“Winning Isn’t Everything”…(It’s A Lot Less Important Than You Think)
Foolish Cat May 22nd, 2008
“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”
-Vince Lombardi
For the past several months we have heard cries from many prominent democrats, as well as from cynical columnists and bloggers of unknown affiliations, that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the presidential nomination because, barring some astounding revelation about Barack Obama, there is virtually no chance of her winning. Indeed, many have accused her of crippling the Democratic party with her stubbornness; after all, she can’t win so what’s the point? All she’s doing is hurting her friends.
But who said winning was everything?…Oh yeah, Vince Lombardi. But here’s the truth - Lombardi was wrong.
If you think about it, in almost every walk of life, winning probably falls somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of importance. In fact, NFL Head Coach may be one of the few occupations or activities where the quote actually applies. So maybe it isn’t fair to say Lombardi was wrong; for him it made sense. But this idea of “winning is all that matters” has metastasized. In a culture that idolizes athletes and reveres sports teams, football teams in particular, the idolizers have kidnapped the quote and taken the form of regional vice presidents “inspiring” recent grads, or inept little league third base coaches trying to win something in their lives, or armchair quarterbacks whose description of worth is determined only by outcome. Ways and means be damned.
But what of this attitude? Isn’t improving better than winning? Think about it: say you’re a golfer who shoots in the 90’s consistently, and has done so for years, and you’re out on the links with three friends who want to play competitive golf for fun - no money. Let’s also say you’re the uber-competitive “winner” everyone knows you as. Would you rather shoot a 102 and beat the other guys, or would you rather shoot a 72 and come in last? Which round would make you happier and more satisfied?
What if you’re the same “winner” in a sales environment and you have set the goal of becoming the #1 salesperson in the region. Seems noble and ambitious and indeed may be. But what if being #1 meant you had to set a goal of $2,500 in commission for the month, because that was a little more than what the “top guy” was making. Great. But what if you set a goal of $6,000 for the month, achieved it, and were actually third in the region in sales. Which is better? Any pro athlete will tell you: they’d rather play on a loser for a lot of money than on a winner for free.
But politics is not golf or sales you say. Fair. But all three, as well as everything else, fall under the umbrella of Life. Hillary’s struggle is her struggle not just to win, but to improve her skills, satisfy her ambition, and attempt to achieve the private goals she set for herself. Winning would be great, but it is not everything. And I don’t want to hear about the selfishness this stance implies - that she should consider country above her personal ambition - that’s ridiculous. Her attitude (stubbornness if you prefer), that of one refusing to quit, literally against all odds, is what this country is built upon. It not only strengthens the individual, it strengthens the immediate opponent as well as candidates of the future. And if Obama gets the nod in June, he will be battle-hard for the next round.
I’m not really a big Hillary supporter, and indeed have not made up my mind who I’m voting for at all in November, regardless of the nominee. But I have become resentful of those in her own party pressuring her to quit. She’s still winning primaries for Christ’s sake! Leave her alone and do what you need to do to help support who you support. But those of you calling for her to give up, understand that that is the true difference between a winner and loser.
Go on, Hillary.
Blunder.
Improve.
