Actually, what she said was that races can last into June and suddenly change in June, and she cited an example of each. (That she wasn't acknowledging the differences between these three races is another matter.)


Again, correct, Ray, but again leaving out that the reason she offered for the "change in June" in 1968 was ... assassination.

If she wanted to use precedent, would it really have been that hard for her to simply say something along the lines of "There have been plenty of races that stayed active well into the summer months, on both the Democratic and Republican sides -- 1968, 1876, 1980, 1992 are just a few examples. This is a close race, my supporters want me to see this through, and that's what I intend to do"?

The answer of course is that it wouldn't have been. She could have made the same point several ways and she chose to give voice to her troubled id. Why, with a Clinton, does that not simply end the conversation and instead we have to treat them as if they aren't independent moral agents? Why, when a Clinton says something, is there always the secondary and tertiary level of analysis?

Why, when a Clinton says something, is there always the secondary and tertiary level of analysis?

People tend to do this when they support someone who says something that might be considered stupid/offensive. I know that I myself have done it with Obama.

What is funny about this to me is seeing rightwingers doing it with the Clintons.

Why, when a Clinton says something, is there always the secondary and tertiary level of analysis?

It seems to happen when they say or do something. I'm a little less charitable than rr was a couple of posts ago, in that the Clintons are (and this seems transparent to me, and where secondary and tertiary analyses obscure rather than clarify) willing to use violence to get ahead. How else to interpret Hillary's vote for the Iraq war, or Bill's willingness to allow the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, whose I.Q. of 68 led Rector to request that part of the pecan pie, served at his last meal, be put away so that he could have it "later"?

I don't like HRC much either, but I don't believe for a moment that she wants Obama dead, is secretly planning to have him whacked, would slip a mickey into his Chardonnay if she was his VP, or anything remotely in that order.

I don't see any plausible way to avoid the conclusion that she fervently hopes someone will rid her of her troublesome opponent. She verbalized the thought that Obama being assassinated was a reason to stay in the race, putting the thought in minds it otherwise would not have been in, and has not yet even hinted that she thinks doing so was wrong.

Not directly, maybe, although a few of your ideological compadres have done so directly. But you do tend to spin her verbal gaffes--"the hard working Americans, white Americans" one earlier in the thread and now this one--in a very charitable manner.

Or I try to analyze her comments in a very objective manner.

Or I try to analyze her comments in a very objective manner.

By ignoring the word "assassinated"?

Again, correct, Ray, but again leaving out that the reason she offered for the "change in June" in 1968 was ... assassination.

Well, if RFK had died from a satantic dismemberment ritual being conducted by Chris Truby, she'd have cited that as the reason for his sudden death. But since RFK was assassinated, that's what she cited.

Her point was that the race changed suddenly on account of his death; it just so happened that assassination was the reason for his death.

Or I try to analyze her comments in a very objective manner.

Sorry, no sale. I think "charitable" is far more accurate, particularly since I've heard actual Clinton supporters on the ground--people who have given her money, and voted for her
--hit her harder on both the "white Americans" comment and this one than you have. Anecdotal, sure, but not meaningless. And these are people who still, today, right now, want her to be the next POTUS.

It is impossible to be "objective" about comments like these, since no one is a mind reader, but the effort to be so means looking at BOTH the charitable and negative interpretations, as well as everything in between, and attempting to evaluate accordingly.

People tend to do this when they support someone who says something that might be considered stupid/offensive. I know that I myself have done it with Obama.

You don't say?

It's been clear for awhile now that you don't think people can speak objectively about these issues.

It's been clear for awhile now that you don't think people can speak objectively about these issues.

Being objective about partisan politics is tough, and IMO the first step is recognizing that instead of saying "I am being objective." EDIT: And if you look at the backdrop and context of her remark, the way SBB is reading it makes as much sense as the way you are, and arguably, more.

Well, if RFK had died from a satantic dismemberment ritual being conducted by Chris Truby, she'd have cited that as the reason for his sudden death.


But assassination's much easier to accomplish than satanic dismemberment, so she mentioned that instead.

Her point was that the race changed suddenly on account of his death; it just so happened that assassination was the reason for his death.

And how does that not prove my point precisely? Reporter asks why are you still in the race, she cites the historical precedent of a race changing because of the frontrunner's death. It wasn't as though she was giving a speech; her remarks were a direct answer to the direct question of why she was still in the race.

It bears repeating that her words regarding 1968 were limited to, "We all remember Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." Where's the ambiguity? Senator, why are you still in the race? "[1992] and we all remember Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

That's it.

I don't see any plausible way to avoid the conclusion that she fervently hopes someone will rid her of her troublesome opponent.

"Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome negro?"

Being objective about partisan politics is tough, and IMO the first step is recognizing that instead of saying "I am being objective."

People bring their own worldviews and experiences into these discussions; that is natural, and that doesn't mean people aren't being objective.

An example of someone who is not being objective is the person who says "I like Obama, so I'm going to pretend that associations are suddenly irrelevant."

On the other hand, an example of someone who doesn't think people can speak objectively about these issues is the person who says "He's only criticizing the Wright association because he has already made up his mind that he's not voting for Obama." That's you. You know that you are incapable of objectively speaking about these issues (as you've now admitted), so you think everyone else must be also.

By ignoring the word "assassination"?

I'll be happy to help cut off your legs (metaphorically--I want no one to interpret this post as suggesting I endorse physical violence against an opponent) in this, Ray. Your reading of Clinton is so opposite in spirit to your reading of Obama's behavior and remarks with regard to the Rev. Wright that your claim to objectivity isn't worth the paper it's not written on.

He's only criticizing the Wright association because he has already made up his mind that he's not voting for Obama." That's you.

If I said that, using the term "only", I apologize. I do think that a lot of people who make a big deal about Wright--like you--would not vote for Obama in any case. The issue with Wright, as Andy says, is proportion and whether/how we think it weighs in Obama's potential performance as POTUS. You have a very different view of that than I do. And BTW, why are we going back to Wright?

You know that you are incapable of objectively speaking about these issues (as you've now admitted), so you think everyone else must be also.

That is not exactly what I said. I said it's tough to be objective about partisan politics and impossible to be objective about the intent behind inflammatory comments because no one can read minds. I think I am as "capable" of doing it as anyone, including you. WRT to the RFK thing, SBB is reading it one way, based in part on his perception of what is in HC's mind, and you are reading it another, based in part on your perception of same. There is not a hard factual basis for either interpretation--except perhaps among Hillary's closest intimates. If she said at some point, "My God, whatever happens, I hope no one tries to kill Obama--that would be devastating" then you are probably right. OTOH, if she smiled slyly last week and said, "Maybe that loon Huckabee is on to something--glad someone else let that cat out of the bag, so I can let it play with a little yarn when the time is right", SBB is probably right. EDIT: There are also other ways he could be right.

Do I think HC "wants Obama dead" or would try to have him whacked? No way. Do I think the thought of his untimely death has crossed her mind? Probably.

I have no doubt that every single person who has served as vice president has hoped something terrible happens to the president.

I have no doubt that every single person who has served as vice president has hoped something terrible happens to the president.

Actually, the further back you go in history, I suspect you find plenty of VPs whose greatest nightmare was the thought of something happening to the President. Including, I suspect, one or two guys who actually ended up as President.

Olbermann says it better than I ever could. And I am no fan of Olbermann.

If I were Obama, in the position of considering Clinton as my running mate, I'd worry about the Clinton clan bumping me off after winning the election as a means of getting Hillary into the white house if she were the VP. I'm dead serious. Might sound insane,

Fun to see liberals play the Vince Foster - Ron Brown style conspiracy game.

And, no, they don't look any more sane than conservatives looked when they were playing it.

I have to agree with Ray on this, and fortunately for Obama's sanity, I doubt if this is causing him any sleepless nights. If you're going to worry about getting shot, you wouldn't (and shouldn't) be running for President.

OTOH I just watched that Olbermann video, and while I'm also no big fan of his, there was a lot of heartfelt and honest passion in his remarks. And I hadn't realized until watching this video that this was not the first time that Hillary had brought up that RFK assassination reference---this was nearly a word for word rehash of a print interview she had with TIME back in March. And then she repeated the "June" reference in May, only without the "assassination" part---only to return to it yesterday.

So in spite of wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt here, I do kind of have to wonder just what was going on in her mind. It can't really "change" the outcome of her campaign, since she's been effectively burnt toast since North Carolina and Oregon anyway, but it certainly is going to be a well remembered and macabre chapter in her biography.

I hadn't realized until watching this video that this was not the first time that Hillary had brought up that RFK assassination reference---this was nearly a word for word rehash of a print interview she had with TIME back in March.

And lord knows that the best way to incite people to murder is in print interviews.

Olbermann says it better than I ever could. And I am no fan of Olbermann.

I just watched all 10 minutes and 44 seconds of Olbermann's angry-man rant.

And here I thought Olbermann wasn't in favor of torture.

I hadn't realized until watching this video that this was not the first time that Hillary had brought up that RFK assassination reference---this was nearly a word for word rehash of a print interview she had with TIME back in March.

And lord knows that the best way to incite people to murder is in print interviews.

Of course I'm not trying to imply any such thing, which is why I was agreeing with your original observation. But as I said, you have to honestly wonder why she would refer to the assassination in March, omit the reference the next time she referred to the June primary, and then use it once again yesterday. Olbermann raises this same question, and it's a legitimate one, even if his interpretation is far less benign than mine.

I think that the worst possible spin you can place on this is that it was some combination of fatigue, absolute frustration that she is about to have to concede to a man she clearly feels superior to, and a prayer for some sort of last minute miracle. Add her grasping at straws memory of that 1968 primary result, and that's how it came out the way it did. You know that my opinion of the way she's conducted her campaign is as low as it can be, but although what she said was almost thrillingly clueless and thoughtless, I don't see anything sinister or "dark" about it. IMO she's had far worse blots on her character revealed during this campaign than this.

The problem is that she doesn't get to give interviews at three in the morning, when she's totally alert.

But as I said, you have to honestly wonder why she would refer to the assassination in March, omit the reference the next time she referred to the June primary, and then use it once again yesterday.

I think the Tracy Flick comparison that Slate has been trotting out is a not-inaccurate one, Andy.

She is not going gently into that good night. She wants to be president, she believes she is entitled to be president and she's not going away until the wooden stake is driven into her heart at the convention this summer.

Clinton IS Tracey Flick, with a lot more political clout (and she's not as easy on the eyes as Reese Witherspoon). Tracey's rant about "what some people have worked for very, very hard their ENTIRE LIVES. No, didn't bother me at all!" might as well be Clinton's campaign theme.

And I certainly hope I'm as nuts as you folks seem to think I am for the "conspiracy theory" angle; sure, it's extreme, but as I said, I have yet to see any clear limits to what straws Hillary might grasp at to claim what she thinks is rightfully hers. (Whether or not she's sociopathic to the point of being homicidal under the right circumstances, I think her conduct on the campaign trail loudly answers the question of whether she's of suitable temperament to be POTUS.)

and she's not as easy on the eyes as Reese Witherspoon

Gee, ya think, retro? ;)

Gee, ya think, retro? ;)

Yeah, I can't really hold that against Clinton.

Enjoy, retro:

Hillary's Inner Tracy

I'd like to revisit the CO pharmacist issue for a moment, as I don't call it's being framed quite this way:

In the U.S. we tend to permit and even encourage expressions of conscience and faith so long as these do not excessively inconvenience other people. We permit and even encourage prayer, but not for three minutes in a public crosswalk. One may post a cross in one's yard, but it's size and illumination will be limited precisely when it's visible to others and likely to interfere with their exercise of their rights. Similarly, a druggist might well place a stack of pamphlets on his counter recommending alternatives to a morning after pill, but we would discourage his refusing to fill a lawful prescription because his faith would then effectively trump the right of the customer to act on her faith, which might involve not having a child out of wedlock, or which might involve not bringing a child into the world in which there are millions of children waiting for adoption. There will also be cases of a customer's health and life endangered by bringing a foetus to term. Since we won't be grilling each customer on why she wants the morning after pill, and since through the government we have chosen to strictly limit the availability, the prescription, and the dispensation, of drugs, it seems to me that asserting a pharmacy is a private business subject, finally, only to the druggist's faith, regardless of how that faith impinges on the faith and health of another, cannot be correct.

As a matter of philosophy, ark, I agree. But again, whenever it's possible we should try to work around that CO pharmacist. As long as the pharmacy clearly volunteers an alternative and reasonable source of supply, it comes down to no harm, no foul. If I'm the customer, I don't really care who fills my prescription, so long as somebody does.

Of course if the pharmacy refuses even that sort of compromise, then it's another matter entirely. The first and foremost principle should be that the customer not be unduly inconvenienced for the sake of honoring a private religious belief that runs contrary to the pharmacist's professional duty. In real life, though, this shouldn't have to happen all that often.

P.S. Great link, Kev.

As a matter of philosophy,..

Precisely this, for me. I'm looking for a specific philosophical ground on which to decide this and other questions. I agree that, "As long as the pharmacy clearly volunteers an alternative and reasonable source of supply, it comes down to no harm, no foul." My purpose is not to make a point for the sake of making a point, or compel the pharmacist to deny his beliefs, but rather to maximize the opportunity for both parties to live out their lives and faith, without doing permanent damage to either. That the pharmacist's faith may well damage the ability of the customer to act out the customer's faith or the customer's life seems like a sound, philosophical basis upon which to compel the pharmacist to fill the prescription. If a compromise adequate to the customer's needs can be reached, so much the better.

I'd also like to find some sort of basis on which to permit a greater variety of speech on what has traditionally been considered private property. A mall is a good example. We don't, as far as I know, allow mall owners to interfere with the act of assembly in all cases. If you and I agree to meet in front of Ex's Librul Substandard Stuff Outlet, we cannot be arbitrarily prevented from doing so solely on the grounds that Ex's is on mall property. Nor do we seem to allow mall owners to dictate what you and I may say to each other, as long as such conversation isn't carried out to the serious inconvenience of other mallgoers' rights. You may say to me, "Bush is a sociopath" or "Jesus is Lord" without fear of eviction. That you might say such as these, peacefully, to someone sitting at an adjacent table, in the process of striking up a conversation with them, also seems to be within your rights. That you might peacefully hand out fliers presenting evidence of same, again seems to me to be within bounds, for who decides what is an attempt to present facts as opposed to "political" speech, and who is to decide in what form a conversation must take place? May a mute hand out flyers, but not a speaking person? And what, after all, is political speech, and why on earth would we let only the mall owner decide that? The division between political and nonpolitical speech is murky, to say the least, and I for one am reluctant to leave that solely to the intelligence of the property owner.

Precisely this, for me. I'm looking for a specific philosophical ground on which to decide this and other questions. I agree that, "As long as the pharmacy clearly volunteers an alternative and reasonable source of supply, it comes down to no harm, no foul." My purpose is not to make a point for the sake of making a point, or compel the pharmacist to deny his beliefs, but rather to maximize the opportunity for both parties to live out their lives and faith, without doing permanent damage to either. That the pharmacist's faith may well damage the ability of the customer to act out the customer's faith or the customer's life seems like a sound, philosophical basis upon which to compel the pharmacist to fill the prescription. If a compromise adequate to the customer's needs can be reached, so much the better.

Very well put. This is not about demonizing the CO pharmacists.

I'd also like to find some sort of basis on which to permit a greater variety of speech on what has traditionally been considered private property. A mall is a good example. We don't, as far as I know, allow mall owners to interfere with the act of assembly in all cases. If you and I agree to meet in front of Ex's Librul Substandard Stuff Outlet, we cannot be arbitrarily prevented from doing so solely on the grounds that Ex's is on mall property. Nor do we seem to allow mall owners to dictate what you and I may say to each other, as long as such conversation isn't carried out to the serious inconvenience of other mallgoers' rights.

That last sentence is key for me. I'm less interested in granting mall owners absolute rights over what to all intents and purposes is a quasi-public space than I would be in ensuring that the mall's customers don't have their shopping interrupted. Which seems pretty elementary.

That said, I don't see any reason why certain forms of nondisruptive demonstrations (vigils, passing out flyers) that don't scare customers away from stores shouldn't be allowed. Just as the bottom line of the CO pharmacy should be that the customer gets the prescription, the bottom line here is that any demonstrations shouldn't be allowed to disrupt a business.

Hey, Kev, how bout them Celtics!

I'm happy they won, Andy but I'm pissed how they played down the stretch.

Especially Rondo. He kept lollipopping passes into the high post and failing to take advantage of easy lanes to the basket and opportunities to draw fouls. If I were Rivers, I'd be ripping him a new one right now.

OK, I'm finally decompressing.

Perkins had a legitimately great game and Garnett was Garnett. But there are still warning signs on the horizon. If Rondo could just play with a little maturity and intelligence, they should be able to roll everyone.

But there are still warning signs on the horizon

you are damn right. and his name is Kobe.

Low, get real. Pierce always kicks Kobe's ass. He's too physical for him.

"I'm happy they won, Andy, but I'm pissed how they played down the stretch."

Not that I am an expert on this question, but it seems to me the coaching for Detroit and Boston is lacking. For that reason, I'd favor the winner of the Lakers-Spurs series. Detroit seems to lack any offensive scheme in the half court, and they don't fast-break enough in the full court. Boston doesn't seem to have any idea how to break that Detroit zone. But for the fact that KG is a brilliant player by himself, their offense goes into dysfunctional zones where they force up too many bad shots after they waste 22 seconds doing nothing.

Low, get real. Pierce always kicks Kobe's ass. He's too physical for him.

Phil is hanging another banner in six. I don't care which one of those scrub teams the east tosses at him.

For that reason, I'd favor the winner of the Lakers-Spurs series.

Boston dominated the Lakers in the two games they played and they also beat the Spurs in the two games they played them.

Detroit also beat the SA both times and they split with the Lakers. Part of the reason they look disjointed on offense is because Garnett neutralizes Sheed and Billups is playing hurt, Rich. The reason Boston looks confused on offense with that halfcourt press is Rondo is inexperienced and doesn't know how to break it down. Sometimes he does OK and other times he looks lost. And if he continues to lollipop his passes, I'm going to strangle him. But he's young, and learning.

I don't think the Lakers have really been tested yet. Let's see them play a team where they have no obvious matchup advantage.

Low, get real. Pierce always kicks Kobe's ass. He's too physical for him.

Kobe's averaged 27.5 PPG for his career against Boston during Pierce's career. Kobe's doing just fine.

Boston dominated the Lakers in the two games they played and they also beat the Spurs in the two games they played them.

Pre-Gasol. The Lakers are now 31-6 since acquiring Gasol.

I don't think the Lakers have really been tested yet. Let's see them play a team where they have no obvious matchup advantage.

The Lakers have beaten two 50-win teams, including the team with the best home record in the NBA, but that's not "being tested", whereas Boston's stared down the mighty Hawks and Cavs. Kevin oozes bias.

Who gives a #### about points? Did you see that 6-25 stinker he threw up against Pierce in December? Look at the two lines:

Kobe scored 12 points on 25 FG attempts. Pierce scored 22 on 19 FG attempts. That right there is enough to decide the game. But it gets worse.

Pierce had 8 rebounds, 3 assists and a BL+St-T of +1 and just 3 personal fouls. Kobe had 6 rebounds, 3 assists, a B+S-T of -2 and committed 5 fouls.

The FT shooting was roughly equal. Pierce took two more shots and made one more freeby.

Pierce killed Kobe.

In one game. How about last year, when Bryant put up 38-9-2-5 steals to follow a 43-8-8 performance? Or the year before, when he went for 40-8-6 in one game and 43-4-5-4 steals in the second?

The best thing about Paul Pierce's defense is the Kevin Garnett at the end of the line.

Pierce was hurt last year. So what's your point?

On Feb 26, 2006, at LA, Pierce had 39 points on 12-20 shooting and shot a whopping 21 free throws in a 1 point Celtic win. And Pierce didn't have Garnett then. He was basically the whole team.

Seriously, Peng. Did you not watch the Cleveland series? Did you not see how well Pierce neutralized LeBron and kept him from dominating the series? And Lebron is a hell of a lot more physical and a tougher cover than Kobe is.

Seriously, Peng. Did you not watch the Cleveland series? Did you not see how well Pierce neutralized LeBron and kept him from dominating the series? And Lebron is a hell of a lot more physical and a tougher cover than Kobe is.

Seriously, Pvt. Kevin, I did. I like Paul Pierce just fine, but let's not get crazy and claim he stopped James all on his own. The best thing about the Celtic defense is their ability to gang cover, and that's what they did with James.

As for Bryant, say what you want. The guy's averaging north of 27 PPG against Pierce's Celtics over his career, and he's been eating Bruce Bowen's lunch in a series against a pretty good defensive team. Bryant's performances speak well for themselves; your attempts to try and minimize them are pretty flaccid.

The guy's averaging north of 27 PPG against Pierce's Celtics over his career

Wilt averaged a whole lot more than that. So what? It means jack ####.

Bruce Bowen? THE Bruce Bowen? The one who turns 37 in June? Wow. Now there's a tough cover.

Bruce Bowen's an easy cover. Bruce Bowen's finding Kobe Bryant a tough cover. I should have arranged my words so that even a small, stupid child might understand. I didn't, so I lost you.

The best thing about the Celtic defense is their ability to gang cover, and that's what they did with James.

Can you explain to me what gang cover is again? I'm not familiar with that one. Is it an LA term, to describe Crips and Bloods head adornment?

Can you explain to me what gang cover is again?

I keep forgetting — you don't know anything about basketball, you're too stupid to put 2 and 2 together, and you're unable to extract the most obvious and simple inferences from the context of a discussion. Of course you wouldn't understand what I'm saying.

No. The reason I don't understand is because the Celtics don't employ a "gang cover" or whatever it is you call it. It's called a "halfcourt trapping press". Every team in the league uses it. It's just the Celtics use it the most effectively because they have 2 outstanding defenders in Garnett and Pierce and 3 others who defend effectively in Rondo, Allen and Perkins.

And a half-court trap demands defensive rotations and help. Pierce is a very good defender, but he didn't stop James by himself, and having Garnett behind him makes anyone look better defensively.

Who said he did?

And why do you think Kobe is going to have more luck than Lebron, when Lebron is clearly a better player than Kobe is?

Who said he did?

You're the one that had a problem with me saying that Pierce didn't do it alone.

And why do you think Kobe is going to have more luck than Lebron, when Lebron is clearly a better player than Kobe is?

Kobe's got a lot more help then James does. Just witness what the Lakers are doing against the Spurs, a terrific defensive team, and what Kobe is doing against Bowen, a terrific and very physical defender.

kevin knows 'ball, but there is no point talking to him about Kobe Bryant. We will just have to see what happens, IF it is actually Lakers/Celtics. If it is Lakers/Celtics, and the Lakers beat them, I will be interested to see what kev says. I am sure his response at this point is that there is absolutely no chance of the Lakers winning due to Kobe Bryant's character flaws and Paul Pierce's transcendent greatness. Meantime, the Spurs, as Derek Fisher said, are not going to go easily. But they need to get Ginobili closer to himself if they are going to extend this.

I will also note that that Celtics have trendy alternate black road unis and cheerleaders now.

The Celtics played very well tonight, and the Pistons looked lackadaisical. Give the Celtics credit for stepping it up.

The Spurs are fairly long in the tooth, Peng. They are no longer a terrific defensive team. Don't get your hopes up. Pierce has handled Kobe one-on-one in the past and he'll have a lot more help this time around. The Celtics are, by far, the best defensive team in the league.

If it is Lakers/Celtics, and the Lakers beat them, I will be interested to see what kev says.

The refs would have to cheat, robin.

I will also note that that Celtics have trendy alternate black road unis and cheerleaders now.

Don't remind me, robin. Red is turning over in his grave. I thought the green and white home uniforms were the most elegant in the league until they went and gone all Calvin Klein on us.

The Spurs are fairly long in the tooth, Peng. They are no longer a terrific defensive team.

The Spurs allowed the third fewest points per 100 possession in the league this season. That's pretty terrific.

Don't get your hopes up. Pierce has handled Kobe one-on-one in the past...

Again, Bryant's averaged over 27 points a game against the Celtics over Pierce's career. He hasn't been "handled".

Total points mean nothing, Peng. Go back to those games and figure out what his shooting percentage is, Peng. Then come back and we can discuss some more. And for the sake of honesty, stick to the last 4 years, in the games both Pierce and Kobe played in together.

I am with you on the unis kevin. The basic green roadies are awesome as well. Andy and I have a bet on the finals if it is LA/Bos.

BTW, isn't it 3:15 am where you are? My gf just went to sleep and I am on the west coast.

In the three seasons before this one, Bryant averaged 33.6 points on 47% shooting in the five games Pierce also played in. Clearly, nobody was handling Bryant. This season, Bryant's only shooting 32.6% in the two games against Boston. The big personnel difference between this year and previous seasons is, obviously, Garnett.

And obviously, the Lakers and Cs haven't played since the Gasol trade.

I will also note that that Celtics have trendy alternate black road unis and cheerleaders now.

So you're saying that the Celtics now have trendy alternate black road cheerleaders? Don't tell Hillary!

Do I think HC "wants Obama dead" or would try to have him whacked? No way. Do I think the thought of his untimely death has crossed her mind? Probably.

Vince Foster and Jerry Luther Parks say hello.

If those two are saying anything it's probably "Brains...delicious brains!"

BTW, isn't it 3:15 am where you are? My gf just went to sleep and I am on the west coast.

Ever since I got back from Hong Kong, my sleep cycle is way out of whack. And since I don't have to work until Tuesday, I didn't bother to force myself to sleep.

That means you have time to explain how Pierce and the pre-Garnett Celtics were able to "handle" Kobe Bryant to the tune of 33.6 PPG at 47% shooting.

That means you have time to explain how Pierce and the pre-Garnett Celtics were able to "handle" Kobe Bryant to the tune of 33.6 PPG at 47% shooting.

Am I wrong, or isn't the prospective matchup going to feature the Celtics vs the Lakers? Or is this all going to be decided by comparing Bryant's and Pierce's point totals?

It's a team game, fellas. If it were anything else, Wilt Chamberlain would have been buried with 14 rings instead of 2.

Agreed, Andy. Peng is off his Laker rocker.

It's a team game, fellas.

Exactly. That's why, unlike baseball, it doesn't embody conservative principles.

Agreed, Andy. Peng is off his Laker rocker.

Stop hiding behind Andy. You're the one who claimed Paul Pierce had "handled" Bryant, and you challenged me to dig up the numbers. Pre-Garnett, Bryant averaged 33.6 points on 47% shooting in the five games Pierce also played in. Now, tell me how Bryant was "handled".

David, the best indication of relative team strength (or weakness, for that matter) is point differential. Here's the point differential of the remaining 4 teams:

Boston +10.2
LA +7.3
DET. +7.4
SA +4.8

A 3 point differential, stretched over an entire season, is a huge difference. And it's reflected in the final standings, where the Celtics won 7 more games than the next closest team. And you can't use the East/West excuse either because the Celtics dominated the West to a much greater extent than the Lakers did the East. In fact, you could make a case that the toughest team they will face they are facing now.

There's a distinct qualitative difference between the Pistons and the Spurs. Just as there's a distinct qualitative difference between the Celtics and everyone else. The Celtics have a couple of young players who haven't been in the playoffs before. By the time they face the Lakers, if they face the Lakers, that won't be true anymore.

The Celtics were the best team in the league during the regular season, no question, but that's a completely different argument than the one you made before:

"Go back to those games and figure out what his shooting percentage is, Peng. Then come back and we can discuss some more. And for the sake of honesty, stick to the last 4 years, in the games both Pierce and Kobe played in together."

Now you're conveniently ignoring the three seasons previous to this one. You made the claim that, "Pierce always kicks Kobe's ass. He's too physical for him." Now, in light of the 33.6 PPG and 47% FG Bryant's managed against the Celtics in the previous three seasons, you've moved the goal posts. For the sake of honesty my ass; you don't know the meaning of the word.

The Celtics are just staying in the playoffs in case Kobe gets torn apart by wild dogs.

I'd also like to find some sort of basis on which to permit a greater variety of speech on what has traditionally been considered private property.

Says the "conservative."

A mall is a good example. We don't, as far as I know, allow mall owners to interfere with the act of assembly in all cases. If you and I agree to meet in front of Ex's Librul Substandard Stuff Outlet, we cannot be arbitrarily prevented from doing so solely on the grounds that Ex's is on mall property.

Of course you can. (*) Where on earth did you get the idea that you couldn't be? A mall owner would generally have no reason to do so, and in fact lots of reason not to do so. (He can't do so on the grounds that you're black or women or Muslims, because the government abrogates property rights when they hear the word "discrimination.")

Nor do we seem to allow mall owners to dictate what you and I may say to each other,

Once again, of course we do. (**) Once again, a mall owner would generally have no reason to do so, and lots of reason not to do so, as long as you're not bothering other patrons.



(*) YMMV in California.
(**) Once again, YMMV in California.

The Celtics are just staying in the playoffs in case Kobe gets torn apart by wild dogs.

In suburbia, in suburbia, in suburbiaaaaaa......

Basketball... isn't that the game with the peach baskets nailed to poles, and a guy on a ladder who has to get the ball out of the basket? Sounds awkward to me...

David, I keep telling you points don't mean jack ####. If you eliminate last year, when Pierce was hurt the entire year, the Celtics have won 4 of their last 6 meetings. They also iced them both times this year, when Pierce finally got an experienced team around him.

points don't mean jack ####.

Except at the sole measure of team victory.

when Pierce was hurt the entire year

By "whole year," of course, Kevin means, ignore the fact that Pierce played 46 games, avging over 35 mins. per game.

And, of course, we're to ignore that the Lakers w/Gasol (and minus Kwame Brown) are an entirely different team.

Anyone not utterly biased would note that, should the Celts make it, the Lakers v. Celtics will be compelling b-ball, as both teams are solid - if rather obviously flawed.

I missed the first 5850 posts, but....

If Obama was assassinated, what difference would it make if Hillary had already conceded or not?

Is there some logistical issue, where the Democratic party would say, "Damn, Hillary, we WANT you to be our 2nd choice, but now that you dropped out last week, we aren't allowed. Too bad you didn't stay in the race."

Thankfully this is utterly hypothetical, but I'm trying to follow her train of thought there.

I'm trying to follow her train of thought there.

I really don't think this was her train of thought. I do take her at her word: the point was merely that Bobby K was still campaigning as late as June, just like her chubby hubby.

JC exposing himself again as a casual fan:

Except at the sole measure of team victory.

Except we're not talking about team points. We're talking about the points of one player. I addressed the team points thing in #5791. Please try to stay focused on what the conversation is actually about.

By "whole year," of course, Kevin means, ignore the fact that Pierce played 46 games, avging over 35 mins. per game.

Thank you Dr. JC. So, when a player is on the roster, that of course means he can't be playing hurt. Thank you for that expert medical opinion.

And, of course, we're to ignore that the Lakers w/Gasol (and minus Kwame Brown) are an entirely different team.

RDF. JC, the player Gasol replaced is Andrew Bynum, not Kwame Brown. Brown was a reserve. Please try to pay attention to the box scores. just because two players are involved inthe same trade doesn't mean they adopt identical rotation roles.

Anyone not utterly biased would note that, should the Celts make it, the Lakers v. Celtics will be compelling b-ball, as both teams are solid - if rather obviously flawed.

Is this stream of consciousness analysis or something? Name me a team in all of NBA history that didn't have flaws.

when a player is on the roster

On the roster? He played 46 games. But, in the world where you served in the military, read a book you didn't read, didn't initiate the conversation in the Lounge, Pierce being "hurt" the whole year does not include, as I said, that he played 45+ games at over 35 mins. per game. Your record of distortion of plain English and lies is singular at this site. I tip my hat.

I was starting to worry about Memorial Day weekend killing off the chances at 6000, but a new fight erupts! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!

Name me a team in all of NBA history that didn't have flaws

The 1982-83 76ers. And no, I will not listen to reason :)

Yeah, and he played all of them hurt. What the #### does that mean? Are you going to judge Billups on how he is playing now, with a badly pulled hammy?

Criminy, this is pretty elemental ####, JC.

It doesn't help your argument to make up lies either.

No lies being made up, Kevin. Just pointing out facts.

Name me a team in all of NBA history that didn't have flaws.

1983 76ers. Come on, give us a tougher question.

How about this fact?

You indicated you were going to the meet-up game, I went and purchased a ticket for you, expecting you to honor your commitment, you subsequently changed your mind, and now have neither sent me the ticket back nor the money for the ticket. And I emailed you about it several days ago so I could possibly find somebody else who wanted to go and you haven't had the common courtesy to even respond.

So who's the trustworthy one here, JC? You or me?

I'll tell you one thing. It's going to take something extra to take you at your word from now on. Did they teach you that in ethics class as well?

You holier than thou types kill me. Oh sure. Ethics is great. For other people.

For the sake of the public record, I would like to point out that (1) I did agree to the meetup and Kevin did buy the ticket. (2) However, I cannot make it (sorry, #### happens in all our lives; I assume people - other than Kevin - can understand that. (3) In front of other people at this site I apologized to Kevin that I couldn't make it, offered to give my ticket to another BBTF poster or simply return it to Kevin, and (4) assured him I would pay. Kevin's lack of honesty and discretion is boundless.

That is all I shall say on that issue.

Except we're not talking about team points. We're talking about the points of one player.

And when that one player averages nearly 34 points while shooting a solid percentage, then it's obvious he wasn't being handled at all.

JC, the player Gasol replaced is Andrew Bynum, not Kwame Brown. Brown was a reserve.

Brown started 91 of the 136 games he appeared in as a Laker. He had a reserve's talent, but he wasn't a reserve. And Gasol certainly did NOT replace Bynum, as Bynum was already hurt before Gasol joined the team. Gasol replaced Brown as the starting center.

It's going to take something extra to take you at your word from now on.

Tell us again about that book you recommended, Patton.

Well, it's been how long? Two ####### weeks? And the game is less than a week away.

Did you email me to tell me you gave it to someone else? No.

Did you mail it back to me? No.

Did you send me a check for it? No.

Did you even have the common decency of acknowledging the email and say you'd get back to me again? No.

So right now, your promises mean nothing. Your word is no ####### good. No wonder you have nothing more to say.

Brown started 91 of the 136 games he appeared in as a Laker. He had a reserve's talent, but he was certainly a starter on the Lakers.

Not this year he wasn't. Bynum was the starting center.

Bynum started 25 games this year, but he didn't start until Brown went down with a high ankle sprain, and if you listened to Phil Jackson, Bynum would have gone back to his reserve role once he was convinced Brown was able to play 30 minutes without pain. This would all be very clear if you paid attention to the Lakers. It's no shame that you don't, but just don't lie and claim you do.

Of course, you can't resist a good lie, so I may be asking too much.

"Celtics still take it in 7, IMO. Rich?"

Robin,

I am unconvinced of the coaching talent of Flip Saunders. Despite a very talented line-up, all the Pistons do is run a slow-down jump-shooting offense. It's not just boring, it's incompetent when they have an off-night. If they shoot well, they win. They shot well in Game 2 and won; shot poorly in Games 1 & 3 and lost. What Boston does is almost irrelevant. This was the same story when they struggled with the 76ers.

The question for the series is can Detroit shoot well in 4 out of 7 games? I think they could. However, having lost two out of three, they will now have to shoot well in 3 out of 4. And that is something I don't think they will do. As your question is posed, yes, I take the Celtics in 7 games. (If Gregg Popovich were Detroit's coach, the Pistons would win the championship this year.)

Gee, walt, I guess the '83 Sixers didn't have any flaws.

David, the best indication of relative team strength (or weakness, for that matter) is point differential. Here's the point differential of the remaining 4 teams:

Boston +10.2
LA +7.3
DET. +7.4
SA +4.8

This was the basis on which John Hollinger said the Celtics were "one of the greatest teams of all time" and picked them to crush everyone--before the playoffs. Now, after having seen 7 playoff losses and having seen them outscored by the Cavs in the 2nd round, he has modified his stance quite a bit. I have been a Laker fan since I was in third grade, but if it is LA/Bos, Bos deserves to be a slight favorite, due to homecourt and defense. That said, the Lakers do have someting special going with Bryant/Gasol/Odom. Gasol is the perfect compliment to Bryant and Odom is thriving as the #3 guy with the focus off him. The Lakers have swept a 50-win team, closed out a team on the road that went 37-4 on its homecourt and are now up 2-0 on the champs. But SA and Det are not done by any means. Either or both series could easily go 7, and if it comes down to a Game 7, you just don't know.

Personally, I think the home loss was good for the Celtics--gave them some urgency. But I am old enough to have seen some of the greatest teams of all time--the 1986 Celtics, the 1983 76ers, the 1987 Lakers, the 1996 Bulls--and the current Celtics are not playing on that level. EDIT: And although the '87 Lakers are my all-time fave team, they were the weakest of those four on a one-year basis. No disgrace, to say the least.

Rich,

I don't know if I agree that Popovich makes Pistons the champs, but I do agree with your earlier observation that the two remaining western coaches are better than the two eastern coaches.

Rich, cut the Pistons some slack. Billups is hurt. Badly hurt. He is barely hanging on. And they need him if they are going to win.

And they are a veteran team. You can't run if you are a veteran team and you're playing a younger team that is as good or better than you are. They came out last night all piss and vinegar and were on fumes by the middle of the third quarter. Saunders was quoted after the game as saying the more aggressive team is the one that is going to win. If you ask me, it was the Pistons aggression, or rather, overagression, that cost them the game. They were trapping too much, pressing too much, playing aggressive defense too much. Sheed fouled out and a few other players were in foul trouble the whole game. The Celtics were pounding them on the line and badly outrebounded them. The Celtics don't even bother on the offensive glass much and they outrebounded Detroit there.

Basketball... isn't that the game with the peach baskets nailed to poles, and a guy on a ladder who has to get the ball out of the basket? Sounds awkward to me

Feel free to flame someone and get us back to topics of more general interest. ;- Maybe Furtado can make an NBA thread for the basketball guys...

Agreed on your post, robin. I don't think they are as good as their record either. I think they have the potential to be that good but aren't there right now, at least as far as the playoffs go.

But those numbers do indicate a level of performance and the Celtics were far and away the best team in the league this year. And that means something, even if the Mavericks did their best to demolish that theory last year.