Why Obama beats Hillary?

It is phenomenal for a rookie senator to beat down the ex first lady. Of course there will be explanations from various perspectives. Here is my considerations.

1. People are just tired of seeing the face of Hillary. Yes she has 35 years of experience, which to me means she has been exposed to the public for 35 years. Yes, highly exposed 35 years. Why Bill Clinton had affair with some young chick? A simple explanation is that he got tired of seeing Hillary after 20some years. The rewarding center in the brain needs some new stimuli. In the case of Bill Clinton, it was Miss Levinsky; in this case of Hillary Clinton, it was B. H. Obama.

2. The media are biased. But that is their nature. McCain will be the GOP nominator without any doubt, and the media will have no "news" about him and he will get away from the public. This is bad, both for the media and for Sen. McCain, and maybe that’s why they give out the sex scandal. For the media, they would have felt thrilled to have a new fresh face to contest Sen. Clinton. With more and more viewers of the news report, every medium wins; who cares about who will win? They just need these topics, and since Sen. Hillary seemed to be so powerful and so doubtless to become the nominee, now comes the best news for her to be beat, or almost beat.

3. I have reported my discovery of B. H. Obama’s possible fluency problem. After watching tonight’s debate in Austin, TX, I still hold this point that he may have some fluency problem, or, at least at the fluency continuum, he is in a much lower point compared to Hillary, Bill Clinton, Huckabee, and McCain. He showed a lot of interjection, hesitation, and first sound repetition; and when he became fluent, he was reciting his rhetoric rhyming words, and using excessive hand gestures. But still people like his speech. Why? His speech rhymes, his rhythm soars, his words are simple and short, and he shows more resolution in chanting these hope and change words. On the contrary, Hillary’s speech is more monotonous and without good rhythm. It is like the difference between singing a black rap and a country song: the former beats fast though simple, makes listeners rock; the latter slow and prosaic and only people in a specific mood enjoys.

4. And pay attention to what they say. B. H. Obama basically said two things: either he agreed with Hillary on this and that with small difference, or he offered this and that, such as the $4,000 to school kids, the health care to everyone, and changing Washington. But he only talked about the tasty side- he drew a beautiful picture without giving answers such as where will be the money, what will do if some people reject to buy health care, and how come to change a system by becoming a part of it. On these points, the fault of Hillary was that she talked about both sides, which of course, sounds not charming. Everyone wants to enjoy the fruit, everyone hates to think of the pain, and people are notoriously short-sighted to see the future as indicated in Daniel Gilbert’s book Stumbling on happiness discusses. So, one appeals, the other sucks.

5. Yes, words are cheap, but plans are also cheap. B. H. Obama may have plagiarized his speech, and may copied economic plans from Hillary, but so what? Plans are just plans, it needs executive power to put it into reality. In this case, the power to move people is horribly powerful and Obama may have more chance to launch these plans, except the risk may be too high. In other words, Obama may do better than Hillary, but also the risk for him to flunk is much bigger.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: