????無可置疑，米特?羅姆尼是私募行業的老江湖。如果想找人運行私募基金，他肯定是最佳人選之一。但這種評價無法讓人們了解他是否具有在政界取得成功的能力。

????羅姆尼宣稱，由于目前的經濟形勢，他的商業經歷在此次選舉中意義重大。你不這樣認為嗎？

????There's no question that Mitt Romney is filtered as a private equity executive. If you wanted to hire someone to run a private equity fund, Mitt Romney's got to be on the really, really short list of people you would pick. But that sort of evaluation doesn't tell you a whole lot about his ability to succeed in politics.

????Romney argues that because of the economic fix we're in, his business experience is uniquely relevant in this election. You don't buy that?

????我不這樣認為。我相信他的商業經歷可以告訴人們很多事情。私募基金經理人的工作就是為投資者獲取最大的資本回報。他在這方面無可挑剔。但總統的工作不是獲取最大回報。美國總統要考慮3億人的福祉，而這3億人有很多不同的個人利益。他能否團結那些無需與他合作的人？他能否鼓動大眾的支持？談判時，他是否記得他是在為全國的選民服務？

????那你的意思是羅姆尼的商業經歷是他的缺點，而非優勢？

????可以說既是優勢，也是劣勢。他的商業經歷告訴我們，他聰明絕頂，勤勞肯干，善于分析。他能夠運用智慧，創造性地解決問題。對總統來說，這些都是很好的特質。這些經歷讓我們對他擔任總統有點信心，我們不是在隨機地挑選一無是處的路人甲。但與此同時，這和總統工作所要求的技能也大相徑庭。

????就像任何初出茅廬的領導人一樣，羅姆尼會是一個變數很大的選擇。他可能會做很多他人所不愿意做的事。這是好事還是壞事？我敢說，他會犯一些別人不會犯的錯誤。在競選活動中我們已經看到這樣的例子了。他會犯一些莫名其妙的錯誤，比如，他說‘我有些朋友是納斯卡（NASCAR, 僅在美國流行的賽車——譯注）車隊的老板’。聽起來多膚淺。確實也很膚淺。以政治為生的人多半不會說這種話。這么容易的錯都會犯，接下來其它錯誤也不會少。

????奧巴馬總統：他是老江湖還是初出茅廬？

????和羅姆尼相比，他在競選總統前在政界呆的時間更長。但很明顯，他當選時基本上也只是初出茅廬。回想起來，當初選他也是需要很大勇氣的，因為我們并不知道他會把我們引向何方。

????11月（大選）你投誰的票？

????奧巴馬。

????這個選擇是通過研究做出的決定嗎？

????研究當然有一些幫助，可以說奧巴馬依然具有高影響力的潛力，而我們也已經在過去四年目睹了他的表現。他有些決策我也不贊成。但我相信，在那些初出茅廬的領導人最容易犯錯的領域，比如外交政策，他已經成功地證明了自己。他并不是不勝任，他也沒有頭腦發熱，他也已經熟悉了這份工作的方方面面。而羅姆尼，我得說，作為一個初出茅廬的領導人，他在帶來上升潛力的同時，也有很大的失敗風險，而我們并不知道硬幣最終會停在哪一面。

????I don't. I think his business experience would tell you lots of things. The job of someone in a private equity fund is to maximize return on investors' capital. He's incredibly good at that. But the job of president is not to maximize return on investors' capital. The president of the United States has 300 million people he has to benefit, and they have lots of different interests. Can he form coalitions with people who have no reason to work with him? Can he rally the public? Can he negotiate keeping in mind that he serves many, many different constituencies?

????Are you saying that Romney's business experience would be a handicap, not an advantage?

????It's both. The business experience tells us he's incredibly smart, he's hardworking, he's analytical. He's able to solve problems creatively and intelligently. These are all good things in a president. They should give us some confidence that we're not picking someone at random who has never done anything that would make you feel they're capable of being president. But at the same time it's a profoundly different set of skills.

????As with any other unfiltered leader, Romney would be an extraordinarily high-variance choice. He is likely to do many things that no one else would do. Will that be better or worse? I will say with some confidence that he will make mistakes that no one else would make. We've already seen this in the campaign. He's made mistakes that are almost inexplicable, like saying 'A bunch of my friends own NASCAR teams.' That seems superficial. And it is. Except that most people who spent their careers in politics would never say something like that. When you make mistakes that easy, you're going to make other mistakes.

????President Obama: Filtered or unfiltered?

????Compared to Romney, he'd spent more time in politics prior to running for president. But when he was elected he was clearly massively unfiltered. This was a leap into the unknown.

????Who will you vote for in November?

????I'm gong to be voting for Obama.

????Is that a choice informed by your research?

????It's partly informed by the research, in the sense that Obama is a potentially high-impact leader whom we've seen for the last four years. There are things he's done that I disagree with. But I believe the areas in which unfiltered leaders are most likely to fail—foreign policy, for example—he's proven he's not going to fail. He's not completely incompetent, he's not crazy, he's able to do the blocking and tackling of the job. With Romney I say we have the potential upside of the unfiltered leader but we also have the potential downside, and we don't know what's going to happen.