As we head for the clubhouse turn in the presidential election the bad horse racing analogies are coming fast and furious.
The New York Times this morning compared Kerry's closing style to Secretariat. The Republicans have long noted the facial resemblance between the two.
Howard Dean was, of course, fractious in the gate and mortally wounded himself before the starter's bell. That rarely happens in the real game, but when it does, it's equally ugly.
Kerry chose a pretty pony to accompany him on the post parade, while Bush opted for an old war horse.
With Bush there's always the doping question as well as the inevitable weakening of champion bloodlines as evidenced by some weak past performance lines for the first 40 years of his life.
With Kerry you have the question of overtraining for the big race.
Their trainers and grooms are in a frenzy preparing for Thursday's debate, learning everything they can about the other's workouts while holding their own cards as close as possible.
It would keep me awake at night to think of Teresa and Laura in jockey silks crouched over their respective mounts stirring them on with whips while whispering in their flattened ears, so we won't go there.
The beauty of horse racing is the pari-mutuel process, whereby everyone has a stake in the race and somebody always wins. If the favorite wins, more people are paid less. If a long shot wins, fewer people are paid more.
And this is where all the comparisons fall apart.
If the wrong horse wins this race, we all lose.



Copyright 2004 Judi Griggs