Who wins? A tie would be basically a split of the delegate count, leaving no clear winner on either side. I'm going with a perfect season and a Dem split with a McCain winner.

I basically went the same way you did with your votes.

The Super Bowl is really a disappointment for me, since I pretty much hate both teams. The Patriots dispatched my beloved Eagles in the '04 Super Bowl, and the Giants are a divisional rival. I'll watch the game, but I have no real interest in the outcome.

On the political front, I think the GOP primaries are signed, sealed, and delivered for McCain, with Romney bowing out of the race shortly thereafter. It will throw the Republican machine into absolute disarray, since for some reason, they hate McCain (as but one example, Ann Coulter has said she'll campaign for Hillary if McCain wins.) Watch out for some mutiny among the GOP big shots as they promote some kind of 3rd party candidate instead of McCain.

On the Democratic side, I see no circumstances under which it's not still a two horse race after Tuesday. One side or another may end up with more delegates, but based on current delegate count, funding, etc. I think both of them will continue their campaigns all the way until the convention.

I was the same way, but I was rooting for the Giants (and voted as such).

The Redskins are also a division rival of the Giants, but the Patriots beat us 52-7 this season (and kept going on 4th downs), so I have no love for them (plus they're cheaters ).

That was one hell of a game, though. I think that pass to Tyree is a classic, one of the best I've seen in a Superbowl.

Looking back on it, either way this game was going to be historic, because you either see a team go 19-0, or you see the biggest upset in Superbowl history. IMO, the MVP of the game was Manning, but the Most Valuable PlayerS were the Giants defense. They played one hell of a game.

We really should have had one more poll, whether the commercials would be better than the game. In recent years, the ads have outshone the games, but I was happy to see that for once this was not the case. There were some funny ones, but there were others that made you wonder why a company spent millions of dollars on an ad that nobody is going to remember. Plus there were a couple ads for some sales company that were borderline racist. Anyone see those?

Yeah, the cheating aspect is what pushed me over the edge and made me a Giants fan prior to kickoff. I just looked at Belichick on the sidelines with his smug demeanor and realized I could put divisional rivalry aside if it meant denying the Pats their chance at history. When I saw him walk off the field like a little bitch before the game was over, I realized I'd made the right choice. The Giants won with class and dignity, while the cheating Pats couldn't even stay on the field until the end. What a disgraceful show of poor sportsmanship.

And now the rumor is that someone has tape of the Pats apparently recording walkthrough practices during a championship game a few years back. My guess is this cheating has been going on for a long time and the scandal isn't going away. Now Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is on the case, pushing for Congressional hearings (bringing together sports and politics, just like this thread.)

Now, I'm of the opinion that Congress has better things to do than to have hearings on this scandal, but at the same time, the football fan in me is happy that *someone* is pushing for justice (the NFL basically ignored the problem after a slap on the wrist punishment, the same thing that happened with MLB and the steroids.)

Anyway, if it turns out the Pats were cheating during the '04 Super Bowl (when they dispatched my hometown Eagles) I may change my mind and decide this deserves the full attention of our Government, up to and including executing the perpetrators who denied my city the championship it's been waiting 25 years for.

Haha, that's how I feel too. Plus, I always hate his stupid hobo outfit. Cut-off sweatshirts?


Yeah, I'm always a little pissed that they spend any time on this stuff, but I can't believe that Goodell destroyed the tapes just because he felt that they'd been punished enough.

Let me preface this with the following points:
1) I AM from New England. But..
2) I'm a die-hard Rugby fan and American Football is a distant second in terms of my sports interest(s).
3) I couldn't really care less about the "Patriots run at history" or that they lost for that matter. As a matter of fact it's better that they did so there couldn't be the "they cheated" stigma attached whatever championships/records they were trying to claim.
4) Plain and simple - the Giants played better and deserved all the accolades! They were the better team.
5) I'm no fan of Belichick and him not staying on the field was one of the worst feats of 'MORON' I've ever seen!

[SARCASM]Yes, the world is ending because of spygate! War rages on and Bush is still in office because of the Patriots...[/SARCASM] Yawn.

Now about the cheating... Do you REALLY mean to tell me that there are 31 NFL teams that have "...class and dignity" and that the Pats are classless dolts who need to cheat for any and all success??? Or, maybe that, they all cheat and that Belichick just happened to (be stupid enough to) get caught by a former assistant who knew how and when they where doing it.

Every professional team out there does whatever they can, within or outside the limits of the rules, to gain an advantage - period! There's too much pressure (or should I say money) not to.

The notion that the Patriots are the only cheaters is getting tiresome. If you want to hate them then by all means go right ahead. But can we please find a REAL reason to hate them?!?

And before you start crying hometown bias on me be aware that I've become a pariah of sorts because of my criticality of the Pats. In fact I've had to endure one of the worst sentences in all of professional sports... I'm a Saints fan!

I'm not trying to start a idealistic war here because frankly I don't care enough about it. But let's be realistic. Specter, who has taken over $153k in campaign contributions from Comcast, is simply trying to strong arm the NFL like they are to Comcast over the NFL Network Debacle.

In any case - congratulations to the Giants.

Au contraire. I have very few reasons to hate the Patriots. They're in the AFC, so my Eagles see them maybe once every 2-3 years. Other than the arrogant prick Belichick, there aren't that many "hateable" players on the team. Yes, everyone roots for the underdog, and the Pats have been a very strong team for many years, but in my case at least, the cheating is definitely what's caused me to dislike the franchise.

Maybe we just see things differently here. I don't think that, just because "everyone" supposedly cheats, that it's acceptable to throw your arms up and let them. If there is that much cheating going on, then the NFL isn't doing its job of policing the teams.

I've never bought the "if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying" line. Fans live and die for their teams, pay hundreds of dollars on tickets, etc. and the thought that all of a team's effort could be wasted because the other team is doing a better job of cheating makes me sick. Nevermind the fact that people are wagering on these games, and could be losing money because one team gets away with breaking the rules of the game.

I don't know anyone who's saying that the Patriots got where they are now just because they spied the defensive signals. But until proof comes out that all of the other teams are doing the same thing, I do know that it gave them an unfair advantage. Without the cheating they would have definitely been on the cusp of greatness, but it's certainly within the realm of reason that it's the cheating that pushed them over the edge to near perfection for so many years.

In this case, the NFL chose to do a half-assed investigation and destroy the evidence of the cheating afterwards. Remember, kids, "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up."

If every other franchise is cheating, then let's find that out too, and punish them. The rules are there for a reason. I don't think this practice is as widespread as you do, but if it is, let's clean it up. I love the sport enough to want to see it won by players and coaches on the field, and not some scout sitting in the stands stealing signs.

Oh I'm not willing to accept it by any means, and yes Belichick should've been suspended!

I can remember when Jimmy Johnson admitted to having interns go up to the oppositions coaching/press-box and quite literally pick through the trash to try and get discarded game-plans etc... Bill Parcels (when coaching the Giants) used to have the loading doors opened whenever the opposition was trying to kick a field-goal (apparently there's a nasty cross-wind in Giants stadium)... The list goes on.

Now there's no rules that say they aren't allowed to do those things so the offenses don't warrant a Congressional investigation as such. But does that mean they should be allowed to? I'm of the belief that there's a certain amount of niggling that occurs, off the playing field, at any given NFL game. Some of it is playful and some of it borders on illegal/cheating.

The NFL can only police to a point - not to mention that the NFL clubs are more or less a fraternity where I would suspect most would be unwilling to turn a compatriot in. Time will tell if Mangini ever coaches again after his term in New York is over.

At this point I'm just splitting hairs but; I agree that the Pats did do something illegal (i.e. broke a written law). The idea that it 'may' have pushed previous years teams over the cusp of greatness is relative because it wasn't an official NFL 'rule' until the start of this year (kudos to Mangini for reading the memo!) So was it in fact illegal in previous years?

Apparently I've started a thought process and managed to confuse myself (must have caffeine!)

In any case, I share your vision that the games should be decided between two teams, two coaches and Mother nature. I just think that the Pats have become a scapegoat for a greater issue (in all professional sports). When you live up here you can't turn around without hearing about it daily. It doesn't help that Belichick's demeanor is that of Cheney holding a shotgun with a smirk on his face (Oops)!

I just went to watch the episode of House that aired after the Super Bowl that the TiVo recorded. Of course, I got a little over half of the episode of House, plus about twenty minutes of people talking about the game.

I understand that sometimes sporting events run long, and I can deal with that, especially when it's not the normally scheduled time for my TV show, but it didn't run long. The TiVo didn't record a second of people playing football. It recorded twenty minutes of people talking about a football game that just happened.

I know this is a losing battle, but it still pisses me off.

I lucked out and tuned in at what should have been almost the half-way point of the House episode. It hadn't yet started and I had the chance to extend the recording time by 30 minutes to make sure it would all come in.

In Canada, on the Canadian network that was supposed to show House, but NOT the Superbowl, they had NEWS on. News that's normally scheduled for 11PM. That pissed me off even more than the blowhards taking after the game. Unless the Canadian network didn't have their own copy of House yet, there was no reason other than to sync up with Fox to do that.

Fox already had a 15 minute window scheduled for talking, yet they managed to blow it. House was supposed to be on from 10:15 to 11:15 EST. I couldn't care less about the Superbowl which is about as exciting as watching paint dry, let alone watching some fat bastards talk about it after the fact.

For the last, oh, 15 years or more I would have agreed with you, but this was the best one I've seen in a long long while.

Still, I'm pissed about the scheduling stuff. They could have easily just aired the episode at 10:30 and given themselves plenty of time. Even better, they could have run it on its regularly scheduled night! Why on earth did they run House, which I have to think is one of their highest-rated shows, in that time slot? Weird.

My rooting for the Pats was basically driven from my hatred of all things having to do with the Dolphins. I just wanted them to have to share the perfect record. I'm a bitter Buffalo Bills fan!

Anyways, my wife (who's from Brooklyn) is now happy...

On to Super Tuesday! From the latest polls it looks like Obama is starting to close the gap with Clinton in some of the states where she held a large leap. California is now in play. If the momentum is strong enough Obama might just pull ahead tomorrow.

BTW, do people generally believe that either Obama or Clinton actually have a shot of winning the presidential election? I don't think either of them can take it all in November.

Yes. If the Republicans had a better potential nominee, maybe not, but all of them are just awful candidates.

I still don't think America will vote for a female nor a black president. G.W. Bush won *twice.* If it wasn't obvious how much of a babbling buffoon he was prior to the first election, surely it was common knowledge by the time the second one rolled around.

I'd love to see a non-stooge in the Whitehouse, and without question I'd like it to be a Democrat. Either of the leading Dem candidates would be fine by me, I just won't be holding my breath.

Well, the Democrats had a perfectly viable white male candidate in Edwards, yet they overwhelmingly voted for Obama and Hillary over him. I don't think that there are going to be many people who would vote Democratic who would be that bothered by it. But I could easily be wrong.

Vote for? We don't vote "for" anything, we vote "against". Some people might vote against a black or female president, but in reality, those people are going to be so socially conservative that they'd never have voted for a Dem, anyway, and it's no real loss. For anyone else, it's just going to boil down to how much you can't stand one of the parties. I'm not voting Dem -- I'm voting anti-Republican. If the party you're not voting against actually fields a candidate you like, it's purely coincidence. It'll be like this as long as we have a two-party stranglehold on the system.

I agree. I think there are too many closet bigots that will vote white male.

I also wonder what a woman in the office would do for foreign policy. Some countries believe women are second class citizens would they respect anything she would say?

That was a real issue, maybe 30 years ago. Not now. Any part of the world that's still scared of a female foreign leader would be equally useless in dealings with a non-female.

Besides, your foreign policy rep has been female for some time now.

-ml

"Countries" don't have beliefs. People have beliefs, and it seems to me that the belief that women are second class citizens could be overcome by exposing those who hold those beliefs to a female head of state who works with them, instead of bombing the shit out of them.

I think it's fair to say that Germany is Iran's closest western ally, and I don't think Angela Merkel has caused any change in Iran's diplomatic posture simply because she's a woman. Ultimately, both sides of any diplomatic relation want what's best for them. They don't care if it's a man, woman, or a robot on the other side of the table.

I don't remember it being a big problem for Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir or Angela Merkel. I suppose it could have worked out better for Benazir Bhutto. (Not that her assassination apparently had anything to do with her sex.)