|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 8 - 13 Feb 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| 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.
| |
<
< | Prewriting Notes | | | | |
<
< | 1. Her experience is weak experience. While she is older (14 years), the only real political experience she has had is her time in the Senate (4 more years than Obama) and her time as first lady of Arkansas (comparable to his time is state legislature) and of the United States (where her major policy initiative failed). Could one reasonably argue that 4 extra years in the senate somehow makes someone a better president?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 | >
> | Raising Race | | | -- By AdamCarlis - 09 Feb 2008
Introduction | |
<
< | Hillary Clinton targets potential voters by positioning herself as the most experienced candidate in the race (“Ready on Day One”). This issue is central to her popularity with the over 65 crowd and working class white male voters (the conservative wing of the Democratic Party).
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. | >
> | 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 | |
<
< | Much of it Outside of Politics | >
> | Outside of Politics | | | | |
<
< | Private Sector Experience is as a Corporate Attorney | >
> | 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. | | | | |
<
< | Hillary’s experience buckles under scrutiny. Her “35 years of change” include 15 years working as a corporate lawyer in Arkansas defending companies like WalMart and Tyson’s Chicken. Moral judgments aside, no reasonable person would classify her legal career as change-oriented nor did it provide executive experience. | >
> | Clinton the First Lady | | | | |
<
< | Similar in Kind and Quality to Obama | >
> | Her public service career is equally suspect. Twenty years as first lady (in both Arkansas and 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 | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | 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 spending four additional years the Senate makes her more prepared than Mr. Obama for the presidency. Certainly being present cannot count as experience. 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. | | | Given the Weakness of Her Experience, there Must be More to the Message
Raising the Age Issue | |
<
< | Mrs. Clinton is nearly 20 years older than Mr. Obama. The generation gap between the two candidates is mirrored by 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 may actually be 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. | >
> | Mrs. Clinton is nearly 20 years older than Mr. Obama. The generation gap between the two candidates is mirrored by their supporters. Perhaps – to sure up her senior base – she hopes to highlight Mr. Obama’s relative youth. By asserting her “experience,” she may actually be saying to voters over 55 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 presidential campaign). Given the Democratic Party’s pride in JFK and Mr. Clinton, not to mention Mrs. Clinton’s reliance on her husband’s success in office, it would be both foolish and disingenuous to raise the age issue directly. Doing so in a coded fashion; however, offers all the benefits without any of the risk. It allows her to point out Mr. Obama’s youth without risking additional comparisons to two of the most popular democrats in history. | >
> | 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 presidential campaign). Given the Democratic Party’s pride in JFK and Mr. Clinton, let alone Mrs. Clinton’s reliance on her husband’s success in office, it would be both foolish and disingenuous to raise the age issue directly. Doing so in a coded fashion; however, offers all the benefits without any of the risk: she can identify Mr. Obama’s youth without risking comparisons to two of history’s most popular democrats. | | | Raising the Race Issue | |
<
< | 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 in the minds of those who hear her “experience” argument. It is a subliminal cue to voters to be wary; one most of us don’t recognize until it has invaded our subconscious. | >
> | However, if the age argument couldn’t defeat the great Democrats of the past, why is Hillary using it today? The difference is Mr. Obama’s race. 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 up that image in the minds of those who hear her “experience” argument. It is a subliminal cue to voters to be wary, one most of us don’t recognize until it has invaded our subconscious.
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 South Carolina, 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 offered confirmation of 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 and make it easier for voters (at least subconsciously) to make the leap from “experience” to “white.” | | | | |
<
< | 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 offered confirmation of 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 and make it easier for voters (at least subconsciously) to make the leap from “experience” to “white.” | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | This results in voters across the country claiming to support her based on her experience, but who are unable to articulate which of her experience has prepared her for the presidency. They have been bamboozled into thinking they are voting based on experience, when in reality they are voting based on age or race. Gone are the days where segregationist Democrats loudly declare their racist ambitions from the steps of the statehouse. Today, the same irrational fear is being stirred up in a more secretive and perhaps more palatable way. The goals are the same: using the conservative wing of the Democratic Party to prevent change. Despite the party split, Harry Truman won the election of 1948 and history looks at the Dixiecrat movement with contempt. Perhaps the results will be the same this time around. | >
> | The result is that voters across the country, knowing little about her actual record, claim to support Mrs. Clinton based on her experience. They have been bamboozled into thinking they are voting based on experience, when in reality they are voting based on age or race. Gone are the days when segregationist Democrats loudly declare their racist ambitions from the steps of the statehouse. Yet today the same irrational fear is being stirred up, albeit in a more secretive and perhaps more palatable way. Despite losing almost every demographic in the recent Virginia primary, Mrs. Clinton carried 96% of those voters who claimed that the candidate’s “experience” was the most important factor in their decision. Given that Virginia has an open primary and John McCain? (who was in a POW camp while Mrs. Clinton was still in school and has three times her congressional experience) was also running, those voters must mean something else when they say “experience.” | | |
|
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 7 - 12 Feb 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| 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. | | |
Prewriting Notes | |
<
< | Possible Topics:
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 | | | 1. Her experience is weak experience. While she is older (14 years), the only real political experience she has had is her time in the Senate (4 more years than Obama) and her time as first lady of Arkansas (comparable to his time is state legislature) and of the United States (where her major policy initiative failed). Could one reasonably argue that 4 extra years in the senate somehow makes someone a better president?
- 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.
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | Hillary Clinton makes both an “experience” argument (“Ready on Day One”) and a “change” argument (“Working for Change; Working for You”) to broaden her appeal and bring different groups into her camp. “Change” highlights her future status as the first female president and reminds us the ensuing departure from the politics of George Bush, thus 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). | >
> | Hillary Clinton targets potential voters by positioning herself as the most experienced candidate in the race (“Ready on Day One”). This issue is central to her popularity with 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. When she says “experience,” 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 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. | | |
| |
<
< | Hillary’s Experience is Weak | >
> | The Experience Argument | | | Much of it Outside of Politics
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. Moral judgments aside, no reasonable person would classify her legal career as change-oriented. | >
> | Hillary’s experience buckles under scrutiny. Her “35 years of change” include 15 years working as a corporate lawyer in Arkansas defending companies like WalMart and Tyson’s Chicken. Moral judgments aside, no reasonable person would classify her legal career as change-oriented nor did it provide executive experience. | | | Similar in Kind and Quality to Obama | |
<
< | Clinton the First Lady v. Obama state Senator | >
> | Clinton the First Lady | | | | |
<
< | Her public service career is equally suspect. Twenty years as first lady (in Arkansas and in the White House) gives one insight into what an executive does on a daily basis, how to successfully govern, and what the motions of governing look like. However, claiming such 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 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. Her most important attempt at acting like an executive failed, resulting in our current health care crisis. | >
> | 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 v. Obama the Legislator | >
> | Clinton the Legislator | | | | |
<
< | After leaving her husband’s shadow, her time in the Senate has been similarly uneventful. There are no major legislative accomplishments to speak of and many of the stances 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. 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. | >
> | 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. | | | 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. 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. | >
> | Raising the Age Issue | | | | |
<
< | This is a dangerous tactic; one that backfired when used against John Kennedy Jr. and Bill Clinton (who, like Obama, was 47 when he ran for president). 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. 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. | >
> | Mrs. Clinton is nearly 20 years older than Mr. Obama. The generation gap between the two candidates is mirrored by 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 may actually be 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 tactic; one that backfired when used against John F. Kennedy Jr. and Bill Clinton (who, like Obama, was 47 during his presidential campaign). Given the Democratic Party’s pride in JFK and Mr. Clinton, not to mention Mrs. Clinton’s reliance on her husband’s success in office, it would be both foolish and disingenuous to raise the age issue directly. Doing so in a coded fashion; however, offers all the benefits without any of the risk. It allows her to point out Mr. Obama’s youth without risking additional comparisons to two of the most popular democrats in history. | | | Raising the Race Issue | |
>
> | 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 in the minds of those who hear her “experience” argument. It is a subliminal cue to voters to be wary; one most of us don’t recognize until it has invaded our subconscious. | | | 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 offered confirmation of 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 and make it easier for voters (at least subconsciously) to make the leap from “experience” to “white.” | |
>
> | Conclusion
This results in voters across the country claiming to support her based on her experience, but who are unable to articulate which of her experience has prepared her for the presidency. They have been bamboozled into thinking they are voting based on experience, when in reality they are voting based on age or race. Gone are the days where segregationist Democrats loudly declare their racist ambitions from the steps of the statehouse. Today, the same irrational fear is being stirred up in a more secretive and perhaps more palatable way. The goals are the same: using the conservative wing of the Democratic Party to prevent change. Despite the party split, Harry Truman won the election of 1948 and history looks at the Dixiecrat movement with contempt. Perhaps the results will be the same this time around. | | |
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. |
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 6 - 11 Feb 2008 - Main.AmandaHungerford
|
| |
| 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. | | | 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.
|
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 5 - 11 Feb 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| 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 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). | >
> | Hillary Clinton makes both an “experience” argument (“Ready on Day One”) and a “change” argument (“Working for Change; Working for You”) to broaden her appeal and bring different groups into her camp. “Change” highlights her future status as the first female president and reminds us the ensuing departure from the politics of George Bush, thus 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).
Unlike the “change” argument, her “experience” argument, when taken at face value, is a myth that fails to live up to the rhetoric. When she says “experience,” 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, 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. | | |
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. | >
> | 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. 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. | >
> | Her public service career is equally suspect. Twenty years as first lady (in Arkansas and in the White House) gives one insight into what an executive does on a daily basis, how to successfully govern, and what the motions of governing look like. However, claiming such 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 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. 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. | >
> | After leaving her husband’s shadow, her time in the Senate has been similarly uneventful. There are no major legislative accomplishments to speak of and many of the stances 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. 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. | | | 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. | >
> | 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. | | | | |
<
< | 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. | >
> | This is a dangerous tactic; one that backfired when used against John Kennedy Jr. and Bill Clinton (who, like Obama, was 47 when he ran for president). 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. 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 | | | | |
<
< | 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.” | >
> | Raising the Race Issue | | | | |
<
< | 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.” | >
> | 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 offered confirmation of 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 and make it easier for voters (at least subconsciously) to make the leap from “experience” to “white.” | | |
|
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 4 - 11 Feb 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| 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. |
|
|