| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. |
| | Introduction |
|
<
< | Hillary Clinton – like all successful politicians – has developed a set of slogans, campaign tag-lines, and sound bites designed to broaden her appeal. She makes both an “experience” argument (“Ready on Day One”) and a “change” argument (“Working for Change; Working for You”). |
>
> | Hillary Clinton makes both an “experience” argument (“Ready on Day One”) and a “change” argument (“Working for Change; Working for You”) in order to broaden her appeal to voters. These slogans bring different groups into her camp. “Change” highlights her future status as the first women president and reminds us that she offers a departure from the politics of George Bush, exciting liberals, women and the democratic machine. Hillary’s “Experience” is a major issue for the over 65 crowd and working class white male voters (the conservative wing of the Democratic Party). |
| | |
|
<
< | The slogans bring different groups into her camp. “Change” highlights her future status as the first women president and reminds us that she offers a departure from the politics of George Bush, exciting liberals, women and the democratic machine. On the other hand, Hillary’s “Experience” is a major issue for the over 65 crowd and working class white male voters (the conservative wing of the Democratic party). |
>
> | Unlike the “change” argument, her “experience” argument, when taken at face value, is a myth that fails to live up to the rhetoric. Instead, she is speaking in code; attempting to reassure conservative Democrats that traditions are safe. It is a conservative argument designed to prey upon hidden prejudices. In this essay I will attempt to show how that argument works. |
| | |
|
<
< | Unlike the “change” argument, her “experience” argument is less straight forward. The experience she boasts of fails to live up to the rhetoric. Instead, she is speaking in code to working class white men and senior citizens in an attempt to reassure them that the traditional world is safe. It is a conservative argument designed to prey upon hidden prejudices. In this essay I will attempt to show how that argument works. |
| | Hillary’s Experience is Weak |
| | Private Sector Experience is as a Corporate Attorney |
|
>
> | Hillary’s experience fails to live up to her hype. Her “35 years of change” includes 15 years working as a corporate lawyer in Arkansas defending companies like WalMart? and Tyson’s Chicken, with only one year spend doing public interest work. Moral judgments aside, no reasonable person would classify her legal career as change-oriented. |
| | Similar in Kind and Quality to Obama
Clinton the First Lady v. Obama state Senator |
|
>
> | Her public service career is equally suspect. Twenty years as first lady (in Arkansas and in the White House) gives one a great perspective on what an executive does on a daily basis, insight into how to successfully govern, and a clear picture of what the motions of governing look like. However, claiming such closed door knowledge makes one 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 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. Her most important attempt at acting like an executive failed, resulting in our current health care crisis. |
| | Clinton the Legislator v. Obama the Legislator |
|
<
< | |
>
> | After leaving her husband’s shadow, her time in the Senate has been similarly uneventful. There are no major legislative accomplishments and many of the stances that she has taken (for example, supporting the War against Iraq and its continued funding) have proven unpopular. Absent leadership on any major congressional issues, it is hard to see why spending for more years in the Senate than has Mr. Obama amounts to greater preparation for the presidency. Therefore, when she speaks of “experience,” she must be referring to something other than a proud history of leadership and legislative accomplishments. |
| | Given the Weakness of Her Experience, there Must be More to the Message
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 and so 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.
This is a dangerous road to travel; one that backfired on those who used it against Kennedy and Bill Clinton, who was the same age as Obama is now when he was elected. Given the Democratic Party’s pride in JFK and Bill Clinton, not to mention her own reliance on Mr. Clinton’s success as president, it would be both foolish and disingenuous for Mrs. Clinton to raise the age issue directly. Doing so in a coded fashion; however, offers all the benefits without any of the risk. 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. |
| | Raising the Race Issue |
|
>
> | If Mrs. Clinton’s “experience” argument is attempting to tap into an undercurrent of racism in America, it is not the only weapon in her arsenal. As Mark Penn 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 the South Carolina primary, Mr. Clinton publicly compared Obama’s campaign to that of Jesse Jackson. An analogy that misses on every issue except race. During the recent debate, Hillary argued that immigrants were displacing American workers. She then confirmation of her pollster’s false claim that Latino voters have “not shown a lot of willingness . . . to support black candidates.”
Hillary Clinton’s direct injection of race into the campaign, makes it easier for voters (at least subconsciously) to make the leap from “experience” to “white.” |
| |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |