Fan Does Not Have To Be Short for Fanatic

A fanatic cannot be objective. A fanatic cannot be rational where his or her passion is concerned.

I am a fan—an aficionado. I can see the forest for the trees.

Once again, I am going to cross over from sports to politics. I can't help myself. There is a correlation between two groups of people that have irreconcilable conflicts and have lost sight of all they started to fight for.

Anti-Aaron Rodgers so-called "Packers" fans and anti-Barack Obama so-called "Democrats."

Let me make something clear: I do not begrudge anyone not supporting Obama. I do not begrudge anyone feeling Brett Favre should be the quarterback. And I am not talking to those of you who do not do these things, so save your chastising.

In fact, in the latter case, I agree—we should have kept Brett on the team. In the former case, I would not have voted for Hillary in the general election had she won (explained later), so I cannot tell someone to vote for Barack.

But there are Hillary Clinton supporters saying they will vote for McCain. There are Packers fans saying they want Rodgers to fail. Both are so mad with envy they cannot see the truth.

There are supporters who are saying the primary was "stolen." Why? Because they would not give her full delegates for Michigan, in which she was the only person on the ballot and voters were told it would not count? You realize she did get the majority of delegates for that state, right?

The fact that she even made that claim (or the similar one in Florida) is one of the reasons I would not vote for her. She (and her backers) showed no respect for the rules of her own party, and going back on her word when she publicly backed those rules because that stance no longer suited her.

Would these same Packers fans have not backed Rodgers had Favre stayed retired? Rodgers was no more the cause of the Packers trading of Favre than he was Favre's original decision to retire. Do you really think he has so much influence that he can demand the franchise move its legend out so he could play?

Think about it. Hillary herself asked the question: Were you behind me because of what I stood for or because of me? If you were behind Hillary because of her stances, Barack agrees with her about 95 percent of the time, while McCain agrees with her about 10 percent of the time. Backing McCain makes no sense.

I ask the same question of Packers fans: Were you behind Favre because he was great for the Packers or because of him? Favre left behind about four-dozen teammates you supposedly backed. Only a couple left. You are going to back the 5 percent over the 95 percent?

In both cases, there were harsh words exchanged. I can understand how that may leave one with a bad taste in their mouth. But Barack and Rodgers did not start the war of words, the ones competing with them for their jobs did.

One major difference is that Brett never said anything negative about Rodgers, or vice versa.  That is why I still would have preferred him under center. I am appalled that Clinton took personal shots at someone on her team, and in my view those who hold the mudslinging against Obama are hypocrites.

To both I ask, why would you want your side to fail? Are you so bitter that you would defile the cause you originally got on board for?

If you are a Clinton-backer, and you do not want to vote for Barack, absolutely write your candidate in. Write in Hillary in big enough numbers and it will make a statement.

If you are a Favre-backer, absolutely show up with signs saying "We Miss You, Brett." Buy a "Jet Favre" jersey and make the Jets your second-favorite team. But stop heaping vitriolic spew on Rodgers and rooting for Brett's teammates to suffer.