It forces us to see ourselves in a new light. For example, this is for NCAA fans and Democrats everywhere.
Ms. Clinton stated that Memphis, while losing the game, had actually shown more ability to act like a National Champion on Day One. She argued that Memphis had passed every test during the game, including scoring more points than Kansas for 38 minutes. For 38 minutes they had shown the experience necessary to be National Champion. "Just because some team comes along in the last minute and scores more points than the other guy doesn't mean they're necessarily able to be National Champion on Day One."
2 comments:
Oddly enough I've thought about this kind of thing before. Is it fair for a team to win just because they hit the crucial 3-pointer at the end of the game. Yes, that is a liberal type question. For a while there I actually thought - no it's not fair, especially if the other team had the lead for the entire game. But then I realized how dumb I was being and that the point (no pun intended) is to see who has the most points at the end of the game - not who had the most points for most of the game.
I feel like this is Hillary's argument (this parody aside) for the most part. "I've been around in a big time roll longer than Obama, so I should win." But the name of the game is most delegates at the end of primary season and she ain't gonna have that.
A normal strategy in a race is to hang back and save your strength for the last lap (or last few yards) and then spurt on to overtake the leader. (This works for people, horses, race cars, etc.) Scoring that last basket at the buzzer is just like that. It is who is ahead when the match is over.
Post a Comment