Combatting Obama's Creed

Next, Clinton argued that she, too, represented change. While obviously true, Clinton had to take a back seat on the issue. Not only was she late to show, but electing a woman proved less appealing than moving beyond racial divisions. Additionally, Clinton’s change appeared to be less about coming together than it was about being the first female president. While Obama doesn’t talk about being the first black president (such a claim would undermine his creed’s assertion that racial divisions are unimportant), Clinton trumpeted her gender as a rationale for her presidency. This tactic, while slightly broadening Clinton's appeal, failed to undermine the basic premise of Obama’s creed and, in fact, may have highlighted key differences in their respective approaches in a way that favored Obama. As a result, Obama remained unwounded.

The Early Campaign

A One-Way Race

The Emergence of Hope

Simultaneously, Obama pitched the biggest tent of them all. He campaigned for "one America" – a nation where divisions of political party, and, most strikingly, race are obsolete. Arguing that change comes from collaboration, he invited everyone in and promised reconciliation. Arnold himself couldn’t have created a broader, more appealing creed.

The race became Obama’s "One America" against Clinton's predictable stewardship.

Obamamania

One characteristic of Obama's campaign, highlighted by the media and exalted by his supporters, is that he somehow "transcends race." He is a black man who is not angry at white America. Instead of demanding and confronting, Obama articulates message of unity, healing, and progress. He purports to create an opportunity to move past divisiveness: a message that is both necessary to maintain the "One America" creed and what makes it desirable to a broad audience (particularly white voters looking for redemption from sin).

Regardless, the battle between these two politicians with similar politics, but quite different politicking, has given us insight into what it takes to cobble together and maintain a sufficiently broad creed.

Writer's Note: Comments seems to be centered on my supposed support of Obama. Frankly, I find him impressive, but deeply disagree with him on numerous issues of paramount importance to me.

Please Note that this is a Very Early Draft

Second, the Clinton campaign directly poked a hole in the idea that Obama is someone above politics. Despite her own shady land deals, Clinton pushed the Tony Rezko story, arguing that Obama is part of the same political muck that plagues Washington. This is a perfect attack on Obama's creed with little cost to Clinton. She basically announced, "See, he is dirty like the rest of us!" This was an important move because it had the potential to change the way voter’s viewed Obama. Those in his tent because he represented a departure from politics as usual were left questioning whether Obama truly was what he said he was.

Recently, Clinton has shaken the very foundation of Obama's creed by questioning whether truly transcends race. By highlighting his pastor's divisive words, Clinton raised the question whether, deep down, Obama is actually an angry black man who can't look beyond race. For white voters, such a charge brings with it serious misgivings. No longer is Obama the fearless leader poised to move the country beyond its deep divisions. His campaign becomes, as Bill Clinton argued many weeks ago, in many ways indistinguishable from Jesse Jackson's. Without racial unity and reconciliation, "One America" quickly becomes many America’s again and the whole in the creed lets votes escape.

Too Little Too Late?

• I really appreciate it, Amanda ... what do you think of the new draft? -- AdamCarlis 26 Feb 2008

• I agree with Amanda, that you're focusing on "what the voters are hearing, not what the candidates are trying to make the voters hear." I also agree that arguing that folks are "conspiring to put forth a racist argument" comes dangerously close to mind reading. We law students lack the psychological sophistication to find subliminal mens rea, even in words spoken by politicians. We can only read the rhetoric that folks put forth, i.e. "what the voters are hearing," and take it at its word. -- AndrewGradman - 22 Mar 2008

It looks like you think 1) that one of Obama's weaknesses is that "inexperience" is an epithet, and 2) that it's hard for Obama to refute that epithet; but it also looks like you want to patch up Obama's weaknesses. It's okay to blend editorial and journalism in one document, but it looks like you're trying to hide that you're doing so:

• Although you SHOW that you have certain opinions (e.g. vote for Obama (implied)/certain people who don't are evil (stated)) you never TELL us this.
• Although you SHOW that you use "inexperience" to mean two different things (how most people arrive at calling Obama "inexperienced", versus how you do), you never TELL us this.
• Although you distinguish between inexperience as a datum, a thing seen and attested to, versus "inexperience" as a synonym for "QED," i.e. appearing after a list of things relevant to experiences that we take for granted (e.g. citing a poll in which General Election call Obama "inexperienced," versus listing "experiences" McCain has that Obama lacks), you never tell us which is which.
• Although you present both "objective" facts and "subjective" beliefs, you never defend a mechanism for distinguishing between the two.
  • examples: Given his thin resume/being viewed as inexperienced is a handicap/voters' anxiety regarding his readiness to govern/Because of the perceived inexperience and subsequent failures of the Bush administration ... the public wants/general election voters cite "inexperienced" as the word that best describes him/Obama is poorly positioned to [convince Americans that he has sufficient relevant experience, because 1. his resume has few experiences, 2. outside the resume, he doesn't remind people of an "experienced politician", 3. the media remind us of these facts/opinions]
• You seem to be saying that when the public calls Obama "inexperienced," their reasoning is hopelessly subjective, i.e. unaccountable, i.e. vulnerable to abuse, i.e. mingled with race. But in posing as value-neutral, you miss the chance to "objectively" characterize Obama's experience level as appropriate to the presidency.
  • You might tell us: why aren't you put off by Obama's lack of experience? Why do we consider what McCain has "experience"? If Clinton has experience, and it's so different from McCain's, why can't Obama be experienced in a way different from McCain's as well? In other words: take one step back and tell us why can't we defend Obama's on experience grounds to those who criticize him on experience grounds.
    • I suspect it's because all our information comes from identical outlets, so we can only account for our disagreements as differences in subjective preferences. Perhaps you could open up a wedge in which to redefine Obama, if you can characterize those outlets as biased or wrong. (Acknowledged: you do criticize the media and McCain's tactics.) But question-begging enters here too, because you are claiming to see bias that others can't. I suppose you'd want to portray yourself as somehow detached, which is hard to do, since you're clearly defending Obama.

It will always end in question-begging, because you're trying to characterize people who cite inexperience for not voting for Obama, by comparing them to people who are voting for Obama despite his inexperience; and yet the pro-Obama person you identify is yourself. Your essay is like a follow-up question to that poll of general-election voters: "What word do you think people who openly characterize Obama as "inexperienced" would use if they weren't afraid to be called racists?" I agree with you that a large proportion of people who answered "inexperienced" to the first question would probably answer "black" to the second. But I wouldn't call that racism: you and I both just did it.
-- AndrewGradman - 21 Mar 2008

• Andrew, I appreciate your comments. I would love to hear your thoughts on the next round. --Main.AdamCarlis - 24 Mar 2008

Too Little Too Late?

Obama's Experience Problem

The Liability of Inexperience

Barriers to Overcoming the Criticism

Inexperience

Age

Race

Conclusion

1. ) convince him that you can separate the news and the editorial
2. ) i.e. both "show" and "tell" him that he can trust your ability to choose and define words
3. ) i.e. tell a really invisible lie.

• Although you SHOW that "inexperience" mean two different things to you (how most people arrive at calling Obama "inexperienced", versus how you do), you never TELL us this.

• Although your words present both "objective" facts and "subjective" beliefs, (see examples), you never defend a mechanism for distinguishing between the two.

I suspect it's because we all get our political news from similar sources, so it's hard to explain our political disagreements in terms of other than subjective preferences. But if you can stereotype our information sources as somehow biased (cf. all that critical theory mumbo jumbo about the mass media that Eben believes in), you can make an argument for against Obama out of it. (I acknowledge that you do this, by criticizing the media and the opponents' campaign tactics.) However, question-begging enters here too, because you have to show how you can see the bias that others can't. I suppose you'd want to portray yourself as somehow detached, which is hard to do, since you're clearly voting for Obama.

I think the question-begging is inevitable because you're using [the fact that you're voting for Obama despite his inexperience] to tell us something about [the people who aren't voting him because of his inexperience]. If that poll of general-election voters had asked a follow-up question, "What word do you think those people who openly characterize Obama as "inexperienced" would use if they weren't afraid to be called racists?", I, like you, suspect that a large proportion of people who answered "inexperienced" to the first question would answer "black" to the second. But I wouldn't call that racism: you and I both just did it.

• allegations of inexperience whose causes you can't precisely account for, versus allegations whose causes you can;
  
• inexperience as a datum, a thing seen and attested to, versus "inexperience" as a synonym for "QED," i.e. appearing after a list of "experiences" whose relevance to presidency the paper takes for granted;
  
• "subjective" versus "objective" inexperience.

Experience Matters

The Liability of Inexperience

In this election, being viewed as inexperienced is a handicap. Because of the perceived inexperience and subsequent failures of the Bush administration, concerns about national security, and our crumbling economy, the public wants a president who can step into the office ready to lead. Unfortunately for Obama, general election voters cite "inexperienced" as the word that best describes him. This characterization could lead many American’s who might have otherwise supported Obama’s candidacy to vote for the more tested candidate, particularly if the current economic and political instability continues.

The General Election

Obama cannot credibly claim the experience mantle in the general election. Instead, McCain's lengthy Congressional record, popular military service, and nine additional months on the attack, will allow him to further entrench questions about Obama's readiness to lead. Moreover, the perception of McCain as a "maverick" allows him to be seen as experienced without being portrayed as a Washington insider or party crony. Therefore, he is well-positioned to capitalize on the uncertainty created by volatile circumstances without the usual baggage accompanying such attacks.

• I feel like there is some structure problem here. This paragraph feels like it belongs before the general election paragraph. I should look to see if there is a way to smooth this out

• Do I need more here? I am assuming that the public sees experience in number of years served or major accomplishments achieved without really justifying that. Obama would neither be the youngest man elected president or the least "experienced" (by pretty much any measure), but he is less "experienced" than McCain in almost every category that could conceivably matter to a large percentage of voters. What needs to be said, beyond what I have said, to make this work?

Additionally, "experience" provides cover for people unwilling to vote for an African American. While most people voting based on race wouldn't support Obama's policies, some Democrats and Independents are searching for a socially acceptable reason to justify their anti-Obama vote. Whether they are the elderly white voters highlighted by the Times or the “Bradley Effect” voters, saying one thing and voting another, the experience issue can be used to justify an otherwise discriminatory vote.

Obama can plausibly argue that good judgment trumps experience or turn the age issue against McCain. However, on race, to borrow from Gandhi, Obama is the change he wants to see in the world. As a result, it will be next to impossible for him to convince some voters that he is ready and capable until he does it and does it well. Until then, Obama will be waging an uphill battle to cast off the shroud of inexperience, possibly costing him the election.

• I use a lot of words to say nothing in this conclustion, that have to change

Age

Many other (possibly more important) issues will go a long way to determine who wins this election. However, given how close this race is likely to be, the candidate who best manages the experience issue, all other things being equal, is likely to wind up on top.

The Experience Argument

The Meaning of "Experience"

"Experience" can mean any number of things and so it means precisely nothing. Therefore, it is a winning word for politicians crafting a message the masses can support. It works because it's vague. Its ambiguity allows voters to interpret the candidates' message according to their own worldview. When Clinton raises her own experience as a foil to Obama, Americans picture a young man not quite ready for the oval office. Voters are allowed to define the word and the speaker benefits, allowing Clinton to paint Obama as inexperienced. In fact, "inexperienced" is the word voters most commonly use to describe him.

Experience in the General Election

Obama's Inexperience

Obama's Age

Obama's Race

• • I am worried that I am no longer saying anything interesting in this essay ...

• Set ALLOWTOPICCHANGE = TWikiAdminGroup

While he was able to stay afloat during the primary season, given the shifting demographics in the general election and the strengths of the McCain? campaign, overcoming the experience question may prove too high a hurdle.

Additionally, as Karl Rove has shown, all it takes to make a charge stick is a little bit of truth, a willingness to obscure the issue, and a disciplined attack. Just as the Republicans questioned Max Cleland's patriotism, convinced the American public that there was a pre-war link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and turned John Kerry into a waffling opportunist, they will exploit the public perception of Obama's readiness for the job.

• • So what ... there are many factors in a presidential campaign, why is this issue important?

• • This reads like a partisan attack and an unfounded assertion, rather than a logic-based argument.

Current Perceptions

Obama starts behind the eight ball. Clinton earned 94% of voters in Virginia's open Democratic primary who cited experience as their top issue. While currently the economy, health care, and the war on terrorism rank as the top political issues of the campaign, recent polls and the past two presidential elections indicate that the race may come down to a few votes in a single swing state. If that is the case, the public's perception of Obama's readiness cold be the difference in the election.

• • This feels out of place. I need a transistion between this paragraph in the next or simply to cut this thing out. At the very least, it needs to be said in fewer words.

• • This doesn't seem to be giving enough deference to the very real questions about Obama's experience. It is true he was able to slide past those questions by averting the question, but will that continue to work? What happens if he is forced to tackle the issue head on?

• • I have to depict these voters more convincingly. Now they sound like someone I made up to further my argument.

Raising Race

Introduction

In politics, "experience" can mean any number of things and so it means precisely nothing, making it a winning word for politicians crafting a message the masses can support. It works because it's versatile. The word's ambiguity means the candidates' message will be interpreted in concert with the voter’s own worldview. Obama uses the term "quarter century of experience" to denigrate old man McCain? and Americans picture an aging Washington insider. Clinton raises her own "experience" as a foil to newcomer Obama and those same Americans picture a young man not quite ready for the oval office. Voters are allowed to define the word and they do so to the benefit of the speaker. During this campaign, Clinton has harnessed the power of "experience," casting an air of uncertainty around Obama. If he, nonetheless, prevails in the primary, that uncertainty will carry over to the general election, be compounded by McCain, and threaten his electability.

Part 1: Speaking Broadly Lets Voters Assume the Best (and the Worst)

When Clinton speaks about experience, she speaks in generalities. Her campaign website glosses over the 15 years she spent at a major corporate law firm in a single sentence, giving it the same treatment as her one year, part-time stint on the board of President Carter’s Legal Services Corporation. The average voter not deeply immersed in the campaign would have difficulty objectively analyzing her experience.

Part 2: Obama the Foil

Part 3: Experience, the General Election, and Race

Obama After the Primaries

McCain's Capitalization on Experience

Racism Will Hurt Obama's Ability to Fight Back Effectively

Conclusion

Obama's Experience Problem

Origin of the Problem

• Clinton used “experience” to depict both her and Obama
• Questions of readiness stuck to Obama
• People predisposed to think inexperience is bad
  • Plane meaning of the word
  • Bush

Experience in the General Election

• McCain? will pick up where Hillary left off
  • More Experienced
  • Older
  • Veteran
  • More Time to Hammer

Barriers to Overcoming the Criticism

• Obama’s Inexperience
  • Lincoln
    • 2 potential considerations:
      • Obama and Lincoln had v. similar political experience. But what about other kinds of experience? I know very little about Lincoln's biography, other than that he, too, was a lawyer. But did he have any kind of "experience" that Obama didn't?
      • What about the fact that Lincoln and Obama come from very different times? Is experience more important now than then? Is a different kind of experience now than then? - Amanda
  • Voters are willing to look past inexperience (Bush)
    • But isn't part of the problem that people felt burned by Bush, and are now looking for someone with a little more experience (or intelligence, or something)? -Amanda
• Obama’s Age
  • Voters are willing to look past youth (Kennedy, Clinton)
  • With McCain? as a too-old foil, youth might be an asset
• Obama’s Race
  • Harder to picture an experienced black man than an experienced white man – difficult to dig out of the hole.

Conclusion

Racism Wil Hurt Obama's Ability to Fight Back Effectively

Part 1: By speaking broadly about her experience, voters can attach their own meaning to the word.

The State of Obama After the Primaries

• • Conservative elements in this country will not vote for a black man. By carrying the "experience" argument into the election, McCain can can raise the race issue without having to do so explicitly

• The media continues to play up the race issue to a point where it is near central to the campaign.
• Highlighting Obama's inexperience can be likened to calling him a "boy" and the underpinnings of racism will make it harder for him to defeat the argument

Part 2: Obama the Foil: If she is Experienced, He is Not

• He is young and new to politics so the mantle sticks
• Masks her own legislative shortcomings by raising his

McCain? 's Capitalization on Experience

• Republican's have taken up the "experience" mantle in encouraging McCain? 's attacks on Obama.

• Few questioned John Edwards experience even though it is less than (or at least comparable to) Obama's.
  • In the 3-way race for Iowa, the experience tag stuck to Hillary and people questions whether Barack was ready. Edwards's experience was rarely questioned.

• She purposefully uses platitudes because everyone likes “experience” but some might not like her experience
  • Intuitively, it sounds good to have someone in control who has some experience
  • Voters associate Bush with inexperience and that inexperience with severe costs to the country
  • Without details, we can all assume that she has the right experience for the job
• Other authors have pointed out that her experience leaves much to be desired, forcing her, instead of speaking in specifics, to speak broadly.

Part 3: Race has been explicitly raised by her campaign, opening up the door for connections between her other appeals and a racial appeal. The experience claim sticks because Obama is Black.

• Few questioned John Edwards experience even though it is less than (or at least comparable to) Obama’s.
  • In the 3-way race for Iowa, the experience tag stuck to Hillary and people questions whether Barack was ready. Edwards's experience was rarely questioned.
• Her supporters are predisposed to hearing such arguments (white, poorly educated)
• The media continues to play up the race issue to a point where it is near central to the campaign.
• Highlighting Obama’s inexperience can be likened to calling him a “boy”.

Part 4: While raising race likely won't substantially help Mrs. Clinton's campaign, it will make it easier for republicans if Obama is the nominee

• True racists wouldn't support her
• She has already lost the black vote
• Only benefit may be the comfort level increase from white voters that she gets anyway when showing her face

Purpose Statement

Topic Sentence: When Hillary says “experience,” some people hear race

Part 1: By speaking broadly about her experience, people are left wondering what it means

• Other authors have pointed out the her experience leaves much to be desired, forcing her, instead of speaking in specifics, to speak broadly.

Part 2: Race has been explicitly raised by her campaign, opening up the door for connections between her other appeals and a racial appeal

Part 3: This has little effect on her actual campaign

• True racists wouldn’t support her

Part 4: Because it is no harm/no foul, she doesn’t have to do much about it now, but may need to do damage control in the black and anti-racist white community should she win the primary

Hillary's Experience

• This argument assumes that the only relevant experience is executive experience. If the assumption is questionable when directed against Obama, it is equally questionable when directed against Clinton. The President is not the Quartermaster General or the COO of General Electric. Most of the CEOs of publicly-traded companies I deal with spend far more time in advocacy--trying to persuade securities analysts to like their management and key customers to like their products and services--than they spend administering complex operations. The President is many things, which makes the job very difficult. Being the actual chief executive of the US Government, however, is rarely one of them. Determining what makes good experience for being President is non-trivial, but executive experience and capacity--which distinguished Hoover and Eisenhower above all other occupants of the office--might well not be the best place to start.

• Two fallacies are joined here. If "being President" were a muscular skill like hitting major-league pitching, we wouldn't need a 10,493-game season before the World Series. Knowing how other Presidents have "been President" is the best training for the job we know about, which is why incumbents tend to spend much of their free time reading histories of other Presidencies and biographies of other Presidents. A. Lincoln--an exceptional intellect, no doubt--learned much military strategy in the first year of the rebellion from reading the military science collection of the Library of Congress, not in order to fight the war himself, but to meet what seemed to him the responsibility of the civilian commander in chief to choose and allocate his generals. Which brings us to your second fallacy, which is judging a general in the field by the result of the battle. If her task was to listen to all parties and produce good legislation, she didn't fail at all--those who judge her by the failure are not criticising the quality of her legislation. The very argument you advance above, that she was the President's Wife and not the President, means that the blame for the failure which did occur, the failure to pass the legislation that came from the Task Force, should be laid to her husband, whose job it was to get the plan through Congress.

• This is a poor argument. There are many kinds of Senators in the complex little structure that is the 100-person Senate. There are foreign relations Senators, such as Mike Mansfield and John Kerry. There are the military-budget specialists, like John Warner and Carl Levin. There are "workhorse" legislators who are adept at really getting legislation through the body, like Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, or like Lyndon Johnson, who was the best of them all. There are partisan cheerleaders, like Trent Lott and Dick Durbin. And there are specialists in working the system from the 30,000-foot down to top-of-trees level to get money and freedom-to-operate for the large municipalities, non-profits, and businesses that are the key engines in their home states. Some of these are appropriators like Ted Stevens, but the best are multi-specialized policy generalists with a good grasp of how policy details affect the whole socio-economic ecology of the sub-societies they represent, like Ted Domenici and Pat Moynihan. Big states like New York, California and Texas need these Senators intensely. New York is fortunate to have two at the moment. Texas has one in Kay Bailey Hutcheson. California has one and a half, because Senator Boxer--though an imbecile--has an exceedingly competent staff. You could debate of course whether having an exhaustive grip on policy in twenty different areas is a good acquisition for the US President. But to deny that Senator Clinton's career in that body proves she has one is to ignore the obvious.

The Age Issue

Mrs. Clinton is nearly 20 years older than Mr. Obama. The candidates' generation gap is mirrored by their supporters. By asserting her experience, Mrs. Clinton says to older voters that she is one of them and Mr. Obama is a precocious child not quite ready for a seat at the adults table.

This is a dangerous tactic; one that backfired when used against John F. Kennedy Jr. and Bill Clinton (who, like Obama, was 47 during his first presidential campaign). Given the Democratic Party's pride in JFK and Mr. Clinton, let alone Mrs. Clinton's reliance on her husband's success, it would be both foolish and disingenuous of her to raise the age issue directly. Doing so in a coded fashion; however, offers all the benefits without any of the risk: she can highlight Mr. Obama's youth without forcing comparisons to two of history's most popular Democrats.

• The Clinton campaign hasn't said Obama's too young--they've said he hasn't done enough yet to be President, which may or may not be true but is different. Your thesis requires you to show in the end that this argument (that he has trained himself to write and speak well, served a brief while in a state legislature without much effect, and has been running for President since the moment he arrived in Washington) is subtly racist. It's a poor argument (minus two years in the House of Representatives followed by a decisive electoral loss for opposing a popular war, Obama's is more-or-less the pre-Presidential resume of A. Lincoln himself), so you shouldn't need to stuff straw men in order to deal with it. But because you've claimed it's a racist argument, you need to find "boy" somewhere, and you are skirting the edge of inventing your evidence.

The Race Issue

If the age argument couldn't defeat the great Democrats of the past, why use it now? Perhaps Mr. Obama's race gives the issue its teeth. Historically, white supremacy has used "son" and "boy" to emasculate and infantilize black men in an attempt to neutralize their growing power. While Mrs. Clinton can't directly campaign by positioning Mr. Obama as a child (Mr. Clinton has referred to him as "kid"), she can conjure that image in the minds of those who hear her "experience" argument. It is a subliminal cue to voters and one most of us don't recognize until it invades our subconscious. By uniting the issue of age with our history of racial subjugation, it becomes more powerful than the same force wielded against a white candidate.

• This, in my view, is entirely unconvincing. There are many audiences a white Democratic politician with strong support in the black community can be addressing by sending a message that the other candidate is young and has been a drug user, including older, church-going socially engaged African-Americans. The Clintons have forgotten more about campaigning in the black community than you and I are likely ever to know, and they know now even better than when Bill used Sister Souljah as a fulcrum for leveraging his image in 1992, trusting that he could send his messages by criticizing a prominent African-American without alienating the community as a whole. And White Supremacy is never going to vote for Hillary Clinton, so she's no purpose whatever in appealing to anyone who positively receives messages addressed there. You needed to show, in order to make out your claim, not that this and the following passage contain messages that were sent, but that your reading is each case the intended reading, and not a possible reading adopted for the purpose of supporting an ad hominem of your own. That burden isn't being carried.

This is only one of Mrs. Clinton's many injections of race into the campaign. As a top campaign advisor spoke about Obama's past drug use, other surrogates referred to him as "the black candidate" in what looked like a coordinated effort to caricature Mr. Obama as the stereotypical urban, black, drug abuser. After a victory in South Carolina, Mr. Clinton publicly compared Obama's campaign to that of Jesse Jackson, an analogy that misses on every issue except race. And, during the recent debate, Hillary, after announcing that immigrants were taking jobs from American workers, confirmed her pollster's false claim that Latino voters have "not shown a lot of willingness . . . to support black candidates." These subtle hints are coming together to form the background music of the Clinton campaign, facilitating voters' subconscious leap from "experience" to "white."

• This Conclusion presents a new argument, which makes one feel rushed, as though a tackle were occurring after the down. And the argument itself is so showily bogus that it makes the reader very doubtful. Now we have premise: A voter seeking experience will nearly always choose McCain over Clinton. Premise: Nearly all such voters chose Clinton. Entailment: Therefore they must prefer Clinton for some other reason. Conclusion: Aha, "experience" means "whiteness." But this would require showing that Clinton is whiter than McCain, which is difficult, because McCain comes from the party that has been supporting preferential whiteness for the last two generations, is himself rather white and in fact has, to be rather generous in the estimate, fully one tenth the amount of support in the black community that Clinton has. Leaving aside for the moment how his many years in the Senate--each of them demonstrating in their fullness his bad-tempered, go-it-alone, never-mince-words, cut everybody else's pork while reaching for your own disposition--prove he has everything but the qualities one usually supposes to be optimal for an "executive" rather than a despot--which might not be too reassuring to the experience crowd--you forgot to mention the word "war." There is one, after all, which he is perpetually for and she is currently against, and which the "let's have someone experienced this time around" crowd abhors pretty completely. This probably explains why they overwhelmingly don't want to vote for the guy who says we should spend another 100 years in Iraq.

• Nothing I have mentioned so far was anything other than obvious. Your own editing should have picked up these objections and dealt with them, as no doubt you could do. I don't think your position is untenable, although I do think that the emphasis on racialist messaging to the exclusion of all other possible criticisms of the Clinton position is an unnecessary shackle you impose on yourself, but I do think you should reconsider any argument for which so little logical support can be summoned.

Introduction

Hillary Clinton targets potential voters by highlighting her experience. This issue is central to her popularity with the over 65 crowd and working class white voters, particularly in the South (the conservative wing of the Democratic Party).

Unlike Mrs. Clinton’s equally ubiquitous “change” slogan (“Working for Change; Working for You”), her “experience” argument fails the sniff test. When Mrs. Clinton says “experience,” she is actually speaking in code – reassuring conservative Democrats that she is the traditional candidate for the job. It is an argument designed to prey upon hidden prejudices regarding age and race in order to secure her base. In this essay, I will attempt to illuminate how her “experience” argument is designed to exploit the electorate’s insecurities about Mr. Obama’s race for the benefit of her campaign.

The Experience Argument

Outside of Politics

Hillary’s experience buckles under scrutiny. Her “35 years of change” include fifteen working as a corporate attorney, defending companies like WalMart? and Tyson’s Chicken. Moral judgments aside, no reasonable person would classify her legal career as change-oriented executive experience.

Clinton the First Lady

Clinton the Legislator

Given the Weakness of Her Experience, there Must be More to the Message

Raising the Age Issue

Raising the Race Issue

Prewriting Notes

• Even during her time as first lady, she didn't hold security clearance, didn't receive Bill's daily intelligence briefings, and wasn't a major player (or even really a player) in any foreign affairs issue.
• When she speaks of 35 years of experience, half of that was spent as a lawyer for the major establishment law firm in Arkansas where she defendent folks like WalMart? and Tyson Foods - hardly the experience she is trying to tout on the campaign trail.

Hole in argument #1: she really means "older" and using it to connect with the over 65 vote and the more conservative folks in the party

• A fair point, but youth hasn't been a detriment to democratic presidential candidates (JFK, Bill - who was the same age as Obama is now when he became president)

Hole in argument #2: Adam, I think it's worth thinking about whether it's plausible that Hillary Clinton, running against a JFK-type (i.e., a white male with JFK-like credentials) would have been able to tout her experience as a positive. You hint at this in your "Hole in argument #1," but I'm not sure that the fact that youth hasn't been a detriment to presidential candidacies necessarily means that people actually believe it is not a detriment, at lease at the beginning and middle stages of a candidacy. Perhaps Hillary wants to prevent the electorate from making the leap that it was able to make for Kennedy and Bill? Do you think Hillary is creating an issue, or emphasizing (and perhaps distorting) an issue that's already there? -- MichaelBerkovits? - 08 Feb 2008

• So, the question seems to be whether experience would work as an argument if Obama was white.

1. If Obama was white, she could run on change (woman) and so wouldn't have to worry about an argument (experience) that is so flawed.
2. If Obama was white, "experience" could only mean either "experience" or "old" and since old isn't a good thing in an election about change and, if reinforcing the "experience" argument wasn't so detrimental (it wouldn't be to a white Obama unburdened with the race issue), then white Obama would be able to go right at Clinton on her past failures (black Obama is doing this somewhat timidly with his "right on day one" argument).

Hole in argument #3: Hillary and Marc Penn didn't sit around and decide an underhanded way to attack Obama on race (well they might have/probably did, but assuming they didn't). Can we really blame Hillary for our own perceptions of her words or is she only responsible for their plain meening. At face value, she is just making an inconsistent argument, not a racist one.

Hole in argument #4: Hillary is just playing the game of politics, exploiting voters and opponents, and trying to win.

• Fine. That is true. The analysis here is not that she is breaking any rules. In fact, she is playing by the same racially divisive rules we have had since this nation was founded. It isn't a question of whether what she is doing is right or fair or even within the bounds of modern politics. Rather, it is a question of how she is winning. It is like pulling the curtain off the wizard, but not condemning him for his actions.
• Do you know to what extent she framed the terms of this election, and to what extent Obama did? If from the beginning of the election cycle Clinton cast herself as the candidate with experience, all your critiques are dead-on. But what if she used it as a rebuttal to Obama's message of change (since her Clinton-ness means she couldn't possibly beat him at the change game)? Does that alter your analysis at all, if she didn't pick experience, but rather realized that she couldn't be the candidate of change and so tried to embrace the role Obama had put her in by trying to convince the electorate that experience was better than change? I actually don't think it hurts your argument at all, because then your analysis becomes more about how she is using "experience" to beat "change" (and it's racial undertones, etc). I also don't know how you would prove who framed the terms of the debate, but it's interesting to think about. -- Amanda

Hole in argument #5: Hillary means "remember Bill" when she says "experience"

• She doesn't need to code "Bill" . . . she refers to him and to his presidency with regularity.
• It is possible for a coded word to have more than one purpose. For example, "urban" means both "black" and "dangerous".

Support for Argument:

• She has been more than willing to be underhanded about race in other ways (debate comments about immigrant voters, Bill's campaigning in South Carolina, questionable statements by her surrogates)
• Race is a deaply powerful subconscious motivator and a lot of traction comes from small hinting.
• If I, as a white guy, sense it then either (1) I am over sensitive to race issues (2) am deeply racist or (3) she is doing it on purpose
• Historically racists have infantalized black men . . . "experience" is a perfect modern codeword
• Gandhi quote

Related Idea: Hillary's platform is a creed - internally contradictory to get as many folks in the tent as possible.

• Change and experience in Washington seem to be contradictory
• Change appeals to those seeking progression ... experience appeals to those seeking the status quo. The status quo is white-dominated.

The Meaning Behind Clinton's Creed

Unlike her equally ubiquitous “change” slogans, her “experience” argument, when taken at face value, fails to live up to the rhetoric. When Mrs. Clinton says “experience,” she is actually speaking in code – attempting to reassure conservative Democrats that tradition is safe. It’s an argument designed to prey upon hidden prejudices. In this essay I will attempt to show how that argument works.

Much of it Outside of Politics

Private Sector Experience is as a Corporate Attorney

Similar in Kind and Quality to Obama

Clinton the First Lady

Her public service career is equally suspect. Twenty years as first lady (in Arkansas and in the White House) gave her insight into the daily life of an executive. However, claiming that experience makes her a skilled executive is tantamount to claiming that a sports reporter becomes a better hitter after covering the Red Sox or a historian, armed with a complete record of the Kennedy White House would be skilled at negotiating an end to a nuclear missile crisis. Observing and doing are two very different things and, during her years as first lady, Hillary did not do much. In fact, her most important attempt at acting like an executive failed, resulting in our current health care crisis.

Clinton the Legislator

After leaving her husband’s shadow, Mrs. Clinton’s time in the Senate has been similarly unremarkable. She has no major legislative accomplishments to speak of and her vote on the key issue of the past 8 years, authorizing the use of force against Iraq, has proven unpopular. Absent leadership on any major bill, it is hard to see why having spend four additional years the Senate makes her more prepared than Mr. Obama for the presidency. This indicates that, when Hillary speaks of “experience,” she is not inviting an analysis of her record. Instead of referring to a proud history of leadership and legislative accomplishments, she is directing us to the prejudices that buttress her “experience” argument.

What does Hillary Clinton mean when she claims to be the most experienced? Is she sending subliminal signals to white voters regarding her race? Is she attempting to emasculate Obama, in the tradition of "boy"?

Is the rejection of McCain by conservative figureheads actually an attept to make him more palatable to the center, thus making him more electable or are they actually just being honest and, therefore, are either very very far right, disingenuous about their own politics, or confused about McCain's record?

Why did the US incarceration rate begin its precipitous increase directly following the Warren court, despite that courts general expanstion of the rights of the accused? (seems like it would take way more than 1000 words).

Is the structure of law school designed to ease one into a misrable future?

The criminal trial/criminal justice system as a means for controling radicals.

-- AdamCarlis - 07 Feb 2008

Clinton Is White

Hillary’s Experience is Weak

Clinton the First Lady v. Obama state Senator

Clinton the Legislator v. Obama the Legislator

Raising the Age Issue (with racial undertones)

Mrs. Clinton is nearly 20 years older than Mr. Obama. The generation gap between the two candidates is mirrored in their supporters. Perhaps what she hopes to highlight, in order to sure up her senior base, is Mr. Obama’s relative youth. By asserting her “experience” she is actually asserting to those voters over 55 that she is one of them and Mr. Obama is a precocious child not quite ready for a seat at the adult table.

However, if the age argument couldn’t defeat the great Democrats of the past, why would Hillary use it today? The difference is Mr. Obama’s race. Historically, white supremacy has used words like “son” and “boy” in order to emasculate and infantilize black men in an attempt to neutralize their growing power. While Ms. Clinton can’t directly campaign by positioning Mr. Obama as a child (Mr. Clinton has referred to him as a “kid”), she is able to conjure that image up in the minds – or at least the subconscious – of those who hear her “experience” argument. It is a subliminal cue to voters to be wary; likely one most of us don’t even recognize until it has invaded our subconscious.

Raising the Race Issue

Section I

Subsection A

Subsub 1

Subsection B

Subsub 1

Subsub 2

Section II