By that reasoning, the only team that achieves anything worth noting is the national champion, and everybody else is nothing more than the answer in a trivia contest. That's just not right. 

Consider the women's volleyball team from George Washington University, whose head coach committed suicide on the second day of fall practice. They may have lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament, but by simply getting there, they overcame great adversity and achieved something worth honoring. 

Consider, too, the football team from Notre Dame. Their past struggles and their tough schedule had people wondering if they would even finish at .500 and if their coach would keep his job. Well, they are now 9-2. ranked #10, and they'll be playing in a major bowl game. They won't be national champions, but they exceded all expectations, and they too have achieved something worth honoring. 

And what about the Nebraska Cornhuskers? They're ranked #9, have a record of 9-2, having lost only to a couple of top ten teams, and they will also be playing in major bowl. It may not be the same as what George Washington and Notre Dame overcame, but it's still an achievement that many schools would give their left arm to be able to claim. 

Vince Lombardi said, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." That isn't right, though, and it isn't healthy, either. Winning is a notable achievement, but we ought to remember that it isn't the only one. 

Brad Pardee 
Editor

Many have speculated on the effects this will have on what gets done in Washington over the next 2-4 years, but there is one prediction being made that I find quite troubling. This would be the idea that, because of the narrowness of the election, the new president will not be able to get much of his agenda through Congress. 

Why is this? If our representatives in each house of Congress are basing their votes on what they believe is best for America, the President's margin of victory shouldn't matter. 

Suppose, for example, the President had won 75% of the popular vote and 90% of the Electoral College votes. We'll never hear a Senator or Representative say, "I think such-and-such a bill is bad for America, but since the President supports it and he won by a large margin, I'll vote for it, anyway." 

However, if the President's margin of victory makes a difference in the way Congress votes, then that's exactly what they are doing, whether they will admit it or not. 

There is only one thing that should determine the way they vote, and that is their belief in what is best for America. If their position is not the same as the majority of their constituents, then it is their responsibility to make an honest and compelling case for their position, even if it means being voted out of office. 

It is then the responsibility of the people to inform themselves, and it is the responsibility of the news media to aid in the process by objectively, honestly, accurately, and completely representing all sides of an issue. The votes would then vote for those with whom they truly agree, not merely those who do what they want. 

When our representatives allow the President's margin of victory, or anything else (such as promises of support from campaign contributors, pressure for party leadership, etc.) to determine the way they vote, then their votes cease to be a reflection of personal convictions but instead, are an act of political expediency. 

Positions based on this expediency are all to easily negotiated away in the interest of political compromise. 

"You support my bill that you really don't like, and I'll support your bill that I don't really like." 

Some might call me naïve. I would say that this is only naïve if we have allowed (and continue to allow) our elected officials to get away with voting motivated by political gamesmanship instead of personal conviction. 

As long as we still have the freedom of to express our wishes at the ballot box, we have the ability to hold our representatives accountable. We have the ability to elect those who truly agree with us instead of those who find it politically convenient to vote as if they did. 

If we exercise that accountability, then our democracy will be able to prove that it truly is the best hope for any country that wishes to be "the land of the free".