<p>“The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam’s razor helps us to “shave off” those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.”</p>
<p>Obama is where he is at this point in time not only because of overwhelming support from black voters, but as coureur and others have pointed out, because of support from white voters. The point I was getting at is — doesn’t his white support have something to do with his ethnic background? </p>
<p>The Atlantic piece I linked to earlier is a long profile of Obama published in December 2007. In very brief summary, Sullivan asserts that part of Obama’s appeal to WHITE voters is his ability to “re-brand” the image of America to the rest of the world, particularly the Arab and Muslim world. It is a compelling component of the “change” he offers to bring. </p>
<p>Sullivan writes:
</p>
<p>There’s little ambiguity to a point made centered on Obama’s “brown-skinned” face. </p>
<p>Kaus then writes: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would he be challenging HC for the Democratic nomination as successfully if he were white? I sincerely doubt it.</p>
<p>I won’t argue the logic of Sullivan’s conjecture about how “The Muslim World” (however ambiguous a concept that might be) might see an Obama victory in the American Presidential race, But, if this is what GF really meant, why didn’t she say so? She made multiple televised appearances after the fact, being surly and defensive, but never once offering such clarificaion. Certainly, this is not what she could have meant in 1988 when she spoke of how Jesse Jackson was where he was in his bid for the nomination “because of his race.” </p>
<p>I sincerely doubt that GF, being firmly ensconced in the Clinton Campaign, and driven by the desire to see her candidate win the nomination, would have been motivated to cast Obama’s candidacy in the somewhat favorable light of Sullivan’s above conjecture.</p>
<p>Yet, you’d wield that razor in an argument with the deftness of a Samurai if it suited your own purpose, and call it the most unimpeachable of rhetorical tools, wouldn’t you?</p>
<p>From a republican point of view, it’s buckets of fun watching leading democrats argue about whichof those democrats is and is not racist. Please keep it up.</p>
<p>“Hunt; what proof do you have that he is “really, really, smart”? … And what proof do you have that the “highly educated” voters are attracted to this quality?”</p>
<p>I think your first question has been answered, and modesty precludes me from answering the second.
I do think it’s instructive to compare Obama to Jackson. No serious person EVER thought Jackson had a real chance of getting the Democratic nomination, much less the presidency. Despite plenty of rhetoric to the contrary, everybody understood that actually winning wasn’t the point of his candidacy. With Obama, that isn’t the case at all (in fact, remember the early days of the campaign when the worry was whether he was “black enough” to get black votes? Ha!)</p>
<p>“what proof do you have that the “highly educated” voters are attracted to this quality?”"</p>
<p>I don’t know if there have been polls that dig into the motivation of the voters with graduate degrees who (overall) prefer Obama to Hillary. But based on an unscientific sample of my immediate family (three lawyers, a professor of psychiatry and a professor of OBGYN), Obama’s killer intellect is a big part of his appeal within that group.</p>
<p>And again I disagree. I am a scientist myself. I perform experiments to prove or disprove theories nearly every day. I do it for a living. And believe me, we always start first with the simplest theory that can account for all the data. That’s the way science is supposed to work. Occam is alive and well.</p>
<p>The whole “killer intellect” thing is a source of ambivalence to me. There have been relatively few Presidents who reached office with killer intellect credentials. In the past century, I think it’s probably limited to Wilson, Hoover, and Carter. Maybe Clinton, maybe maybe Nixon. It’s not a list that inspires much confidence that killer intellect is the most important quality in a President. (Of course, the example of the current President suggests that SOME intellect is a really desirable quality.)</p>
<p>My parents met Jimmy Carter at the embryonic stage of his campaign, when he was first reaching outside of Georgia, and sitting in living rooms talking with people for hours. They – highly educated people, both of them – were bowled over by how smart he was, and became enthusiastic supporters. Ultimately, I think Carter’s career amply demonstrates the gap between intellect and long-term political leadership and accomplishment.</p>
<p>(Way upthread, someone said that Obama is a “once in a lifetime candidate”. We’ll see. One of the things – other than the one we’re not supposed to mention – that distinguishes him from other inspiring Presidential candidates in my lifetime is that we don’t know the rest of the story yet. We don’t know why, or if, he ultimately flamed out, like Mario Cuomo, John Anderson, Jerry Brown, Bob Kerrey, Robert Kennedy. We don’t have a mixed record of accomplishment in office to cast retroactive light on his campaign, as we do with John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. In six or seven years, we’ll know whether Obama was truly unique in that company.)</p>
<p>I “translate” scientific and health data for use in public policy both statewide and nationally, and have done so for 17 years. Each year, I publish a 400-page book on health-related trends for policymakers, which is reviewed by a team of scientists before publication. Rest assured that when, in explanations of scientific data, I “multiply entities unnecessarily”, I get slapped upside the head.</p>
<p>Maybe the joke’s on me?</p>
<p>(Hoover was probably the smartest, and maybe the most personally compassionate, man to ever inhabit the Oval Office. Fat lot of good it did him.)</p>
<p>I don’t know that I’d call Robert Kennedy a “flameout.” It’s true that all these planes crashed before reaching their destination, but there is a huge qualitative difference between being shot down and running out of gas.</p>
<p>Of course Robert Kennedy didn’t “flame out” because of any personal failings. I tend to think a little less of him than many (because of what he actually did while he was Attorney General), but he certainly inspired Obama-like devotion for many, many people. My point was that candidacies like Obama’s come along with some frequency, and for one reason or another fail to transform the world as much as one might hope.</p>
<p>I do have some concerns that Obama may be like Carter. However, I still don’t regret voting for him, and I think I would take the 1976 Carter over Hillary or McCain, even knowing what I now know.</p>
<p>And for me “killer intellect” combined with a compassionate worldview are exactly what I am looking for. It’s not how much you can get done, it’s what is worth getting done, that is more important to me. And how you got about it; it’s not enought to make the trains run on time.</p>
<p>And Zoos, I imagine by this time you Republicans can sure use the diversion. Enjoy! :)</p>
<p>Hanna; I still don’t think that it can be a blanket statement that the intellectual and smart people support Obama. You admitted your data is only from your personal family. It’s also true that you are from Chicago. Don’t you think that might have some bearing on voting for a senator from Illinois? Plus; I bet you any amount you want, that I could probably grab most doctors, lawyers, scientists, professors, and any other “Smart or Intellectual” person you want to include; from a state like Wyoming or Arizona; where they probably wouldn’t necessarily support Obama.</p>
<p>Basically; I am saying that 1) Not all smart/intelligent people are democrats. Many are Republicans. Therefor, they probably aren’t going to support Obama. 2) There’s probably a lot of these smart/intelligent people in New York and other areas where they heavily supported Clinton and not Obama. I don’t think a consensus of your family members is good enough or valid enough to make such a statement.</p>
<p>“I still don’t think that it can be a blanket statement that the intellectual and smart people support Obama.”</p>
<p>What? I never made any such claim. The best data do suggest, however, that Democratic primary voters who have graduate degrees skew heavily toward Obama. Here’s one link from last month showing a 2-to-1 Obama advantage among these voters:</p>
<p>What this kind of poll does not show is WHY these voters prefer Obama. I offered my family just as anecdotal evidence that for some of us, his intellect is a big factor.</p>
<p>Yeah, the question was why highly educated people support Obama, and Hanna’s experience (and mine) is that they admire his intelligence. The fact that smart people support Obama is shown by the polls, and by the fact that those attacking Obama are focusing on arguments that would only be persuasive to stupid people (like claiming that he is secretly a Muslim).</p>