breakfast with sports shows washing over me like water warmed by hot air. I don't expect much of them. I like PTI--I met Tony Kornheiser once when he was a young wolf, and we were both circling around the same foxy lady. Only I was invited, Tony--you weren't!

Anyway.

It's Wednesday and I'm sick to death of the Super Bowl, which isn't until Sunday. Two weeks of chatter is a week too much. And there really isn't much to say. You can't root against New Orleans, but Indianapolis has the edge, because once Payton Manning figures out the defense--and sooner or later that usually happens--he can carve it up. That's what it all comes down to.

Besides, these teams are so evenly matched that it all comes down to game day. Which defense clicks, and which quarterback. Which receivers make the catches they should, and which backs have a good running day, without fumbles. Nobody can predict any of that.

And only the teams themselves know what their coaches have up their sleeves. Maybe a new blocking scheme to unleash New Orleans' formidable runners, taking the pressure off the passing game. Here, the Saints have the edge. If Reggie Bush has a great game, they have the edge.

It could be a sloppy game, even a grinding game, but chances are it will be an exciting game. I'm just tired of hearing about it. Play the damn game and talk about something else, please.

League Championship Thoughts

So I picked them both (Indy-30 Jets 17, New Orleans 31 MN 28) but I don't feel good about it--at least, not about the second game. The Saints-Vikings game started out great, a lot of fun to watch. But it got ugly. It isn't fun, at least for me, seeing a quarterback get beat up like Brett Favre did. The Vikings basically outplayed the Saints, Favre outplayed Brees, but some pretty bad calls by the officials and some unforced errors set them back. Still, Favre had them in position to win the game, but at the end of regulation, beaten up physically and mentally exhausted, he made a fatal mistake. He had to get ten yards or so, and though he had a running lane he probably didn't feel he could make it. He threw an interception, and his truly courageous game ended with a bitter taste.

The Saints offense did basically nothing the second half. They got a few breaks in overtime, and their kicker did his job. It's great that New Orleans is in their first Super Bowl ever, but they got in ugly.

I also have to say that based on this game I'm withdrawing my SB pick. The Saints were almost rudderless in the second half--they couldn't run, they couldn't throw. Now Indy has two weeks to study what the Vikings defense did to stymie the Saints. The Saints looked lethargic, they were out of rhythm. It may have been that they were beat up, too, and two weeks to heal up should help their energy level. But if the Colts defense can replicate what the Vikings did, the edge goes to them.

As happened all season, the Colts did just enough to win. That's usually dangerous, but the Colts play with such confidence, and Payton Manning deals with pressure and defenses so well, that they are hardly ever out of the game. They basically studied what the Jets did in the first half, didn't panic when they were behind, and carved up the Jets defense and stifled their offense in the second half. The Saints will need to reenergize, and they'll need Indy mistakes and the kind of breaks they got today.

On the other hand, there is still the question mark about the relative strengths of the conferences--it looked to me that the NFC teams were stronger. New Orleans dismantled the Patriots, but then it turns out that the Patriots weren't so good even relative to the AFC. The Saints OL and DL could overpower Indy. Although I don't relish seeing another quarterback beaten into the ground. I guess that's why some people watch football. Not me.

NFL: Final Four Picks

Due to popular demand from a breathless public, I'm issuing my picks for the playoff games this weekend--because there just isn't enough about them available on TV and in print. (Seriously, I didn't think it was possible to talk so much about the same four teams every day for a week, but hey, that's why I'm not on ESPN.)

Indianapolis Colts v. New York Jets: On offense, the Jets run and the Colts pass. The Jets defense can cover and also blitz, and so, to a lesser extent, can the Colts. If the Jets control the tempo by running effectively, and their defense smothers Payton Manning, they win. But if they fall behind, they have a harder time catching up by scoring points quickly. If the game is close, Manning is better at manufacturing points, and except in a real blowout, the Colts can never be counted out until the game is over. I expect Manning to do a lot of short passes, to try to counter the Jets ability to dominate the clock. But Manning can also get points on the board. If the Colts can't stop the run, they're pretty close to cooked. If the Jets can't stop the pass, they are cooked.

So when you're looking at this by considering various scenarios, the Colts have to be the favorites--they have more ways to win. Also on average, this looks to be a close game. Still, this game could be a blowout either way, depending on whose specific game plan works, plus the breaks of the game. Both teams are capable of having a great game, and both are capable of having a bad game. How's that for temporizing? So I have to pick the Colts, but a Jets victory would not surprise me.

New Orleans Saints v. Minneapolis Vikings: A pair of well-matched teams, with high powered offenses and defenses that can be stifling, but can also be breached. I expected to be picking MN because of their defense and the wily ways of Brett Favre. But then I saw New Orleans last week, and if they play like that, no one can beat them. I haven't seen a more balanced offense since the 70s Steelers, and their defense was pretty impressive.

Both of these offenses can be so efficient that they're scary. Still, I don't think this is going to be as high-scoring as the Arizona-San Diego game. This one is less likely to be a blowout either way than the AFC final. So... with the Saints at home, a possible key injury to the MN offense, I have to give the edge to New Orleans. But again, a Vikings victory wouldn't surprise me.

But if that's not definite enough for you, here's this: the winner of the Saints-Viking game beats the winner of the Colts-Jets game in the Super Bowl.

NFL: Now There Are Four

I'm three for four this weekend on playoff games, including the Dallas meltdown I predicted would happen. But how about those Jets? That was the big surprise--San Diego was a frequent favorite to get to the Bowl, especially on the basis of momentum. But for San Diego (and Dallas) the momentum stopped cold on Sunday, and partly for the same reasons: the other team's defense getting to the Qback, turnovers, an unaccountably erratic kicker, and a certain loss of composure. I expected that from Dallas, but not San Diego.

I have to laugh at all the Dallas hype--and that's another commonality. I think both Dallas and San Diego believed their hype. Minnesota showed some character. So did the Jets, though they got some breaks and hung on. Minnesota just kept coming, taking every opportunity.

Saturday's story was the return of the winning moxie for New Orleans and Indianapolis, both undefeated until late in the season, both throttled back towards the end and lost several games. But they were vindicated about rest--both very energetic and, contrary to expectations, sharp. Especially New Orleans. That was the most fun to watch of any of the playoff games I've seen this year. I watched Reggie Bush at USC (all their games are broadcast here) so it was fun watching him do similarly flashy running (contrary to what the announcers were saying, he ran over people at USC too.)

So now that I'm on a roll, what are my picks for next week? I don't know if I will make any, certainly not now. I know the sportswriters have to be salivating for a Minnesota-New York Bowl: the wily 40 year old veteran Qback vs the rookie Qback half his age. And it could happen. Right now I'd have to give MN an edge for defense vs. New Orleans, but the Saints get a big home field advantage. New Orleans can be dominant, but Minnesota can be wily and if the game is close you can't ever count them out. So right now I'd say that one is even.

The Colts have the early edge v. the Jets, but the Colts have won so many games by getting breaks late that their luck has to run out some time. (They won by 17 over the Ravens, but the Ravens aren't that impressive.) How much pressure can the Jets get on Manning? Which team makes the fewer mistakes? I don't think anyone can confidently make the Jets the favorite. But you can't count them out.

Nobody expected three not very close games this weekend (New Orleans was a blowout, and though MN won by a big margin, it wasn't really over until the 4th quarter.) But I'm sure the conventional wisdom will be for a high scoring MN/N.O game and a low scoring Indy/Jets. We'll see.

I used to be a big fan of late night talk shows. I cut my teeth on the great Steve Allen show on Westinghouse in the early 60s, and being a night owl anyway, I watched far too much of Johnny Carson, Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show, Arsenio Hall, David Letterman's NBC show and God help me Joey Bishop, Merv Griffin, and even Regis Philbin's brief late night foray. I remember as a child listening to the adults talking in hushed tones about the original Steve Allen Tonight Show and did bluff my way into seeing a little Jack Paar.

But I haven't watched any of it for years (even though I was present backstage with Steve Allen at the Tonight Show anniversary during Jay Leno's first year), until one night this week, when the Conan O'Brien-Jay Leno kerfluffle at NBC hit high gear. If you haven't followed it, basically: Jay Leno left the Tonight Show 8 months ago and began a 10 pm show several nights a week, while Conan ( who previously followed Tonight in Letterman's old spot) took over Tonight, as his contract stipulated. But Leno's show bombed and Conan lost the Tonight Show's ratings over Letterman (now on CBS.) So NBC wanted to put Leno back on at 11:35, with Conan still doing Tonight, but at 12:05. Conan refused, in an open letter professing devotion to the Tonight Show tradition.

I tuned in that night to see him, switching back and forth to Letterman, and later also Jimmy Fallon and a touch of Carson Daly on NBC, Jimmy Kimmel on ABC and Craig Ferguson following Letterman on CBS. Not only did Conan have a lot to say about the NBC situation--they all did. Major dollops of their humor were about it, and almost all of it was hostile to Leno and NBC. There was less of it with Jimmy Fallon, who was clearly more taken with fulfilling a widely shared fantasy of singing a Beatles tune with a real Beatle (Ringo Starr.) But Jimmy Kimmel did his whole show as Jay Leno--though it was described as "unflattering," it got him an invitation to appear on Leno's prime time show. (It's also possible that I've confused the two Jimmy's.)

I dipped back into it last night, and the Leno/NBC/ insecure talk show host jibes continued, falling flat to me--I mean, poor poor pitiful Conan, who is likely to come out of this at worst with a settlement worth $10 million a year. My other takeaway, and this probably says more about me than about them, but I don't find late night interesting or funny anymore. And I haven't for years--clearly why I stopped watching. The guests are comparatively boring and almost exclusively show biz, and the humor isn't worth the increased commercials time. Though Jimmy Fallon is a nice enough, the only new guy who makes me laugh is Craig Ferguson. As for the kerfluffle, well, I don't think Conan is that good. Letterman's show is better. This may be an age thing (mine I mean) but Letterman's is better paced.

The other element in all this is Comedy Central's dynamic duo of Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report. So I suppose if I got back into the bad late night TV habit I'd start by switching around from Stewart-Colbert/Charlie Rose/Sports Center and Star Trek: The Next Generation reruns from 11 to 12, then check out Craig Ferguson's monologue. I don't know, maybe it is a better use of my time than blogging.