« The Celebrity Factor | Main | Swarthy Germans »

Bad Omen

04 Feb 2008 09:23 am

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor put this out yesterday:

A reminder - seven years ago, a patriotic group of Americans had to make a choice between conventional experience and change they desperately needed. It wasn’t an easy decision. Both options were compelling in their own right, but when it was time to make a decision, the choice was clear. The New England Patriots started Tom Brady over Drew Bledsoe, and Brady went on to be the MVP of Super Bowl XXXVI. Now that’s change we can believe in.

No they can't!

Share This

Comments (11)

But see Simmons: The Patriots are the new Rams (and the Giants the new Patriots). I'm not sure you make much of an augur.

Yeah, winning 3 titles since then has been pretty rough.

Oh yeah and the two World Series. Those were hard, too.

I think Tom Brady, his rings, and Gisele Bunchen are doing just fine, thank you.

That said, I think we can thank being spared the decades of debate that would have ensued over Spygate, officiating in the Ravens game, general pro-Moss officiating, Rodney Harrison and PEDs, etc.


Tom Brady wasn't the issue.

The lack of an O-line, and the veracious Giants D-line and backer core was.

Why Eli won the MVP is beyond me, someone on defense should have earned it, giving Eli the chance for that last sloppy drive.

If Kerry of Massachusetts couldn't win in 2004 I have a hard time believing there's any correlation at all between sports and politics. But I'll keep reading Matt's blog anyway, just in case I'm wrong.

All I can really tell from this is that you hate the Patriots, which is fine. I hate the Yankees, and have surely said something similar. But it is kind of important that Brady and cohorts won three Super Bowls, and--dare I suggest, to the only-winning-it-all-matters crowd--did pull off 18 wins this year. The fact (undeniable) that they lost the wrong game: does that have to overshadow every winning trait they have? I'd suggest not, but do know that's it's mostly all just sports-slap and our difference here will have little effect that could conceivable matter. Thanks for your excellent political thought.

The point, of course, is that the Patriots did not finish the unbeaten season. The NY Giants get to enjoy champagne from the '72 Dolphins.

And perhaps the Patriots become less worthy of hatred. I dunno. I still got a nasty taste in my mouth from that 52-17 nonsense.

And yes, 18 wins means very little without the Super Bowl. The 2007-2008 Patriots will be remembered as being one short, not as having won 18.

I've never understood why the Patriots are considered the greatest dynasty ever, other than our media's crackwhore like insatiable desire for hype. Yes, they won three Super Bowls, by 3 points each time. The Cowboys of the early 90s won three Super Bowls by a combined margin of 62 points. That's a dynasty.
Back to the OT, wasn't Hillary Clinton endorsed by Flutie? Which is odd, because Kucinich is still in the race and leprechauns tend to support their own.

The fact (undeniable) that they lost the wrong game: does that have to overshadow every winning trait they have?

Yes.

I've never understood why the Patriots are considered the greatest dynasty ever

Who ever said anything about greatest? After the 3rd superbowl, they were clawing back against the media just to be consitered one on fair terms.

one thing I think we can all agree on, is how bad the sports media has degraded into politic like pundentry, and Parez Hilton wanabe journalism. It's really turning me off to open up the paper, or watch ESPN.

I must say that when the game ended, looking at Tom Brady, I thought: Holy shit, he's going home with Gisele Bundchen tonight and he's STILL gonna feel like crap!


Comments closed February 18, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.