In this June 4, 2008 file photo, Antoin "Tony" Rezko returns to the Federal Courthouse in Chicago, Wednesday, June 4, 2008. These days, presidential candidates can expect to have every personal relationship inspected like a crime scene on "CSI." Then, whether there's evidence of a misdemeanor, a felony or nothing at all, those relationships will be used for political purposes. This is especially true for Barack Obama, a newcomer to the national scene. Voters haven't had years to form an impression based on what he has said or the legislation he's passed, but they can take a look at the people around him. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, File)
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS – 1 day ago
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Who’s Tony Rezko? William Ayers? Few Americans know, but they probably will by Election Day.
Rezko is a Chicago businessman, convicted of more than a dozen charges this week. Ayers is a professor — and former member of the radical Weather Underground. Both have ties to Barack Obama and may well show up in anti-Obama ads you’ll be seeing before long.
These days, presidential candidates can expect to have every personal relationship, new or ancient, inspected like a crime scene on “CSI.” Then, if there’s political hay to be made, a version of the details is quickly out.
Republican John McCain has his own potential problem people whom Democrats may try to exploit. In some cases, they have been for years.
For example, there’s Charles Keating Jr., a wealthy savings and loan executive from Arizona who was the focus of a congressional ethics investigation in which McCain was ensnared in the 1980s. Rick Davis and Charlie Black, two men in the inner circle of McCain’s campaign, are former lobbyists — hardly a crime but still fodder for critics who want to undermine McCain’s self-portrayal as a senator fighting to lessen big money’s influence on politics.

ap.google.com

Tiger Woods proved he was (almost) human last week, finishing merely second in The Masters. The $810,000 payday would have thrilled almost anyone else on the pro tour. Given Woods’ cosmic standards, it was just a loss and a failure to win what would have been his fifth green jacket. Earlier this year he completed a run of eight victories going back to 2007, giving him 65 career wins on the tour, leapfrogging the great Ben Hogan into third place all-time. As you may have guessed, I’m a big Tiger Woods fan, precisely because he epitomizes excellence, which I admire in any field.
He’s a self-made man from modest beginnings who, thanks to the commitment of his parents, has worked exceedingly hard to get where he is and who works harder than anyone else on the tour to stay there. He’s a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. It’s a privilege to watch Woods dominate golf today, much like watching Bobby Jones or Hogan in their prime. I’d like to see him win
against Woods. It’s an interesting exercise in human nature. I’ve observed a variety of Tigerphobes, some rational, some not. On the rational side, there are those who resent Woods because they root, instead, for some other pro golfers - whom Woods routinely defeats. It’s the same reason so many baseball fans have traditionally hated the New York Yankees. Hey, I cheered for Arnold Palmer and resented that young upstart, Jack Nicklaus. (Nothing personal, Jack, it’s just that Arnie was my first love.)
Then there are those who are attracted to underdogs and consistent losers. Think of Chicago Cubs fans. This can be laudable if it’s simply a matter of loyalty. And it’s certainly magical when a long-shot underdog pulls off a miracle win, like the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team.
But identifying with consistent losers can become petty and base when it degenerates into animus toward consistent winners. There are those who resent Woods, as H.G. Wells put it when describing the critics of Pericles, because of “that almost universal craving for the depreciation of those whose apparent excellence offends our self-love.”

rockymountainnews.com