Raising Race

-- By AdamCarlis - 18 Feb 2008

Introduction

In a presidential campaign, "experience" could 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 prompts voters to interpret the candidates’ messages in a way most in concert with their own worldview. Mr. Obama uses the term “quarter century of experience” to denigrate old man McCain? and some American’s picture an aging Washington insider. Mrs. Clinton raises her own “experience” as a foil to newcomer Mr. Obama and many of those same Americans picture a young man not quite ready for oval office. In each case, the audience is left to define the word for themselves and, in each case, it is the speaker who benefits. During this campaign cycle, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly attempted to harness the word’s power. As potential voters digest her message, they do so in uncontrolled and potentially destructive ways, particularly if Mr. Obama is the eventual nominee.

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

When Clinton speaks about experience, she speaks in generalities. Her campaign does not provide a biographical sketch detailing her activities and accomplishments. 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. As a result, it is difficult to objectively analyze her experience.

This is not an accident. Clinton presents her experience in generalities because everyone values “experience,” but some may not think that her particular experience prepares her for the presidency. Instead, voters are invited to broadly associate her campaign with the word “experience” and fill in the gaps themselves. This is particularly powerful because Democratic voters associate George W. Bush with inexperience, blaming his lack of preparation for the current war in Iraq, the crumbling economy, and mismanagement of the bureaucracy. Without details, we can all assume that she has the right experience for the job.

Part 2: Obama the Foil

Clinton’s argument distinguishes her from Obama. As a result, she masks her own legislative shortcomings by raising his. The tactic is working. Despite losing almost every demographic in the recent Virginia primary, 94% of those voters citing experience as their top issue voted for her.

Despite their remarkably similar background, the commentators who question Obama’s experience rarely questioned that of John Edwards. Both candidates were lawyers in the public interest and single term senators. Yet Clinton could claim that Obama has not done enough to be president, but couldn’t make similar charges stick against Mr. Edwards. Perhaps Edwards’s 8 additional years on this planet grant him immunity from the experience argument. There is certainly something in Clintons “35 years of change” argument that implies more is better and Edwards has eight more years than Obama. It is also possible that, had Edwards achieved frontrunner statute, the criticism might have stuck to him as well. It is also possible that the charge of inexperience stuck to Obama because of his race. In a national with embarrassingly few black leaders in government and backlash against affirmative action engrained into the psyche of white America, it is harder to picture an experienced black man than an experienced white man. Passionate, energetic, intelligent, and well-spoken, maybe, but experienced likely not. Either way, as the primary season draws to a close, the electorate is left with lingering questions about Mr. Obama’s readiness to assume the presidency and, if he is the nominee, those doubts will carry into the general election.

Part 3: Experience, the General Election, and Race

The State of Obama After the Primaries

“Obamamania,” the media tells us, is beginning to wane. After months of questions about Obama’s experience, the voters, apparently, are beginning to demand more substance. Ignoring the fact that his stump speech includes more specific policy talking points than his rivals, there is a growing sense that washing into the white house on a wave of exuberance is not how one should become president. While Obama has laid rightful claim to the mantle of hope, it appears that a general election campaign woulr require an equal part substance.

McCain's Capitalization on Experience

The RNC recently released talking points for the general election. The Republicans plan to pick up where Clinton left off, hammering Obama on experience and questioning his readiness to serve as commander and chief.

• • 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

Racism Wil Hurt Obama's Ability to Fight Back Effectively

In order to win, the electorate will have to believe that Obama is ready to lead. … I want to say that people will less likely to believe he can lead because he is black and they are reminded of that/riled up about that every time the experience issue is raised … I just can’t figure out how to say it convincingly … Argh!

• 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

Conclusion

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AdamCarlis