EXTRA: Politics ain’t beanbag; or is it?

I’m not quite sure what to think of former President Barack Obama’s comments during his eulogy Saturday for late Sen. John McCain.

Difference between toughness and political bluster?

Both Obama and former President George W. Bush (the men who defeated McCain’s own presidential aspirations in 2008 and 2000, respectively) were a part of the program put together to pay tribute to the Arizona senator on Saturday at the National Cathedral, one day before his burial on the grounds of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.

MUCH WAS MADE of the fact that McCain, before he died a week ago at age 81, asked Obama and Bush to speak in tribute, whereas incumbent President Donald Trump wasn’t even invited.

Obama was willing to go along with the theme of challenging the political style of Trump – which seems determined to challenge the styles of everyone who came before him as somehow being illegitimate.

As Obama put it, “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born in fear.”

But that shouldn’t mean that political activity is meant to be for the meek at heart – for people who can’t handle a punch or two.

REMEMBER BACK TO Peter Finley Dunne’s “Mr. Dooley” character, the 19^th Century Chicago Sout’ Side bartender who told us, “politics ain’t beanbag.”

Meaning it was played for keeps, with the people succeeding the most being the ones capable of fighting it out. Which is what I’m sure Trump thinks he’s doing every time he concocts another insipid tweet on his Twitter account to try to motivate the segment of the masses who actually enjoy this Age of Trump we now live in.

Should we fight back against Trump?

Could it be the difference between Trump and a legitimate political leader is that the former president had ideas – or in the case of Bush knew when to trust more knowledgeable people and defer to their better judgment. Would Mr. Dooley today think our problem is that we need to aggressively fight back against The Donald?

As opposed to the current chief executive who seems determined to have our society think he’s a one-man governmental show; which to my mindset is about as legitimate as a one-man band is to music – usually a whole lot of noise that’s ridiculously out-of-tune.

OF COURSE, I suspect most people will little remember anything either Bush or Obama said. The “quote” of the day seems to come from McCain’s daughter, Meghan, when she said, “the America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great.”

Either that, or perhaps they will focus their attention on another former president. Bill Clinton, along with former first lady, senator, secretary of state AND presidential hopeful Hillary, were at the funeral services in Detroit held for legendary soul singer Aretha Franklin.

That might seem like the more significant event, compared to the McCain services that I’m sure the Trump fanatics will be determined to think of as a gathering of people out-of-touch with the common man.

Will Meghan get more support now from fans of The View?

Truly evidence that the Trump-types are off living in their own world, and who want the rest of us to be forced to live in it with them while in a subservient position.

  -30-

Trump thinks he’s being too soft on immigration? How delusional is he!

We most definitely have a serious split in our society when it comes to the concept of what makes for a rational immigration policy.

TRUMP: Who thinks he's soft on immigration

Because for all the nonsense-talk that President Donald Trump has spewed with regards to immigration and increased deportations and erections of border barricades, it seems that Trump-backers think he’s being weak.

I COULDN’T HELP but chuckle at the CNN report about the meeting Trump had this weekend at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to talk with assorted advisers – many of whom were of the view that the presidential political base thinks Trump is “softening” on immigration.

All of those Tweets from a twit meant to inspire those of a belief that immigration reform means increased deportations and the threats that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is now a dead policy with no chance for extended existence and how we need to move forward with erecting a barricade along the U.S./Mexico border?

Not good enough to appease the ideological buffoons of our society. No matter how much Trump’s talk manages to irritate those amongst us of a more rational line of thought, it’s not enough!

Some of us are just going to demand that our society devolve down to an absolute “police state” before they’ll be satisfied. Heck, even then they probably will find something to be peeved about. Some people will just never be satisfied.

NOT THAT THIS attitude should come as a surprise.

All past efforts to enact serious reform of our national immigration policy (which actually is long overdue, there are some serious flaws in the way things are now handled) have been thwarted by these ideologues.

All efforts by former President Barack Obama to push for serious reform went nowhere because the ideologues played hardball in hopes of gaining their borderline fascist fantasies. While Obama gained the tag of “deporter-in-chief” amongst some Latino activists, he got lambasted by others for the exact opposite tag.

OBAMA: Too soft to fight for immigration?

It seems the same split is at work here. The people who thought Obama too weak on immigration policy ought to realize how backward their line of thought was, since it ought to be apparent (if it wasn’t already obvious enough back then) how intense the opposition to serious immigration reform was.

HECK, THE PEOPLE who were vehemently opposed to Obama (and who turned on George W. Bush when he tried pushing for immigration reform towards the end of his presidency) are now thinking that Trump’s overly-hostile immigration rhetoric is too weak!

What it comes down to is that some people amongst us just are never going to be satisfied. And that to those individuals, Trump’s “Making America Great Again” means putting them in charge so they can force their own vision on the rest of us.

Just how over-the-top is that vision?

Consider that Trump, as a way of getting around the fact that a majority of Congress and the public are never going to accept his “border wall” in large-part because of the expense such a project would ring up, has suggested that perhaps “the military” could fund it.

AS THOUGH WE could take that stretch of desert and heavily-polluted land around the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande and turn it effectively into an army-base – heavily armed and perhaps even containing a moat with man-eating alligators inside.

BUSH: Lost supporters over immigration

It gets scary when stupid suggestions from then-presidential candidate Herman Cain (remember 2012?) wind up being taken seriously by anybody.

Because that’s the level of thought we’ve devolved to if people seriously think Trump isn’t being extreme enough when it comes to his cheap talk on immigration policy.

And to which our society’s saving grace is that Trump appears to be too politically incompetent to actually get anything done, while too egotistical to listen to people who can. Which may be the saddest comment of all.

  -30-

Would Trump military parade merely honor the REMFs of the world?

I find it somewhat odd that President Donald J. Trump would be taking inspiration from France and Bastille Day for a way to put on a great big spectacle ultimately paying tribute to himself.

This is what inspired Donald Trump to think of a military parade in the streets of D.C.

For the storming of the Bastille, which led to the ultimate overthrow of King Louis XVI, was literally a moment when the peasants of France overthrew their wealthy royal nobleman of a leader who actually supported the concept of American independence – someone who along with Marie Antoinette were most definitely not of the people.

YOU’D THINK THAT even Trump would realize that he’s the comparative figure to Louis (with first lady Melania being the equivalent of the alleged “cake eating” lady). The comparable move would be if the masses of this country (the majority of whom didn’t vote for him) were to get fed up enough to violently overthrow him.

Is that really the image Trump wants to put in the public mindset? Besides, I thought the Trump-types were the ones who openly denounced anything associated with France?

Somebody’s not thinking this all the way through. But as Trump himself said, he saw the big Bastille Day parade last year in France, saw the grand martial display of power and authority, and wishes he could have something similar to pay tribute to himself.

How Trumpian is the image of old ...

Which has led to countless numbers of people using their Photoshop software to create all kinds of goofy images portraying Trump as some sort of equivalent of the late Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

WHICH WOULD BE the closest you’d find to photographic images of Trump in a military uniform – for as so many have pointed out, he was of military age during the Vietnam War era, yet managed to avoid doing any sort of military service.

Heck, even George W. Bush could claim to have been in the Texas Air National Guard (although some insist he didn’t even fulfill the minimum service requirements) back in that era.

Not that I expect the ideologues who claim to value military service to mind so much – maybe they can be bought off by the image of a military parade. Forget about a Trump presidency actually accomplishing anything significant or meeting any of its promises.

... of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette?

You got a great big garish parade!!!

IF YOU’VE GOT the impression by now that I don’t think much of the idea of a parade, you’d be correct.

It’s actually mostly because I don’t really care much for parades in general. There are more sincere ways to pay tribute to someone than to stage a grand spectacle clogging the streets of the city, while expecting the masses to stand passively by.

I think those who serve in the military deserve more than a parade whose real purpose would be to pay tribute to the man with the bad combover whom many (including my sister-in-law, Vicki) refer to as the “big cheetoh.”

Perhaps it’s because I remember the two big military spectacles in Chicago during my adult life – back in 1986 and 1991. The latter was a series of parades held across the country to pay tribute to those who were in the military (including a cousin of mine) during the Gulf War of 1990.

Is this Trump's image of himself?

REMEMBER WHEN WE were foolish enough to have thought we resolved all the disarray and chaos of the Middle East in a matter of two months in Kuwait?

The former was when some types of people felt the need to finally put an end to the Vietnam era by staging parades welcoming back the troops who were so callously ignored when they really returned home more than a decade earlier.

I still remember watching that parade, and being told by veterans who actually saw combat that the crowds of former soldiers on display here were most likely the “REMFs” who never even came close to the front lines of fighting (figure out the obscenity for yourself). Is that what we’re most likely to see from a military spectacle in this Age of Trump?

DUCKWORTH: Most accurate?

If that’s the case, then perhaps Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., is correct with her latest fund-raising e-mail, in which she says troops, “don’t need a show of bravado. They need steady leadership. They need long term funding.” And if they don’t get it, perhaps someday the masses will be offended enough to revolt in a Bastille-style image against Trump Tower buildings around the country. That would be gory.

  -30-

Do we really wish we still had the Obamas to kick around politically?

I’m sure for the ideologically-minded amongst us, the news of recent days has been particularly dreadful.

Most admired? Invited to royal wedding?

For Barack Obama keeps cropping up in ways that remind us he will be remembered as a respected public official, no matter how much the ideologues want to disrespect his memory.

WHILE THE CURRENT occupant of the Oval Office most likely will never be taken all that seriously – no matter how many times the ideologues rant and rage that he is the ideal of what a president ought to be.

For what it’s worth, I’m not getting too worked up over these particular news reports because I’m fully aware we’re in that time period between the holidays. It’s the end of 2017.

Anybody with sense is finding reasons to take time off. Little of significance (unless it’s dismal) will happen this week. Meaning a lot of trivia will manage to find its way into filling up space and air time for news reports this week.

So am I really getting all giddy that Prince Harry wants Obama invited to his wedding to Northwestern University alumnus Meghan Markle, and British officials are trying to urge him not to issue such an invitation out of fear that Trump will take it as a personal snub against himself?

Feeling snubbed by Brits AND Gallup?

IS IT REALLY all that interesting that Obama gave an interview to the prince who most likely is too far down the royal pecking order to become King of England? Yes, Harry has a program broadcast by the BBC, and from what I gather, the most interesting thing Obama said was that he’s still getting used to having to cope with traffic – rather than his presidential days when security would ensure the roads were cleared for his path and no one caused him a delay.

Or as the president said, “I didn’t experience traffic. I used to cause traffic.”

I could care less about presidential traffic jams. As for Trump’s ego, I don’t doubt he would find reason to take offense to an Obama invitation. Particularly since the whole purpose of a Trump presidency thus far appears to be to erase any evidence that Obama ever was the nation’s chief executive.

'16 voters AND '17 polls prefer Hillary

Which probably is what Trump’s voters most want. The ability to go into denial that they are so far removed from the mainstream of society, and that all their talk of “making America great again” is more about ensuring the exclusion of people so unlike themselves.

WHICH IS WHY I’m sure those individuals are shocked and appalled at the latest Gallup Organization study – the one that says Obama is the “Most Admired Man” in the United States. Which I’m sure is made worse by the notion that Hillary Clinton is the “Most Admired Woman.”

Because to the ideologues, it’s not so much that Trump ought to be thought of as “Most Admired,” but those two individuals are supposed to be the most repulsive examples of what our society offers. Even though to the majority of us, it’s Trump who fills that role.

Although when one looks at the figures Gallup offers, it becomes clear there is no dominant persona that our society thinks highly of.

Bush's No. 2 higher than Trump

For the second-most Admired man in our society? It’s a tie between Pope Francis and George W. Bush – which, if you think about it, may be a concept even more appalling to the Trump types than the presence of Obama.

WHILE AS FOR the women, our city’s formerly very own Oprah Winfrey came in second, while former first lady Michelle Obama finished third – in a tie with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Michelle falls right behind Oprah

As Gallup points out, this is the sixth straight year Obama has been “most admired,” which means that all of Trump’s rancid rhetoric hasn’t really diminished the strong sentiments some of us feel toward him. It just means those in support of this “Age of Trump” are just very loud about shouting out their attacks to make sure they’re overheard amongst the majority of us.

And as for Trump, he didn’t even factor into the rankings. Heck, even Ron Paul, Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney got minimal support for “Most Admired.”

Which makes me believe all the more that Trump-ites live in their own little world, and they think the majority of us (including the Obamas) should have to live there with them in a place of subservience! Ugh!!!

  -30-

Could ‘Dubya’ wind up having his rep resuscitated in this Age of Trump?

It’s pretty obvious that one of the priorities of our current presidential administration is to erase any trace of his immediate predecessor – the people whose objections to the days of Barack Obama were racially-motivated probably would like it if none of the Obama policies were to survive into the future.

BUSH: Will we detest him less, due to Trump?

Kind of like the old Soviet way of rewriting history to eliminate happenings that were considered undesirable; and there definitely are people in our society who feel that the fact a majority of us ever wanted Obama in office is something shameful.

BUT IT MAY also turn out that Trump will wind up impacting the way we remember another of his predecessors. Remember the dunce-in-chief days of George W. Bush; when the bulk of us used to seriously wonder how we could ever pick someone so insipid to be our nation’s chief executive?

It seems we now have both Bush-the-younger and Obama going about questioning the intellect of Donald J. Trump – wondering what it says about our society that he was able to gain control of the launch codes. And all the other perks and responsibilities that go along with the presidency.

Bush this week made one of his few public appearances since leaving the White House (he’s mostly been even more invisible than Obama during his post-presidential years), and he let it be known he didn’t think much of the way racial politics have taken such an ugly turn during the Trump time in office.

OBAMA: Paired with Bush in Age of Trump?

“Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication,” Bush said. While taking care not to say by name who he was talking about, the implication was clear. Although he’s the same guy who supposedly described Trump’s inaugural ceremonies as “some weird” poop – so to speak.

WHAT MAKES THIS somewhat ironic is that I remember the days (it hasn’t been that long, although the agony of enduring the Age of Trump makes it seem like he’s been around forever, spewing his nonsense-talk everywhere he goes) when the kind of people who are the base of the Trump supporters were similar to those who gave us George W. as president – and are the ones who think it somehow just and proper that Al Gore’s majority popular vote of 2000 didn’t result in an Electoral College victory.

TRUMP: Bush's unnamed target?

Of course, Bush-the-younger had his share of verbal gaffes that often left people confused as to what he was trying to say, and he was living proof that having an education at Ivy League schools does not automatically mean one is intellectual.

But many of the Bush gaffes came across as something we could laugh at – how could we let this boob into office. Even though it was often clear his amenable personality meant he was someone you could have a talk with – provided the ideology didn’t get in the way.

Whereas in this Age of Trump, “the Donald” seems determined to remind certain people in our society that they’re beneath him – and he’s more than willing to play into the hateful nature of some in our society to advance his own goals.

I DON’T THINK George W. Bush ever meant to hurt anybody; his vacuous nature meant some got harmed accidentally.

Whereas I don’t doubt Trump is more than willing to take down people if it benefits himself and his goals. Which may not actually be too deep.

I don’t doubt Trump probably regards the details of running the federal government to be boring; something to be delegated to the little people. He’d rather be the guy getting the nation all worked up over all those football players who have the nerve to think their position gives them a forum to express views on social issues – particularly those involving race.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not singing the praises of the Bush-the-younger years. Anyone who bothers to reread the commentaries I wrote in the early years of this weblog will see just how little I thought of those days when they actually occurred.

BUT I ALSO remember that a large part of why the conservative ideologues turned on George W. Bush was when he tried, toward the end of his presidency, to implement serious reform of the nation’s immigration policies.

The ideologues wanted nothing to do with reform – they just want venal policies meant to abuse individuals who aren’t exactly like themselves.

So the idea that Bush-the-younger is now somehow on the side of sense and compassion? It shouldn’t be too surprising.

Personally, I always thought that George W. (a former part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team) was someone I’d like to go to a ballgame with someday. Whereas I suspect going to a game with Trump would be a miserable experience – he’d be the obnoxious guy who peeves everyone sitting around him and security winds up having to eject from the ballpark for being a boor.

  -30-

Is the ultimate ‘D-List’ comedian the perfect basher for a D-List president?

I have no doubt there are some people determined to see comedian Kathy Griffin’s professional prospects wither away into nothingness. Just as I’m sure they’re still holding a grudge against those mouthy Dixie Chicks.

What will replace Griffin's lost CNN gig?

Remember that outcry? When one member of the country music trio let it be known she was opposed to the U.S. military efforts in the Middle East?

HOW DARE THAT woman think to speak out against then-President George W. Bush! How dare she say anything that wasn’t complete deference to their own ideals (even though many people back then were equally critical of Bush)?

When I remember the degree to which certain people were determined to sabotage the Dixie Chicks, I see the similarities to the way some are bound to react to Griffin – the so-called star of the D-List celebrities who managed to offend everybody with a gag image depicting her with a bloodied, severed head that – with its funky hairdo was clearly meant to be reminiscent of President Donald J. Trump.

Yes, I thought her gag was lame, tacky and somewhat gross. It pushed the boundaries of good taste.

But let’s be honest. The very behavior of Donald Trump as both a presidential candidate and as a government official has been equally tacky and offensive. Some might argue if there’s anybody who deserves to be treated in such a callous manner, it is Trump. Just as how Trump-themed piñatas are at hit on so many levels at Mexican celebrations.

THE IDEOLOGUES AMONGST us, however, are determined to express such outrage that, in their minds, Griffin fades away into insignificance. She’s finished for having the unmitigated gall speak out in this Age of Trump we’re now in.

Griffin's critics the same people bashing Wonder Woman?

The comparison to the Dixie Chicks is relevant because within country music circles, the ladies remain irrelevant. To the point where a recent New York Times report indicates they don’t consider themselves part of the country scene – their attempts at making records are now regarded as pop music.

Which makes me wonder what kind of career change Griffin will have to make to allow her to remain relevant as an entertainer? While some amongst us will want to forever lambast her, there are others who will be willing to give her sense of humor a second chance.

Star-spangled shorts make her American?

If anything, she may get a boost by gaining the perception of being politically relevant – the comedian for those people who don’t mind offending the sensibilities of Donald J. Trump and his ilk!

AND AS FOR those people who will want to look down on Griffin, they’re probably the same people who these days are upset with the new Wonder Woman movie – which they say depicts the Amazon princess with incredible strength in ways that aren’t quite “American-enough” for their sensibilities.

I haven’t seen the film (and don’t exactly feel compelled to rush out to the theater to do so), so I don’t know what their objections really are? Maybe they just don’t like the idea of Gal Gadot, an Israeli actress, wearing the red, white and blue outfit that Lynda Carter made so popular on 1970s-era television.

Or maybe they’re the people who, back when Carter’s Wonder Woman was fighting off Nazis, they were secretly rooting for the men in the swastika armbands? Perhaps they find the arrogance of Trump to be reminiscent?

Please Kathy, don't give us a similar image to silence your critics

My point being that some individuals amongst us just aren’t satisfied with anything. They’re going to be whiny and demanding enough that they will always find something to complain about.

WHEN IT COMES to the whole affair involving the alumnus of Oak Park/River Forest High School who made being on the “D List” not quite so low a place to be, there is one aspect that I must admit terrifies me.

It is that I still remember the Entertainment Weekly magazine cover the Dixie Chicks did in the weeks following their own controversy – the one of the three of them nude, with their bodies covered with tattoos depicting the many slurs (“Dixie Sluts,” “Saddam’s Angels” and “Traitors,” to name a few) being thrown their way.

Please Kathy, keep your clothes on. We don’t need the sight of you trying to give us a similar image to illustrate the harassment you’re undergoing these days.

Even though, on a certain level, forcing your critics to endure the sight might very well be the perfect way to shut them up big time!

  -30-

EXTRA: No Opening Day for Trump? How little Taft, W. Bush, other presidents must think of The Donald

I can’t help but think that somewhere, George W. Bush is sneering at President Donald J. Trump for taking a pass on what may be one of the biggest public perks of being president of the United States.

Trump falling short of century-old baseball tradition

Being the guy who gets to kick off the entire baseball season by throwing out the ceremonial first pitch of the game

NOW THAT LITERALLY didn’t happen, as Trump wasn’t present in St. Louis for the Cardinals’ season opener Sunday against the Chicago Cubs. But he was invited to be at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C., on Monday, when the Washington Nationals start the 2017 season against the Florida Marlins.

Yet Trump turned down the “first pitch” duties. He claimed to be too busy to take to the pitcher's mound and toss a ball 60-feet, six inches without bouncing it.

Too busy?!?

There has been a part of me that always suspected that for Bush, the younger, being able to be the president and do first pitch duties was his favorite part of being president.

CONSIDERING THAT ONE of the few times Bush got unilateral respect as president was when he did threw the ceremonial first pitch at Yankee Stadium during the 2001 World Series – which came just weeks following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City – it’s no wonder he’d feel that way.

Does anyone seriously think Trump will get ...

First pitch duties are a presidential task going back to the days of William Howard Taft, who way back during his presidency in the days when the Chicago Cubs were worthy of being taken seriously was a regular site at Griffith Stadium for Washington Senators games.

In fact, the most memorable baseball artifact I remember seeing when the Baseball Hall of Fame had a traveling exhibit across the country a few years ago was the extra-large seat that accommodated Taft’s 300-pound-plus frame when he watched ballgames.

Even Barack Obama carried out first pitch duties – despite the criticism it created of his weak left-handed tosses that clearly revealed his top game personally was basketball.

... a baseball card like either Bush or Obama?

YET TRUMP, WHO played prep school baseball and has tried claiming he was a possible prospect for the Philadelphia Phillies, couldn’t be bothered. It’s putting him in the same category as Jimmy Carter – who famously (among baseball fans) only attended one ballgame as president.

The final game of the 1979 World Series between the Pittsburgh Pirates and Baltimore Orioles, where players gave him grief for taking long enough (he had already been president for three years) to get out to a game.

Is that destined to be Trump’s sporting fate? Is he so afraid of being boo’ed by fans (Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos said he had no interest in seeing Trump doing duties at his Camden Yards ballpark) that he’ll just skip baseball altogether.

Meaning he won’t get his place on a baseball bubblegum card (which as Lucy from the Peanuts comic strips once said was the mark of what is truly important in life).

 

Making Taft look slim

WE WON’T GET to see for ourselves whether there are traces of him ever having played ball (W. Bush showed he probably really was once a pitcher for Yale, while his father, H.W. Bush, played first base for the Bulldogs a couple of generations earlier). Or the idea that Trump really follows a team the way Obama did as the "first fan" of the White Sox.

And it means that Trump had better get used to more magazine covers like the one that the New Yorker recently created – a cartoon image of a very unflattering side of Trump trying to play golf on the White House lawn but looking more like a Japanese sumo wrestler.

  -30-

Letting the pols feed their fantasies as ballplayers; what would Trump’s be?

I’ve been around enough government officials to know that all you have to do to see them wag their tails and drool all over themselves is put them in the presence of a professional athlete or two.

OBAMA: Not quite a prep star

Their tongues will droop. They’ll wimper and gush all over themselves at the chance to say they met the ballplayers.

WHICH IS PARTICULARLY ironic, because most athletes I have met are usually self-centered enough that they could care less about government. There are the exceptions, but usually meeting a pol leaves little impression upon them.

BUSH:A collegiate journeyman pitcher

So I found it fitting, in a way, to learn of a new video game persona from Germany who put together an animated video segment of a star basketball player showing off his moves.

That “player,” as it turns out, is meant to be Barack Obama. As in our nation’s former president.

The NBA 2K video makes the former president out to be some sort of athletic stud, while having him say, “I am no longer (president), And for that reason, it is time for me to pursue my true passion: basketball.”

I SUSPECT THAT Obama will be flattered to learn of the video snippet. It probably feeds an image of himself he kept in the back of his head. How he could have been a big-time ballplayer, “if only” he hadn’t have chosen public service and electoral politics over basketball.

A presidential righty and a southpaw...

Which, of course, is a myth.

I remember the one time I met Obama’s brother-in-law, Craig Robinson, who at the time was the head basketball coach at Oregon State University.

Robinson himself was a professional ballplayer in European leagues, compared to Obama’s stint as a high school player in Hawaii who played a bit for one year while attending Occidental College in Los Angeles.

AS ROBINSON SAID of his sister Michelle’s spouse, “I’m a basketball player. He played in high school.”

While in an interview for an alumni magazine, professor Eric Newhall said, “I think Occidental’s greatest contribution to American politics lies in persuading Barack Obama that his future did not lie in basketball.”

... give White House team a varied rotation

Which makes me wonder if the now-former president will make sure he has a copy of the video, something he can turn to in order to bolster his fantasies of, “what could have been.”

Yet I have to admit this whole thing isn’t that odd. I recall a few years ago when APBA International, Inc., the manufacturer of a board game allowing people to simulate Major League baseball games, made a special edition that they presented to then-President George W. Bush.

IN THAT SPECIAL edition, they included a player card depicting Bush as a ballplayer, specifically a pitcher. It was based off the statistics Bush racked up back when he played ball for Yale University.

At least that card depicted Bush for what he really was, a fringe ballplayer in the Ivy League whom no one ever mistook for a professional prospect. They certainly didn’t give the same impression of Bush, the ballplayer, as the video gives of Obama the b-baller. In fact, Bush's most significant baseball accomplishment came when he was the Texas Rangers' owner in the 1990s who used his family political connections to urge Texas Legislature officials to build the Rangers a new stadium!

Bush and Obama weren’t the only presidents with athletic aspirations. Let’s not forget that Gerald R. Ford wasn’t really a perennial klutz – he was once a Big Ten football player with Michigan

Is Trump the Steinbrenner of politics?

All of which has me wondering what kind of athletic fantasies the current White House occupant has. I know Donald J. Trump has talked of how he played baseball in high school and once caught the attention of the Philadelphia Phillies – although I suspect in his fantasies, he’s the team owner, hiring and firing managers and trading away talented ballplayers as though he were the 1980s version of New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner who put together ball clubs that couldn’t win a thing!

  -30-

EXTRA: White House Cubs’ tribute acknowledges Chicago baseball feud

I got my chuckle Monday from Chicago Cubs baseball boss Theo Epstein, who publicly gave soon-to-be former President Barack Obama a “midnight pardon” thereby giving him Cubbie forgiveness for the way in which Chicago’s very own president has been so publicly a supporter of the Chicago White Sox.

It makes me think the guy who put together the first ball club in over a century that could call itself “World Series champions” has a little sense of politics, what with the “midnight pardon” being used usually to refer to the last-minute acts of clemency that former President Bill Clinton managed to slip through before George W. Bush took over.

IT COULD BE taken as a political pot shot, particularly since we still don’t know what final acts of clemency Obama will feel compelled to issue this week. But Obama seemed to get the gag, and laughed along.

Yes, Monday was the day that the Chicago Cubs ventured to Washington to have the now-traditional meeting of an athletic champion with the president. Some hay has been made of the fact that the Cubs met with Obama.

Rather than waiting until this season when they play the Nationals, by which time Donald J. Trump will be president. But it seems that even though Cubs ownership wound up backing Trump and one Ricketts brother got a Trump political appointment, Ricketts sister Laura is an Obama backer and used her influence to make sure the Cubs were paid tribute to by the Hyde Park resident who has made quite a public spectacle of his choice of the White Sox.

Even though many suspect he’s more of a basketball fan at heart.

FOR THE RECORD, Obama noted that while many of his Chicago-oriented staffers contracted Cubbie fever back in October and November, he didn’t share the same visceral reaction.

Although he did call himself the “number one Cubs backer” amongst White Sox fans.

I couldn’t help but notice that when reciting the list of Bears and Blackhawks sports teams whom he got to greet at the White House for championships, he also gave a plug to the 2005 White Sox that also won the World Series – even though that came back in the days of Bush, the younger, as president.

Will Barack Obama in the future find it easier to just say he's a Bulls fan?

For what it’s worth, I recall how White Sox catcher A.J. Pierzynski ribbed Bush about the fact that his mother, former first lady Barbara Bush, was at the ’05 World Series games played in Houston and was rooting for the Astros. Also present at that White House event?

THEN-SEN. BARACK Obama, D-Ill., who managed to tag along for the event with many Illinois politicos (but not Cubs fan Gov. Rod Blagojevich) just as many staffers managed to cram their way into the White House on Monday to see the Cubbies.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out back in Chicago, particularly if Obama were ever to actually try to use that symbolic lifetime family pass the Cubs presented him with. This being the guy, after all, who once threw out a first pitch at a baseball All Star game and offended some baseball people by insisting on wearing his White Sox warmup jacket, rather than one bearing the All Star Game logo.

Obama may find that his move to the District of Columbia, or possible future move to Honolulu (where he grew up) will be forgiven much more quickly than if he ever deigns to wear Cubbie blue and sit in the stands at Wrigley Field.

For I’m sure there are some White Sox fans who would have liked it if Obama had responded to Epstein’s “midnight pardon” with a choice expletive and a statement of where he could shove it, declaring himself to be a Sout’ Sider once and for all!

  -30-

Obama stealing presidential perk from Trump w/ Cubs White House visit?

Perhaps it’s only appropriate that the first president with solid Chicago ties (Ronald Reagan’s connection was living here one year when he was about 3) gets to host the White House visit of the first Chicago Cubs baseball team that was able to win anything in a long, long time.

President Barack Obama will pay tribute to the Chicago Cubs' World Series victory, similar to the belated tribute he gave to the Super Bowl-winning Chicago Bears of 1985. Just wondering if coach Mike Ditka (now known to be a Trump backer, wishes he could take back the jersey. Photographs provided by White House.

Although I’m wondering if there will be political partisans who will claim Barack Obama is stealing away a moment in the public eye from incoming President Donald J. Trump.

SERIOUSLY, THOSE PEOPLE are capable of complaining about anything and everything. I’m sure they’re already looking for excuses to claim they’re being snubbed.

And the fact that the Cubs, who won the World Series back in November, will make their celebratory White House visit on Monday, instead of waiting for the team’s next trip to Washington (June 26-29, to play the Nationals), is just the kind of fluff event that will cause some to get outraged!

It was reported this week by various news organizations (because this kind of fluff is easy to comprehend, unlike budgetary matters or the ongoing fight over how to kill off Obama’s political signature Affordable Care Act) that most of the Cubs players will be on hand at the White House for the event with Obama.

Although I’m wondering if any ballplayers decide to try to make their own political statement – similar to when Obama tried to pay tribute to the 1985 Chicago Bears team that won a Super Bowl, only to have Dan Hampton refuse to show up in protest.

Obama also paid tribute to the Chicago Blackhawks victories in various Stanley Cups.

LET’S NOT FORGET that pitcher Jake Arrieta befouled the celebratory mood of Cubs fans in early November when, on Election Day, he used his own Twitter account on Election Night to make comments interpreted by some as mocking those people who were appalled by Trump’s political victory.

In fact, let’s not forget that amongst Trump’s appointments to cabinet and staff positions was one for Todd Ricketts, the brother of Cubs team chairman Tom Ricketts, to be a deputy secretary in the Department of Commerce.

Does Clinton wish this event were hers?

There may be some people who think the Cubs should have waited until June so that the new president can have the honors. In fact, it has me wondering if Trump would be so petty as to demand his own personal event with the Cubs.

We know he loves positive press and certainly is capable of being petty and childish.

BUT FOR NOW, we’re going to get the Cubs appearing with Obama. His final public appearance in Chicago was Tuesday night, which could make the Cubs his final event with Chicago ties before he departs the White House at noon on Jan. 20.

I’m sure the event will be light-hearted fluff – one that I’m sure the ballplayers will use to make themselves feel all important. Although I suspect back in 2006 when the World Series-winning Chicago White Sox got a White House visit with then-President George W. Bush, they were probably more impressed Hugh Hefner invited the team to visit the Playboy Mansion.

Because after all, they’re ballplayers and the political people, including the president, are just about wetting themselves with glee at the thought of getting to meet them. But “Hef” had girls and booze on hand for his event!

If anything, it might have been worse for the Cubs if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election – because then she’d be citing her lifelong ties to rooting for the team – while also probably trying to have burned and shredded every single photographic image that depicts her wearing a New York Yankees cap.

A MOVE SHE made back when she ran for the U.S. Senate – coming up with the convoluted logic of being a Cubs fan who rooted for the Yankees in the American League. An explanation that no legitimate baseball fan ever took seriously.

Then again, there’s Obama – who because he wound up settling in Hyde Park on the South Side adopted the Chicago White Sox. Whose team web site identifies Obama as their “first fan.”

Yet it was then-President George W. Bush who paid tribute to the last Chicago team to win a World Series -- the White Sox of '05.

Yet Obama on Monday will offer up his bit of public praise for the ball club and moment that made many hard-core White Sox fans nauseous; citing the idea of uniting Chicago into one.

That’s Bull! Then again, it takes basketball and our disappointment with the Bulls to truly unite the Chicago sporting mentality.

  -30-