« Blame the Blogger | Main | New New Media »

Bad Omen?

26 Feb 2008 01:37 pm

The Obama campaign sent out an email yesterday bragging about this, but I'm not so sure it's a good thing. Greg Oden says:

Like a lot of young people, I’ve been drawn to Senator Obama’s campaign and the potential he has for our country. Obama gives Americans, especially young voters like me, a sense of hope in politics. He makes us feel like we can come together for the good of our country. Topics like education, and healthcare are very important to me and I agree with Senator Obama's views on these issues.

For those of you who normally ignore my NBA posts, Oden was one of the most highly-touted draft picks ever. In part, this is because he graduated from high school as part of the very first class of high school graduates who weren't allowed to leap straight to the NBA. Thus the guy who, by acclamation, would have been the number one pick in the 2006 draft instead had to play a year in college granting us a second whole year of being treated to talk of what a phenomenal prospect he was. Then the Portland Trailblazers won the draft lottery, took Oden with the number one pick, and Oden promptly suffered a season-ending injury. So is Obama like the much-hyped prospect who wins up letting your team down? A disturbing thought. Oden is, however, prepared to vouch for Obama's ability to talk about basketball from day one:

The conversation was quick - like two minutes but I got to talk to him like a real person. What I got from talking to him is that he is a real sports fan and he knew about the Blazers. He said that when I come back Brandon, LaMarcus and I will be a force next year. He also asked me about my knee, and he said he wasn't feeling my mohawk - lol. I laughed and explained to him that it's just a haircut to me and he told me he liked how I handle myself as a young man - "Thanks Mom."

This seems astute. The West very, very tough but you have to think the Blazers are well-positioned for the future. All that said, at this point I feel like the campaign comes down to Texas, and it's really Kevin Durant's endorsement that one wants. Or LeBron James. And of course Obama's international mystique is reminiscent of the San Antonio Spurs. At the end of the day, the NBA -- full of rich young black men -- seems like endlessly promising territory for Obama endorsements.

:: Comments (59) ::

Share This

Comments (59)

I haven't been this excited about my long-suffering team since that dark day in the 2000 when they blew it to the Lakers in game 7.

Posted by dadanarchist | February 26, 2008 1:42 PM

Don't forget that Emmitt Smith just endorsed Obama, so there's probably a rich vein of NFL endorsements to be tapped. That's a big deal in football-crazed Texas.

Posted by Clark | February 26, 2008 1:48 PM

"At the end of the day, the NBA -- full of rich young black men -- seems like endlessly promising territory for Obama endorsements. "

I wouldn't be surprised if the player's deals with Nike, et al. expressly prohibited political endorsements.

I remember being disgusted at Curt Shilling's vocal support of Bush, and I'd bet Nike and such have no real desire to alienate 30-40% of the country by having their defactor spokespeople come out for one candidate or another.

Just a guess though.

Posted by Strega Nona | February 26, 2008 1:49 PM

Actually, the "Bad Omen" is the Yglesias Jinx.

This morning, Matthew predicts an Obama win and within an hour Obama commits political harikiri by publicly telling the Israel Lobby to suck his dick.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 1:49 PM

All that said, at this point I feel like the campaign comes down to Texas, and it's really Kevin Durant's endorsement that one wants. Or LeBron James.

LeBron, in Texas? Why? Because he lost to the Spurs last year?

LeBron would be big in Ohio, sure. (For that matter, so would Oden!) But I dunno about Texas.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 1:54 PM

This doesn't make up for your prediction backtracking Matt.

Please title your next post: "CLINTON TO SWEEP REMAINING STATES!!!" or something.

Obama commits political harikiri

So many things have happened that cut against your worldview, Don - but nothing ever changes your mind.

If Obama wins the nomination (he's already destroying the candidate backed by your fantasy bogeyman Haim Saban), will you, possibly, maybe, perhaps, rethink things?

Yeah, I know. It will never happen.

But Obama is winning the nomination, and there is nothing that Matt (hopefully), you and your imagined army of Saban-backed neo-con power ranger stormtroopers can do about it.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 26, 2008 1:57 PM

If Peretz didn't turn against Obama for his supposed heterodoxies on Israel, I don't see how it's going to have much of an effect in the primary campaign. In fact, Peretz's approval suggests to me that Obama's comments were not, in fact, heterodoxies.

Posted by John | February 26, 2008 2:04 PM

Al,
I think that was Matt's point. TX or OH. Durant or LeBron. Personally, I'm waiting for endorsements from Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey.

Kisses,
Craig Greg

Posted by Craig Greg | February 26, 2008 2:06 PM

Where did this kid Oden go to college? I hear they have a big primary coming up.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 26, 2008 2:07 PM

Obama had Emmitt Smith in Texas, and he also spent some time with the Texas Longhorns football team. He's done all his due diligence regarding sports in the Lone Star State. (Aggies don't vote Dem anyway.) The NBA scene there is too fragmented for there to be a clear advantage.

Al is right (WHAT DID I JUST SAY? HOLY COW!) - Oden is a legend in Ohio and will do just fine. I wonder who Bernie Kosar is backing?

Of course, I really don't give a damn who an athlete endorses. It just doesn't translate. I mean, Roger Staubach is the greatest player in the long, storied history of the NFL. But he's also a Republican, so I wouldn't give his endorsement much credence.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 26, 2008 2:09 PM

Matt --
Oden let Portland down by getting hurt?
WTF happened to you to turn you into Bobby Knight?

Posted by charles pierce | February 26, 2008 2:12 PM

Personally, I'm waiting for endorsements from Jessica Simpson

Really, I don't think Jessica Simpson is very popular in Texas these days.

I thought Clinton was a lock to get the big Yao endorsement. (Get it? Clinton-China connection! Oh, never mind.)

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 2:12 PM

I dunno, Woody. Barry Switzer's robocalls for Edwards in 2004 helped Edwards to a near-win in the Oklahoma primary. He's a coach, I know, but it's the same principle.

Posted by Clark | February 26, 2008 2:13 PM

Ahhh... But who will get the coveted Craig Ehlo endorsement?

Posted by Benniefly2 | February 26, 2008 2:14 PM

"So is Obama like the much-hyped prospect who winds up letting your team down? A disturbing thought."

I'm, um, surprised at this logical jump. Curt Schilling endorsed John McCain and later suffered a shoulder injury that may cost him the entirety of his final season in baseball. So is McCain like the well-respected veteran with many vaunted accomplishments who is simply too old to undergo one last rotation? A disturbing thought.

Posted by Jack Roy | February 26, 2008 2:19 PM

LoL, needing knee surgery is letting the team down?

I guess he should have played, blown his knee out, and ended his entire career. Because Matt said so...

sports fans need to understand how insane they sound sometimes.

Posted by Soullite | February 26, 2008 2:22 PM

Good call on the importance of a LeBron enjoyment.

I say if LBJ endorses BHO, it gets him at least 2 points in Ohio.

Seriously.

Is there any doubt LBJ is the most respected man living and working in Ohio right now?

I think not.

Posted by The Mando | February 26, 2008 2:22 PM

Bernie Kosar yukking it up with Bush and Ken Blackwell.
http://www.plunderbund.com/2006/08/04/krazy-kenny-my-buddy-george-bush/

Posted by ds022b | February 26, 2008 2:24 PM

Clark,
I guess I meant to say that it doesn't matter much to me, personally.

Is that story about Barry Shitzer and Edwards true, though? I might be tempted to break my "athletic endorsements don't matter" stance, just this once, and write off Edwards forever. Yikes.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 26, 2008 2:34 PM

I feel like the campaign comes down to Texas, and it's really Kevin Durant's endorsement that one wants. Or LeBron James.

Tim Duncan?

Posted by right | February 26, 2008 2:35 PM

At the end of the day, the NBA -- full of rich young black men -- seems like endlessly promising
territory for Obama endorsements.

Which is why it doesn't count...

Posted by JohnMcG | February 26, 2008 2:35 PM

Seriously, if it's a celebrity sports endorsement that would do great things for Obama, it would be Tiger Woods. Say what you will about the old white male demographic, but those geezers tend to like Woods and having some of that good feeling rub off on Obama would be helpful to his campaign.

Posted by David W. | February 26, 2008 2:39 PM

Barack,
Call Avery Johnson - he can help you in Dallas and S.A.

Posted by steve | February 26, 2008 3:06 PM

I don't think he was saying that Greg Oden let the Blazers down. He was simply saying that there could be similarities when it comes to viewing them as a 'savior.' Portland fans were let down by Greg Oden's injury, just like Obama supporters might be let down by a McCain victory. Saying that the Blazers were let down by Oden's injury is not the same as saying that Greg Oden let them down. But great to see you "laughing out loud" about it!!

Posted by Craig Greg | February 26, 2008 3:06 PM

Bernie Kosar would be the ultimate bad omen endorsement (although he did win a Super Bowl as backup for Dallas). Maybe Ernest Byner would be worse.

Posted by blah | February 26, 2008 3:12 PM

Hey, Oden! Since when is being 45 entitle you to speak "as a young person"? Holy shit, you're 20?!? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK!?!??

Posted by norbizness | February 26, 2008 3:28 PM

Obama is like Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker and Tim Duncan rolled into one. He's of the Spurs mold all the way.

He even called them his second favorite team:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOmKcgiZjAA

oh, and Go Spurs Go!

Posted by mikee | February 26, 2008 3:40 PM

I know a handful of diehard Cleveland Browns fans, and they worship Kosar like you wouldn't believe. But, as ds022b points out, his politics apparently are pretty disgusting.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 26, 2008 3:50 PM

I think the MI Dem primary wasn't actually finished, didn't Chris Webber call timeout before it ended?

Posted by crack | February 26, 2008 4:09 PM

Has any politician ever come back from microfracture surgery?

Posted by Alan in SF | February 26, 2008 4:13 PM

Oden's endorsement should put to rest any fears that Obama can't compete with McCain or Clinton for the senior vote.

Posted by matthew | February 26, 2008 4:21 PM

I mean, Roger Staubach is the greatest player in the long, storied history of the NFL.

You spelled "Jim Brown" wrong.

Posted by Thlayli | February 26, 2008 4:31 PM

I object to your hiding a basketball post in the clothing of a political comment. I don't mind the basketball, so long as I can always skip it. But when you dress it up in Obama commentary, how am I supposed to dodge it? Please, stick to the formula.

Posted by Grouchy | February 26, 2008 5:47 PM

"At the end of the day, the NBA -- full of rich young black men -- seems like endlessly promising territory for Obama endorsements."

Indeed. Young, rich, and AA is the perfect Obama demographic.

Greg Oden doesn't have to worry about healthcare coverage.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 6:38 PM

And while I normally dislike injuries in my competition, may I say that the Yao injury heartened me. Denver needs all the help we can get in terms of playoff seeding.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 6:42 PM

What Obama really needs is an Ocho Cinco endorsement. That would pretty much wrap up Ohio.

Posted by NC Saint | February 26, 2008 6:44 PM

And we should all give props to DeShawn.

Even the utterly mediocre Noam Scheibers of the world can sometimes get one right.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 6:45 PM

PETEY!!

Someone was putting out the foul canard that you are off working on the Ralph Nader campaign. Kinda of a John Milton "From the depths of HELL I smite thee!" gig.

Say it ain't so!

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 6:50 PM

Greg Oden was a Buckeye so that has to count for something.

Posted by Tom C | February 26, 2008 6:57 PM

"Someone was putting out the foul canard that you are off working on the Ralph Nader campaign."

If I was today forced to chose between Obama, McCain, and Nader, I'd vote Nader.

Obama certainly will have an opportunity to bring me home if he is the nominee and conducts a fall campaign actually concerned with Democratic voters.

But as of the moment, I stand with the majority of registered Democrats who've voted in the primaries and caucuses so far in voting with a candidate other than Obama.

(And it doesn't hurt that Nader was willing to promote Edwards in December. At the moment, I don't see why I shouldn't return the favor.)

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 6:57 PM

Petey,

Do you mind if I ask in which state are you a registered voter?

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 26, 2008 7:19 PM

"Do you mind if I ask in which state are you a registered voter?"

With a winter home in Florida and a summer home in Ohio, I usually double-vote in both states.

I trust my Nader vote will therefore pass muster with you.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 7:27 PM

It's worth pointing out that Nader is not running as a Democrat, and further that his quadrennial campaigns have the deliberate purpose of delivering the White House to the Republicans. I don't know what's become of Petey. As Fallows said about Nader, "He is a better man than his recent decisions indicate."

Posted by southpaw | February 26, 2008 7:50 PM

Denver needs all the help we can get in terms of playoff seeding.

It appear that Denver may now be able to move up from the "Lottery" playoff seed to 8th or even 7th. Not bad for them. (But sucky for my fantasy team, where Yao was the cornerstone. Hurts to drop Yao and pick up Luis Scola.)

I do appreciate simultaneously voting for Nader and undermining the "There is no such thing as vote fraud - it just would never occur" meme. That's a neat two-fer!

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 7:51 PM

"It's worth pointing out that Nader is not running as a Democrat, and further that his quadrennial campaigns have the deliberate purpose of delivering the White House to the Republicans. I don't know what's become of Petey."

I was wholeheartedly opposed to Nader in 2000 and 2004 with every ounce of my being, FWIW.

But, of course, in 2000 and 2004 we had a Democratic nominee who had the support of a majority of registered Democrats.

If the Party chooses to nominate a candidate in 2008 based on the wishes of General Electric and independent voters, rather than the wishes of registered Dems, they risk losing partisans like me to the candidate of the left.

Partisans like me probably won't make a difference whether we go with Nader or not, but my vote is still my vote.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 7:56 PM

But, of course, in 2000 and 2004 we had a Democratic nominee who had the support of a majority of registered Democrats.

C'mon, you're not this guy.

We have a contested primary with two (nee three) attractive candidates. Of course the party is split between them. Partisans will overwhelmingly get behind the nominee once there is a nominee.

I can't imagine why Senator Obama's greater ability to bring new voters to the party's primaries and caucuses (where they often become registered members) should be counted against him.

Posted by southpaw | February 26, 2008 8:11 PM

"C'mon, you're not this guy."

Look. If I were betting on my November vote, I'd say there's a substantial chance that I'll come home by election day. I'm essentially a partisan Democrat.

But if the vote were tomorrow, I'd quite honestly vote Nader without a second thought. Obama has lost me in a fundamental way over healthcare.

At the moment, I think we'd do better with Nader throwing the election to McCain and trying again in four years with a candidate who understands it's not OK to run outside the Party.

And as stated, Nader's rhetorical support for Edwards in December '07 when so many on the left were too cowardly to take a stand matters to me. It'll be up to Obama to demonstrate why I shouldn't return the favor.

If Obama spends the fall campaigning for the Petey vote rather than for the Mike Bloomberg and Chris Matthews vote, I'll come home. But at the moment, that's not how I see this playing out.

And I'm not giving aid and comfort to the attempted takeover of the Democratic Party by those who campaign against its core issues.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 8:25 PM

I'm not giving aid and comfort to the attempted takeover of the Democratic Party by those who campaign against its core issues.

I've never been much good at convincing you. Perhaps you'll listen to that renowned traitor to the progressive cause, Jacob Hacker:

As a health policy expert, I feel the pull of this [mandate] argument. I advised both Clinton and Obama on healthcare, and I've promoted a proposal resembling their basic approach that does include an individual mandate. In the context of a broad overhaul, I think an individual mandate is valuable, and I'm disappointed by some of Obama's attacks on the idea.


Still, I do not believe that the individual mandate is essential to healthcare reform, as its supporters suggest. That's because Obama and Clinton have rightly rejected reform based on the individual purchase of insurance, choosing instead to allow most people to obtain subsidized coverage through their employers. By emphasizing the individual mandate, Clinton is shifting attention from this fundamental and popular feature of her (and Obama's) approach and actually may be hurting the cause she cares so deeply about.

The cornerstone of both Clinton's and Obama's plans is the same: Employers must provide coverage to their workers or enroll them in a new, publicly overseen insurance pool. People in this pool could choose either a public plan modeled after Medicare or from regulated private plans. Both candidates have promised help for middle- and lower-income Americans, and both have said they will cut costs through administrative streamlining, prevention and quality improvement.

So why has attention focused on the individual mandate? Partly because candidates and their allies search for differences. But also because of the media and political interest in the experience of Massachusetts, which implemented an individual mandate. In Massachusetts, however, the mandate was the core of the legislation. Employers are not required to provide good coverage, and those that don't offer insurance only have to pay a token fine. The problem was how to get people signed up outside of employment. Hence the emphasis on an individual requirement.

The Obama and Clinton plans, by contrast, get most of their mileage out of requiring that employers provide good coverage or help pay for publicly sponsored insurance. As a result, they can sign up most people -- the 95% or so of nonelderly Americans who have some tie to the workforce -- automatically at their place of work.

If enrollment is automatic for virtually all Americans, the big question is whether premiums can be kept low enough that people will want to keep the coverage (or, in the case of Clinton's plan, won't be forced to pay too much). This in turn depends on the generosity of federal subsidies. The federal price tag for Clinton's plan is usually cited as $110 billion a year; for Obama's plan, $50 billion to $65 billion. But the Clinton campaign estimates that her plan will save the federal government $56 billion, so she proposes almost the same amount of new federal spending as Obama does.

Can affordable coverage really be provided with new federal spending of about $50 billion? Yes, if the candidates stick to their pledge of allowing public insurance to compete with private insurance to hold down costs. Recently, the Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, examined my plan at the request of the Economic Policy Institute and concluded that it would cover everyone for $50 billion in new federal spending, with no increase in national healthcare spending overall.

Thus, the mandate melee obscures what are likely to be the most important features of Obama's and Clinton's plans: how they would enroll people, how they would ensure premiums stay low and how they would keep costs down. Instead, Clinton and Obama are arguing about one of the least salable aspects of reform: forcing people to buy coverage individually. And they're fighting over technical differences instead of taking on the starkly divergent GOP vision on healthcare.

So let's have a vigorous primary fight. But let's not make small differences appear larger than they are. Doing so misses the real issues, and perhaps the chance to finally solve the U.S. healthcare crisis.

Posted by southpaw | February 26, 2008 8:45 PM

I fully understand and respect Hacker's position.

If I were a Beltway Dem policy person, I'd be putting the best possible spin on Obama's anti-left positions as well. There's no real reason why the good folks should actively participate in freezing themselves out of the prospective next administration.

Happily, I'm not seeking a job or influence, so I can say what I really think.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 8:52 PM

Damn, Petey's taking his football and goind home! Or over to Ralph's house.

Posted by blah | February 26, 2008 9:20 PM

I trust my Nader vote will therefore pass muster with you.

Cool, sounds like your vote won't matter then.

Go crazy, you precious little Naderite, you.

southpaw writes,

C'mon, you're not this guy.

I don't think he used to be that guy, but I sense such a revulsion to the "Obamabots/cultists" that don't see things his way, that he turned into that guy.

I hope he sees the light before November. If not, chalk another one on the board for Nader's sadly dwindling legacy.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 26, 2008 9:20 PM

And I'm not giving aid and comfort to the attempted takeover of the Democratic Party by those who campaign against its core issues.

I would've thought opposition to race baiting was more of a core Democratic issue than a technical policy element first introduced in the last few years by a Republican governor.

Listen, I appreciate the arguments in favor of mandates. But the idea that mandates are all of a sudden a core Democratic issue is nonsense. But go ahead, take your ball and go home. It takes a true Democratic to try to undermine the Democratic candidate.

Posted by Led | February 26, 2008 9:22 PM

"I don't think he used to be that guy, but I sense such a revulsion to the "Obamabots/cultists" that don't see things his way, that he turned into that guy."

Had the Obama effort not been dedicated to aggressively opposing UHC, I'd have been quite happy with the intensity of support it's been able to corral. My problem lies in ideology, not cultism.

And I were unwilling to vote for a candidate who's supporters I disliked, I'd never have been able to vote Clinton this February.

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2008 9:26 PM

What's McCain's position on UHC, or HC in general?

That's something all Nader voters should become familiar with, because there's a chance that's what they'll help deliver to the American people.

Never mind what else they might help deliver to the people of Iran.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 26, 2008 9:34 PM

ok, what if we try the big picture for Petey? Step back from all the wonkery, all the rhetoric, all the plans. Universal healthcare means nothing without taking the insurance companies out of the game. Do you really think that, knowing everything you know about the two candidates, HRC is significantly more likely to do that than Obama?

If you really do, fair enough; but I suspect you're just responding to Obama's rhetorical style and how it seems to marginalize Dems like you (being well to the left of the Dems myself, I don't care about this so much...)

Posted by metaleptic | February 26, 2008 9:57 PM

I wanna know who Tootie from Facts of Life supports. Then I'll make up my mind.

Posted by Linus | February 26, 2008 10:19 PM

My work here is done.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 10:45 PM


Comments closed March 11, 2008.

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