Hillary under fire

This week it’s Hillary’s turn to be under fire – media fire, not sniper fire, that is – for her “misspeaking” (or “misremembering”) of the events on the Bosnia tarmac in 1996.

Memory is a notoriously unreliable entity. When I was in graduate school, my psychology professor talked about an interesting study he had conducted on memory. Volunteers were recruited for an experiment. When the volunteers arrived, they were told that the researcher wasn’t ready yet, so they’d have to wait in a graduate student’s office. After a short wait, they would be directed to another room where the experiment took place. Well, here they learned the actual nature of the study – they were asked to describe the room in which they had just spent time waiting. They were to write down as many details as they could remember.

A substantial number of people included “books” in their description, even though there was not a single book in the room. We expect that there be books in a graduate student’s office, so the brain fills in the missing details to make our recalled experience consistent with our expectations.

As this experiment illustrates, memory is not a computer that records everything and can replay it accurately on cue. Memory is a mishmash of actual events, our perception of events, our previous knowledge, cultural expectations, and perhaps our wishes and desires.

Certainly, some events are forever etched into memory, and running to escape sniper fire would probably be one of them. Ah, but what if it didn’t happen but we wish it did? Can we lure our brains into thinking that our lives are more dramatic and interesting than they really are?

It’s hard to believe that Hillary was telling this story as a deliberate lie. That wouldn’t be a very smart move; she must have known that there were plenty of witnesses to set the record straight. It is more likely that the situation gradually became more dramatic as she replayed the events in her mind and retold her story to different audiences.

Just like she continues to believe that she will be the next president of the United States and cannot come to grasp with the possibility that it may not happen. In her mind, she is already there, and she cannot believe that the world around her does not conform to that fact.

I have always had a lot of respect for Hillary, but it is beginning to look like she’s so bent on becoming president that if she can’t have the nomination now, she would rather take down Obama and help McCain win, so she can get another chance in 2012.

Let’s just hope that Democratic voters aren‘t going to let that happen.

Obama and the race issue

Obama’s greatest challenge so far is undoubtedly his association with Rev. Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ. It is very hard to believe that he has been a member of the church for 20 years without being aware of the radical statements made by Wright. I’m not worried that Obama is really a closet extremist and that he might secretly share Wright’s views. However, it does make me uneasy about his sense of judgment.

How could he feel such a strong connection with this pastor and this church? No doubt there is more to Wright than the sound bites we now hear in the media, but the pastor’s style and opinions seem at odds with Obama’s sensible, bridge-building approach. Perhaps the church provided a way for him to become connected with the black community, a natural desire for him but something that’s hard for white voters to understand.

The biggest risk for Obama is to be seen as “a black candidate,” which for white voters would mean someone who is disproportionately concerned with the interests of black voters. So far that hasn’t happened, but his association with Wright could potentially tip the boat in that direction. His Philadelphia speech today was meant to do damage control and soothe the fears of white voters, without alienating blacks. Did he manage to adequately address these concerns?

Yes, I think he pulled it off. He came across, once again, as very intelligent and levelheaded, as well as inspirational. Race is an incredibly sensitive issue in this country, and it is something that we need to confront and discuss. In his speech, Obama acknowledges that there is a racial divide, and he shows that he is able to understand the viewpoints on both sides. We need somebody who is able to bridge that divide, and Obama is uniquely positioned to so that with his biracial background and his family ties to both white and black culture.

Did he do well enough to ease the discomfort of mainstream white voters? It’s too early to tell. But it’s a good thing for Obama that the Pennsylvania primary is still more than a month away. It will give the whole thing some time to settle down and other issues will come into focus. And, by the way, it speaks to Clinton’s credit that she hasn’t tried to capitalize on the Wright controversy. Perhaps she realizes that doing so would make her equally vulnerable to inappropriate comments made by her supporters.

(For Danish coverage of Obama's speech, see here)

Ethics in Politics

The fall of New York governor Eliot Spitzer once again reminds us that things are not always what they seem, in politics and marriage alike. And it begs the question, is there such a thing as an ethical politician?

Or is it like the sports world, where a top athlete once in a while is caught using steroids and everyone is shocked and outraged, but deep down we suspect that they probably all do it; or they wouldn’t be top athletes. Once it becomes widespread practice, you either play the game or you leave. Some people become scapegoats so the rest of us can pretend it’s an anomaly; yet it continues to happen behind the scenes.

Is it the same with politics? That you cannot possibly get to the top level of power without some amount of lies and deceit? That a truly honest and ethical person will never get anywhere in the world of politics? In other words, it’s not a matter of who’s doing something unethical; it’s a matter of who’s getting caught.

It’s a discussion we have frequently in our household. My 25-year-old stepson has been actively involved in politics (in Denmark, presumably one of the least corrupt nations in the world), and my 10-year-old son wants to go into politics when he’s older. My husband strongly advises against it; he maintains that politics is a dirty game and all politicians are corrupt. I ‘d hate to believe that he is right, but sometimes I can’t help but wonder.

What I tell my 10-year-old is that I believe many people go into politics for idealistic reasons, because they want to help make the world a better place. And that I believe it is a noble career choice, because democracy depends on people being willing to spend their time and energy in all levels of government.

Of course I realize that politics tend to attract people who are hungry for power and have big egos, and they are the ones who rise to the top. I also realize that you probably won’t be in politics for long before you find out that you can’t always stick to your high ideals; you’ll have to make compromises to get anything accomplished. When do you cross the line between being pragmatic and being corrupt? Do they all cross it at some point?

It makes me worried about our presidential candidates, especially Barack Obama, whom I strongly support. He seems “clean”, but can he possibly be? He’s coming out of Chicago politics, which is notoriously corrupt – after all, Illinois has a former governor in jail and the current governor under investigation in the Rezko trial. Obama seems to have only minor ties to Rezko, but can we trust that to be true?

And the next question is, can ANY candidate at that level be “clean?” Will we just have to accept that they all come with baggage and we can only hope that it isn’t “too” bad, i.e., obviously illegal or blatantly unethical. And at least Obama is young, which means that he has had fewer years to be corrupted than Hillary or McCain. And at least it appears that he started his career from an idealistic standpoint, choosing to be a community organizer rather than working for a prestigious law firm.

Or we can choose to make a leap of faith and believe that maybe there are a few rare individuals who are truly driven by a desire to accomplish the highest good for society; individuals who are able to navigate the balance of making the deals that are required to get things done and get ahead, yet maintain their personal integrity and never sacrifice their inner core and highest ideals.

Perhaps Obama invokes such strong emotional reactions in his supporters, because he makes it possible for us to believe that he could be that unique person – a powerful political figure who’s still a decent human being. It may be a leap of faith, but it is a leap we need to take.

Dream ticket or nightmare?

Like most other Americans I closely follow the race for the presidential nomination. I'm not yet a U.S. citizen, so I can't actually vote, but that doesn't mean I can't be engaged in the political discourse. With my Danish background I am, of course, a democrat, and like many other democrats I've felt hopelessly torn between two excellent candidates. I've always admired Hillary Clinton and I think she'd be an excellent president; however, I believe that Barack Obama is the one who can bring us into the future. 

At first I felt very guilty for not supporting Clinton, because she's clearly competent and it would indeed be great to see a woman take the top spot. In any other line-up of candidates, I would have strongly supported her. Certainly, I'm not the only one; she would have secured the nomination easily had it not been for the Obama-phenomenon. It's unfortunate for her, and clearly hard –no, impossible –for her to understand and accept what's happening. But sometimes history turns a page and there's a paradigm shift in the collective consciousness of people.

I guess that makes me one of those naive, latte-sipping intellectuals who fall for great oratorical skills over substance and issues. There's really no evidence that Barack would be a great president. But then again, is there ever? Do we ever know for sure who'd be successful? Sometimes we just have to trust out guts. What's so appealing about Obama? He's like a breath of fresh air. He brings inspiration and hope. He comes across as very intelligent and he appears to have a balanced, calm personality and a good sense of judgment. Whether he has the courage to actually carry through on his beliefs remains to be seen. But at least he has the right ideas.  

And I have to admit that Hillary is making it increasingly easy for me to support Obama. Her negative attacks and her determination to bring him down can only hurt the Democrats in the general election and it reflects poorly on her. The way her team is trying to spin everything in her advantage, well, it's the nature of the game, but it's also offensive to anyone with a shred of common sense. 

Now she is bringing up the "dream ticket" with her and Obama running together, which has been floating around in democratic circles for a long time, but at this point seems more like a nightmare. She's using it only as a strategy, trying to make us believe that if we vote for her, we'll get them both. Of course there's no guarantee that she would actually pick him (or that he would accept) if she were the nominee. If they had been able to agree on a joint ticket before the dog fighting started, everyone would have been ecstatic. Now it's too late.  Obama is the frontrunner and there would be no point for him in conceding the #1 spot to her.

It's hard to believe that a few months ago, the Republicans had a handful of candidates, none of whom anybody liked, and they had to pick the lesser evil of the bunch, while the Democrats were energized by three very viable and likable candidates. Now the Republicans rally around their guy (mostly), while the Democrats are tearing each other apart. 

I hope Obama wins the nomination (and picks Bill Richardson for his VP) and that he wins in November. If McCain wins, I predict that he'll be a one-term president, replaced in 2012 by either Obama or another fresh, young politician who has yet to emergy on the scene. But let's keep our fingers crossed that the change this country needs will happen NOW!