Monday, April 14, 2008

Who's bitter now?

Gosh, I took the weekend off from reading any political news, a now there’s another fully erupted battle in the Democratic camp, with McCain on the sidelines echoing Hillary as best he can.

This time Obama is being “elitist” because he said small town Americans were “bitter” and clinging to “guns and religion.” Hillary apparently believes that this is the gaffe she’s been waiting for, or at least she can make it into one.

Meanwhile, according to the buzz on the internet, and at least one town where Hillary tried to bash Obama (link) , some small town people actually agree, saying that yes, they are bitter and angry – over lost jobs, high gas and food prices, indifferent politicians. And being the non-elitist candidate is kind of a hard sell for wealthy, privileged HRC.

I just wish that the Pennsylvania voters will get to it already, and vote Hillary out of the contest. This is getting ridiculous and it’s certainly not helpful to anyone.

Hillary might have been a great president, but this is not her time, and she needs to realize it. Trying so hard to make Obama look unelectable is absurd.

And the worst part of it is that now they’re both at each other’s throats, with Obama accusing Hillary of playing Annie Oakley, pretending to be a beer-drinking, gun-slinging, down-to-earth gal. I just wish Obama would stay above the fray, but I guess that’s not realistic if he wants to win.

I also wish he wouldn’t keep apologizing for this statements. It’s nice and refreshing with a politician who can admit that he makes mistakes, but it shouldn’t be to the point that whenever someone takes issue with something he says, he immediately retracts. He should own up to his statements, even if they rub some people the wrong way. “Bitter” is not a bad choice of a word, and it probably reflects perfectly fine what he meant to say, and what many people across America feel about the current state of affairs. It’s great that he tries to clarify and elaborate, but there’s no need to claim that he “misspoke,” the current preferred vernacular for “I’m stupid/lying/didn’t mean for other people to hear that”.

Seriously, these three people speak all the time to all sorts of crowds. And every word they utter is instantly available to the world on the Internet. If they never made a statement that could potentially be offensive to someone in their vast audience, they would never be able to say anything of substance. I do think there is a difference, however, between Obama’s comment and Hillary’s and McCain’s recent “misspeaks”. You can argue endlessly over whether Obama’s comment shows that he understands small-town Americans and empathize with them, or whether he understands small-town Americans and patronize them. (Either way, the comment shows that he understand them).

Hillary’s “misspeak” about sniper fire, on the other hand, was repeated multiple times and reveals an attempt to misrepresent and over-dramatize her life experiences. McCains multiple “misspeaks” about shia and sunni muslims reveal that he does not have a firm grasp on the situation in Iraq, which is serious because his primary claim to the presidency is his expertise regarding foreign policy.

There is a big difference between getting the facts wrong, about your own life or a political situation, and getting a point across by using a description that may rub some people the wrong way. Making such a big deal out of such a small thing really shows that there are no major issues for Hillary and Obama to discuss, underscoring the point that it’s time to stop fighting and unite behind one candidate.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Who's behind the door? A president or a goat?

A recent article by John Tierney in the New York Times discusses the Monty Hall problem. (Featured in the old game show “Let’s Make a Deal” with host Monty Hall). This is a math problem with a psychological component, addressing probability as well as choice and decision-making.

The problem goes like this: You have three doors. Behind one is a car; behind the other two are goats. You win the car if you pick the right door.

So you pick one door (say, Door 1), but before it is opened, the game host opens one of the other doors (say, Door 3) to reveal a goat. You now get to decide whether you’ll stick with your original choice (Door 1) or switch to Door 2. Which one gives you a better chance of winning?

According to John Tierney, you may think that your chances are 50-50 no matter which of the remaining two doors you choose, but in reality you’ll be better off switching to the other door. Why? Because your chance of picking the right door out of three would be 1:3, while your chances of picking the wrong door would be 2:3. So there’s a greater chance you picked the wrong door and would be better off switching to the other door (though there is some discussion of the validity of this probability if your first choice was completely random).

Interesting concept.

Now imagine that there are three doors. Behind one is a great president and behind the other two are goats. If you pick the right door, the country will prosper, but if you pick a goat, it will go downhill from here.

You randomly pick Door 1. The game host opens Door 3 and reveals John McCain. You know that behind the other two doors are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But you don’t know who’s behind which door, and you don’t know who’ll be the great president and who’ll be the goat.

What should you do?

Maybe you should ask the audience to help you. Assume that the rest of the world are sitting on the other side of the stage and can see what’s behind the doors. Sometimes the outside perspective provides an advantage.

It looks like the audience will tell you to pick the door that leads to Obama. He’s the overwhelming favorite of people in Europe and everywhere else, as this piece by Shmuel Rosner points out.

But of course Americans don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. Or they wouldn’t have reelected George W. Bush in 2004. “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” was a headline in Britain’s Daily Mirror after the 2004 election. And you’ve got to admit the Europeans were right on this one. So maybe they’ve got it right again.

OK, of course we shouldn’t pick a president based on what people in other countries think. But it doesn’t hurt to listen to some common sense.

And of course, picking a president isn’t a completely random game. We have plenty of information on which to base our decision. But when it comes down to it, we can never know for sure. We’ll just have to hope we’re picking the right door.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

How do we decide whom to support?

Following up on my previous post, I am wondering how people become so passionate about their favorite candidate that they almost forget we’re on the same bus. Most people agree that Hillary and Obama differ very little on the issues. If politics is not the main reason to choose one candidate over the other, what makes us decide whom to support?

Perhaps we look to whom we think is better at following through on their ideas and getting things accomplished. That’s when we get into discussions of their respective legislative records, who got more bills passed in the Senate, and who was better able to work across the aisles. That’s relevant enough, but I suspect that even before we look at such arguments, we’ve already made up our minds. Our preferences are shaped at a more subconscious level and reflect how we respond to each candidate’s personality and how we feel that we can relate to each of them. And it’s not just a matter of race and gender, though both may play into it.

Why do I prefer Obama? As a white woman (I’m not going to say middle-aged, though maybe that would apply), you’d think I was all for Hillary. But somehow I feel I can relate better to Obama. I’m not biracial, but like Obama, I grew up without a father, partially raised by my grandparents. Like Obama, I have lived in different countries and at times struggled to define who I am and where I belong. Many people in this country of immigrants have multi-ethnic, multi-national roots and Obama becomes a symbol for the new global American. There is a sense that his background gives him a broader perspective, a bigger vision.

At the website “Women for Hillary,” you can read comments from women who support Clinton. How about this one from Maya Angelou (in an essay celebrating Women’s History Month):

“There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you’re born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. […] Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.”

It’s as if Hillary’s toughness comes out of a sense of resentment, as if she’s been treated unfairly but has honorably fought her way to the top – when in reality she was born into privilege and has had every advantage in her education and career.

Then look at the words of another black female writer, Alice Walker:

“I am a supporter of Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the country at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to start over, and to do better. […] He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change America must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.”

In her essay, Walker does talk about her past, growing up in racist, segregated Georgia. Clearly, blacks have much more blatant injustice and oppression to be resentful about than women like Hillary.

But Obama is not just black, he is also white, and his sister is half Asian. He defies standard definitions and bridges across traditional divides in our society. Obama’s vision isn’t fueled by resentment; it’s fueled by hope. He makes us feel like we can see beyond the struggles of the past and create a new future.

Obama may not be stronger on the issues or better at the political games than Hillary, but he possesses the ability to inspire, to make our minds and hearts soar, and that’s no small feat for a leader.

Don't forget the real battle

As the race between Obama and Clinton is dragging on, both of them seem to have shifted their attention from each other to John McCain. And appropriately so, because that’s where the real battle lies. McCain is a great patriot and has served the country well, but his accomplishments are in the past. He offers no new ideas, no real solutions, and it’s clear that his politics wouldn’t be much of a change from the current administration.

What a shame it would be if the democratic infighting got so bitter that we missed out on this wonderful opportunity to make history and shape the future. Both democratic candidates are extremely bright and capable individuals, and both would break new ground for this country. Hillary may be more steeped in traditional politics than Obama, but she’s still light years ahead of McCain. Let’s hope that no matter who wins, people from both camps will come together and support the nominee. As we hash out the differences between the two, we should not forget that the major philosophical and practical differences are between Republicans and Democrats, and the fight for the Democratic nominee is merely over who’s the best representative for what we believe in.