I have only a tiny appreciation for golf, so my investment in Tiger Woods is nearly nil. Yet the story of his minor car accident from early in the morning a few days ago stands out. The facts of the case–such as we think we know them at this point–are odd. Woods left his house to drive his SUV in the (very, very) wee hours of the morning. He struck a tree and a fire hydrant at very low speed. His airbag did not deploy. A 911 caller told police that she saw Woods lying on the ground, apparently unconscious. Woods’ wife was nearby with a golf club. Woods apparently suffered superficial injuries, particularly lacerations to the face.

Everything else so far is speculation and, for whatever reason, Woods seems to want nothing to close the story down, issuing only a short statement and refusing to speak with police about the matter.

I wouldn’t begrudge Woods any of that. If he wants to take this story to his grave and never speak about it, so be it. That’s his right. The worst-case stories suggest that Tiger’s wife might not have been heroically liberating him from the SUV, but that’s fine, too. Whatever the law may say about the subject, morally speaking, wives have some leeway for minor violence against their husbands in exceptional circumstances. So long as that street only runs one way, it would be perfectly reasonable to keep omerta. And as far as not talking to the cops–that’s every American’s right.

What bugs me is Woods’ statement. Again, if you’re going to go silent, go silent. Instead, Woods gives an affirmative explanation of events which seems, at least on its face, very strange. Most importantly, his statement includes a couple key lawyer words (most notably “false” and “malicious”) which are there to serve only one purpose: Tell media outlets that they pursue this story at their own legal peril. Or, to put it less charitably, to bully reporters into not reporting the story, wherever it might lead.

If something unpleasant happened to Woods the other night, so be it. We never needed to know about it, no matter how curious we all might have been. But if Woods was less than truthful in his statement–and is playing the part of the legal bully–that strikes me as (1) Reflecting more poorly on Woods than any other part of this incident; and (2) A provocation, similar to Gary Hart daring reporters to make a liar out of him.

That’s Positronic Universal Peggy Noonan Translator for those of you playing along at home. I trust everyone was out doing family stuff when she wrote this about Obama over the weekend:

This in turn reminded me of a surprising thing I observe among loyal Democrats in informal settings and conversations: No one loves Barack Obama. Half the American people say they support him, and Democrats are still with him. But there were Bill Clinton supporters who really loved him. George W. Bush had people who loved him. A lot of people loved Jack Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. But no one seems to love Mr. Obama now; they’re not dazzled and head over heels.*

Translation:

No, I do not know any black people, personally. Why do you ask?

Maybe Noonan missed the numbers–who would write about numbers when they have feelings?–but Obama’s job approval number among blacks is 91 percent.

91 percent!

And here’s the kicker: That number is up (by 1 percent) from January 2009.

*Emphasis in the original, of course.

Sarah Palin’s future is, of course, the subject of much discussion. Unfortunately, most people discussing Palin confuse their personal preferences with practical analysis, arguing “could” when they really mean “should.” (This tendency has reached epidemic proportions, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Yesterday Matthew Dowd tried to break out of that mold with a mildly analytical piece on Palin’s chances: Dowd posits that presidents with favorable ratings above 51 percent before Election Day have never lost reelection, while no POTUS with a rating under 47 percent has won. In response, stat-head Nate Silver has done some math using head-to-head favorability ratings and suggests that Palin still makes a weaker candidate against Obama than does Mitt Romney.

Whatever the individual merits of Dowd and Silver’s theses, they both deserve credit for not simply projecting their desires out into the future.

When looking at Palin, three things strike me:

(1) At this point, the only event “likely” to happen in 2012–that is, has a greater probability of happening than not happening–is that Barack Obama is likely to win re-nomination from his party. After that, every outcome is less likely than not. Three years out, presidential politics is like taking Tiger Woods vs. the Field: No matter how strong a contender looks, at this distance, the field is almost always the better play.

(2) I’m not the first to observe this (I think Michael Barone was), but you have to go back a long, long time–to FDR–to find a president who won re-election without expanding his support.

Since then, every president who won reelection did so by adding to his majority (or plurality). In other words, if you’re not growing your base of support, you’re losing. Obama was elected with a +7 margin. His style of governing and the ideological content of his policies do not, to my eyes at least, seem designed to increase his standing even further with independents and Republicans. (And he doesn’t have much room to grow with Democrats since he carried them 89 to 10.) This isn’t to say that Obama couldn’t win with +3 in 2012–trends are made to be broken! That said, it seems like an interesting number to watch.

(3) It’s hard to win both IA and NH. Since 1972, only three non-incumbents have pulled off the double (Kerry, Carter, Muskie). Two of them went on to win the nomination. No non-incumbent Republican has ever won the pair. That said, a candidate who does win both of the opening contests is very hard to beat under the modern rules of calendar, media, and money. Projecting out from here Palin would seem to have a reasonable (which is not to say probable!) chance to do just that. One assumes that she’ll be very tough in IA, a state that typically rewards cultural conservatives. And depending on what mood NH is in, she could do well there: This is a state that went McCain in 2000 and Buchanan in 1996. In other words, they’ve been open to cutting against the GOP establishment and backing reform, or even populist, candidates in the recent past.

Happy Thanksgiving!

This NYT obit for Dennis Cole. To think that you can be one minute marrying one of Charlie’s Angels and then a few years later dying alone in Ft. Lauderdale while doing cruise ship acts.

That’s James Cameron describing the (lack of?) skills of one of his lighting guys in this month-old bit of awesome from Dana Goodyear. It’s a pretty great profile although–not to take anything away from Goodyear–the subject is so good that it would be hard to mess it up.

Go, Rupert, Go!

I take a backseat to no one in my Joss Whedon fandom and I’m thrilled to see that the PGA is giving him an award. But does this make sense?

Whedon is a producer, writer, director, and creator for such hit television programs as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Angel,” “Firefly,” and “Dollhouse.”

Firefly and Dollhouse ran for a combined two seasons! It says nothing about the quality of the product to note that these are definitively not hits.