289 為什麽是奧巴馬

今天轉一篇紐約時報專欄文章。大衛.布魯克斯在文中對於奧巴馬潮分析得很到位。很符合事實情況。他的結論有兩點：

1〉             奧巴馬潮，即選民對奧巴馬的熱衷，來自於他們對奧巴馬能力和政治本質的誇大了的感知。並非奧巴馬選戰對其作了虛假的宣傳。

2〉            奧巴馬潮降溫後，人們雖然開始理性思考奧巴馬的變局承諾的可行性，但是他與選民之間感情（意識）上建立的聯係還存在並起會作用。

我這樣說，並非倒向希拉裏。看到理性的分析，我不會掩飾我的心有戚戚。希拉裏從一開始占位錯誤，experience而不是change，07年初很多老朋友倒向奧巴馬，後來自認為front runner一味的高姿態，選請吃緊臨陣撤人，等等，說明希拉裏選戰在戰略和戰術上的錯誤。唯一一個打得還算好看的是內華達州的初選，但也是贏了popular輸了delegates。希拉裏現在開始negative campaign了。可以說是不合適的時間不合適的地點，采取的一種不得不采取的下策。像希拉裏這個華盛頓混了16年，一直姿態很高的候選人這樣損招傷人，如果沒有上帝之手，她不可能翻身了。

3月4號的德州，將會是另一個內華達。希拉裏支持率高的Hispanic選區，由於以往的民主黨選舉中turn out低，故而本次初選分配的代表票數少。而奧巴馬支持率高的城市選區，分配的代表票數多。這是德州民主黨的規則，沒辦法改。現在要看希拉裏選戰怎麽辦了，除非緊急調動hundreds of thousands Hispanic選民去城市選區注冊投票。這種事以往在兩黨競爭中共和黨幹過，希拉裏要幹的話需要進口些共和黨的先進技術。無論如何，希拉裏已經開始喊this is unfair了。但既成事實了，就像Michigan和Florida無法計票一樣。如果要fair的話，希拉裏應該早點讓克林頓收斂些的。

有人說希拉裏輸了初選怎麽辦，會不會以獨立候選人資格參加大選。我說不會。那樣的話，她就是要在民主黨外再組織一個黨，不稱之為黨也罷。那時她成了整個民主黨的競爭者了。她那些黨內關係，華盛頓經驗還有什麽用？另外，一個政治上走頹勢的政客，即使她表麵上還有為數眾多的支持者。但那些支持者要離開她，不過一些時間或是一個簡單的理由即可解決的。所以，大選後的政治生命，希拉裏將繼續其參院活動直到2011年。然後退出政治。

大家該感歎，還沒到大選，光初選的門道就大了去嘍。這就是美式民主。當民主達到一定的規模，其fairness 和 efficiency就變得矛盾無可調和了。民主這東西，和搞生產不同，存在著the diseconomy of scale。要不怎麽中國民主的是吵來吵去，如果民主是個簡單的one dimensional decision，那還吵什麽啊！

When the Magic Fades

DAVID BROOKS，February 19, 2008

At first it seemed like a few random cases of lassitude among Mary Chapin Carpenter devotees in Berkeley, Cambridge and Chapel Hill. But then psychotherapists began to realize patients across the country were complaining of the same distress. They were experiencing the first hints of what’s bound to be a national phenomenon: Obama Comedown Syndrome.

The afflicted had already been through the phases of Obama-mania — fainting at rallies, weeping over their touch screens while watching Obama videos, spending hours making folk crafts featuring Michelle Obama’s face. These patients had experienced intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation.

But they found that as the weeks went on, they needed more and purer hope-injections just to preserve the rush. They wound up craving more hope than even the Hope Pope could provide, and they began experiencing brooding moments of suboptimal hopefulness. Anxious posts began to appear on the Yes We Can! Facebook pages. A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.

Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. For example, His Hopeness tells rallies that we are the change we have been waiting for, but if we are the change we have been waiting for then why have we been waiting since we’ve been here all along?

Patients in the grip of O.C.S. rarely express doubts at first, but in a classic case of transference, many experience slivers of sympathy for Hillary Clinton. They see her campaign morosely traipsing from one depressed industrial area to another — The Sitting Shiva for America Tour. They see that her entire political strategy consists of waiting for primary states as boring as she is.

They feel for her. They feel guilty because the entire commentariat now treats her like Richard Nixon. Are liberal elites rationalizing their own betrayal of her? Is Hillary just another fading First Wife thrown away for the first available Trophy Messiah?

As the syndrome progresses, they begin to ask questions about The Presence himself:

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the

American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?

These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation’s 261,000 lobbyists don’t see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party — the trial lawyers, the teachers’ unions, the AARP?

The Gang of 14 created bipartisan unity on judges, but Obama sat it out. Kennedy and McCain created a bipartisan deal on immigration. Obama opted out of the parts that displeased the unions. Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

The victims of O.C.S. struggle against Obama-myopia, or the inability to see beyond Election Day. But here’s the fascinating thing: They still like him. They know that most of his hope-mongering is vaporous. They know that he knows it’s vaporous.

But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them.

Those afflicted with O.C.S. are no longer as moved by his perorations. The fever passes. But some invisible connection seems to persist.