Monday, August 18, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
I admit, I was as enthralled as the next person with Michael Phelps' amazing run for eight golds at the Beijing Olympics, perhaps more so. I watched the races live, yelling at the TV; I rewatched them on the Internet (have you seen the 4 x 100 relay underwater view? Go watch!); and I started letting my 4-year-old stay up until 10:30 p.m. so he could glimpse history for himself. (And now you should see him try to swim butterfly.)
But if there was anything that disappointed me about the Olympics swimming coverage, it's that Natalie Coughlin's own remarkable feat—winning six medals in six events for the U.S. women—went comparably unnoticed by NBC's commentators. Granted, her haul of one gold, two silvers, and three bronzes wasn't as impressive as Phelps', but she swam an ambitious program and has never finished out of the medals in 11 Olympic events (she also swam in 2004).
Swimming has always been my favorite Olympic sport. I was a less-than-mediocre age-group swimmer growing up, and I still fondly remember coming home from swim practice each day, making a sandwich, and plopping down in front of the TV to watch the 1984 Olympics. What made the swimming in those Games so fun to watch was that the women's team had just as much success and enjoyed just as much attention as the men. Tracy Caulkins, Carrie Steinseifer, and Mary T. Meagher (and Dara Torres, of course) were just as famous for those two weeks as Rowdy Gaines, Rick Carey, and Steve Lundquist. And from then up through the 2000 Games, the U.S. swimming medal count has been roughly divided between the men's and women's teams. In the last two Olympics, though, our men's teams have been considerably more successful than the women, even if you adjust for Phelps' out-of-this world performances. I can't know the cause, and it might be an anomaly. But here's my suggestion: Speedo, it's great that you rewarded Michael Phelps with a $1 million bonus for his eight golds. But how about ponying up an equal amount to USA Swimming to further develop our talented young female swimmers?
-
sponsorship
For now, the whole discussion about Hillary supporters and which way they'll jump feels to me like a giant exercise in conjecture. There's Melinda's still-bitter friend, and PUMA (John Dickerson translation: Party Unity My Ass). And then there's this Friend of Hillary with her "Yes We Can" pin. We'll know something more when we see a good poll of women in Ohio or Virginia, I suppose (though to really answer the question, the poll would have to zero in on Democratic women who voted in the primaries). And of course, we won't really know how this plays out until November. But whatever former Clinton supporters actually decide, in whatever numbers, the idea that you don't vote for Obama because he's the popular guy who stole the election from the diligent gal makes sense only if you don't care what that guy, compared with his opponent, would do once in office. Maybe that's fine for student body president. But for the real deal? As the Friend of Hillary above says, "There is not a hair's breadth of difference between Hillary's position on the issues I care about most deeply and Obama's." Agree. Disagree. But don't change the subject, at least for more than 10 minutes, in Denver or in your living room.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?