A long time ago (way back during the 2008 presidential campaign; it seems like a lifetime), I wrote a blog entry about an article I’d read in Time. The article was about the nominees' gambling styles. There was some commentary that it was an irrelevant and foolish fluff piece, but I disagreed at the time, and I still do.
John McCain apparently loves craps. One of the riskiest games you can play in the casino, the only strategy involved in craps is how and where to place your bets, and the odds of what you will roll; the roll of the die is completely random, and whether you win or lose is completely dependent on your rolls and those of others. It is a game of high risk and high reward; or high losses. You can win big, but with one roll you can also lose everything you have on the table. It’s a definite rush if you’re winning, but the next thing you know, you’re wiped out and walking away.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a poker player. Poker is a more deliberative game, in which a smart player can go far. As with all gambling endeavors, there is risk involved, but a savvy player will know not only the odds of getting certain hands, they will bet accordingly and wisely. A big part of poker strategy also involves bluffing and doing your best to not give away your hand, whether good or bad. Apparently, he is pretty good at it.
I was reminded of this article and my subsequent thoughts on it by the events of the past week and our mission to kill Bin Laden. Many articles referred to the gamble the president took, and one journalist ran into him at the correspondent’s dinner and said there was “no tell.” Every poker player looks for the other players’ tells, and tries to not have one or at least hide it as best they can.
Article comments
1 - jamminsue
Gambling with lives and US status at this time is irresponsible. We have enough of those people in Congress. It would have been MUCH BETTER if we had captured him and brought him to an international court for charges and each country wronged getting a chance to speak. Criminalizing and showing him helpless would have been so much better for the United State's long-term international status. I am a liberal, and a patriot, yet think what happened was the wrong action. Capturing him would have been a good thing. Killing him was not.
2 - Clavos
Capturing him would have been a good thing. Killing him was not.
But it was satisfying.
3 - Glenn Contrarian
jamminsue -
I'm quite liberal myself - and it certainly was best that bin Laden died when and where he did. I didn't celebrate his death, just as I don't celebrate executions of serial rapists who richly deserve such executions, but it was necessary and it was right.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Beth -
I agree - he's a poker player, and I'd hate to face off against him. Anyone who watched the timing of his release of the birth certificate could see that he's got a rare sense of timing and - as you pointed out - no visible tells.
Not only that, he can multitask - as can be seen by his attention to the bin Laden operation at the same time as responding to the tornado damage in Alabama, the ongoing budget battle, the birther nonsense, and various social functions...
...in addition to squeezing in nine holes of golf. And anybody who thinks that taking a bit of time off to clear one's mind isn't absolutely necessary (as opposed to taking nearly one-third of the presidency off as Dubya did) needs to learn a bit about human nature.
5 - Beth
Totally agreed, Glenn. It amazes me that so many seem to find his overseas travels and state dinners to be inappropriate. That's kind of what Presidents do, you know?