March 08, 2008 02:11 pm So what happened? This column was supposed to be about why Barack Obama had all but wrapped up the Democratic presidential nomination after Tuesday's voting. It still is, but ... then there's Hillary. After losing three of four primaries, including the big states of Ohio and Texas, Obama appeared stunned Tuesday night, as if he just couldn't understand how so many voters could have gone the other way. Meanwhile, Clinton's election-night party had all the entrees and garnishes of a victory celebration _ as if she had just won the nomination. It was a big night for Hillary, who had her back against the wall, but she will in the remaining states still have to deal with the factors that gave Obama 12 straight wins and a lingering delegate lead. One of the biggest issues working in Obama's favor, however intangible, is hope. People from all walks of life _ from yuppie to unemployed laborer _ want better lives, even if that means just having a feeling that things are not going to get worse. They sure don't have that feeling now. When Obama speaks, his oratory skills and charisma make people believe that he really can effect change for the better. Though he and Clinton share many of the same basic stances on the issues, he has the ability to give people the hope that something different would happen in Washington and the rest of the nation if he were elected. Of course, Hillary has tried to hammer away at that by insisting that good talking is not the same as good leading, that she's the one who could accomplish the mutual agendas they appear to have in common. But so far, too many people, for her sake, have signed on to the notion that his age and ``outsider" status will make it easier for him to get beyond the politics-as-usual gridlock that keeps real change from occurring inside and outside the Beltway. The idea of change can be manifested in numerous ways. On Tuesday night, on a losing note, Obama was alternating his criticism between Clinton and Bush when he suddenly backed off on promising that he would solve everybody's problems. ``Americans know that government cannot solve all of our problems, and they don't expect it to. Americans know that we have to work harder and study more to compete in a global economy. We know that we need to take responsibility for ourselves and our children _ that we need to spend more time with them, and teach them well, and put a book in their hands instead of a video game once in a while. We know this.'' You know, that simple idea of replacing a child's video game with a book is as radical as any the candidate has put forth. And, indeed, has a lot to do with our educational system and competing in the global economy. As soon as you point to problems in our schools, however, the No Child Left Behind program jumps to the forefront. Obama has attacked it for forcing educators to focus too much on tests and less on understanding and learning. And there's plenty of evidence to back him up. A recent survey commissioned by a liberal arts advocacy group found that fewer than half of American teenagers knew when the Civil War was fought, and one in four said Columbus sailed to the New World some time after 1750, not in 1492. The results, released last week, indicate that a majority of teenagers live in "stunning ignorance" of history and literature, according to the group that commissioned it, Common Core. In an introduction to the report, coordinators insisted NCLB has led schools to focus too narrowly on reading and math, crowding time out of the school day for history, literature and other subjects. On that front, many parents and teachers agree that schools have had to narrow their focus because of testing in grades 3 to 8, excluding other subjects and creative learning. Obama understands that changing our schools takes time and often involves trade-offs _ and government intervention that could be good or ill. So, he is putting the challenge to parents to take charge of their children's lives by having them unplug, shut down and turn off those video games in favor of those old-fashioned artifacts called books. The candidate Barack Obama may have just what it takes to excite parents enough to try it. We'll see. Clinton, on the other hand, likely would try a different approach. While acknowledging the problems caused by NCLB's focus, she would say that with the help of government, we can make those video games more educational and challenging so that we can compete in the global economy. With whom do you feel more hopeful that our children will be all that they can be? That's one issue the election is all about. ___ Cary Brunswick is managing editor of The Daily Star. He can be reached at (607) 432-1000, ext. 217 or cary@thedailystar.com.
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
