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.

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.

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.