289 为什么是奥巴马

今天转一篇纽约时报专栏文章。大卫.布鲁克斯在文中对于奥巴马潮分析得很到位。很符合事实情况。他的结论有两点：

1〉             奥巴马潮，即选民对奥巴马的热衷，来自于他们对奥巴马能力和政治本质的夸大了的感知。并非奥巴马选战对其作了虚假的宣传。

2〉            奥巴马潮降温后，人们虽然开始理性思考奥巴马的变局承诺的可行性，但是他与选民之间感情（意识）上建立的联系还存在并起会作用。

我这样说，并非倒向希拉里。看到理性的分析，我不会掩饰我的心有戚戚。希拉里从一开始占位错误，experience而不是change，07年初很多老朋友倒向奥巴马，后来自认为front runner一味的高姿态，选请吃紧临阵撤人，等等，说明希拉里选战在战略和战术上的错误。唯一一个打得还算好看的是内华达州的初选，但也是赢了popular输了delegates。希拉里现在开始negative campaign了。可以说是不合适的时间不合适的地点，采取的一种不得不采取的下策。像希拉里这个华盛顿混了16年，一直姿态很高的候选人这样损招伤人，如果没有上帝之手，她不可能翻身了。

3月4号的德州，将会是另一个内华达。希拉里支持率高的Hispanic选区，由于以往的民主党选举中turn out低，故而本次初选分配的代表票数少。而奥巴马支持率高的城市选区，分配的代表票数多。这是德州民主党的规则，没办法改。现在要看希拉里选战怎么办了，除非紧急调动hundreds of thousands Hispanic选民去城市选区注册投票。这种事以往在两党竞争中共和党干过，希拉里要干的话需要进口些共和党的先进技术。无论如何，希拉里已经开始喊this is unfair了。但既成事实了，就像Michigan和Florida无法计票一样。如果要fair的话，希拉里应该早点让克林顿收敛些的。

有人说希拉里输了初选怎么办，会不会以独立候选人资格参加大选。我说不会。那样的话，她就是要在民主党外再组织一个党，不称之为党也罢。那时她成了整个民主党的竞争者了。她那些党内关系，华盛顿经验还有什么用？另外，一个政治上走颓势的政客，即使她表面上还有为数众多的支持者。但那些支持者要离开她，不过一些时间或是一个简单的理由即可解决的。所以，大选后的政治生命，希拉里将继续其参院活动直到2011年。然后退出政治。

大家该感叹，还没到大选，光初选的门道就大了去喽。这就是美式民主。当民主达到一定的规模，其fairness 和 efficiency就变得矛盾无可调和了。民主这东西，和搞生产不同，存在着the diseconomy of scale。要不怎么中国民主的是吵来吵去，如果民主是个简单的one dimensional decision，那还吵什么啊！

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.