| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | Also, interesting sidenote: Clinton's "ready on day one" spiel? Allegedly stolen from McCain? 's website. -Amanda
- 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
| | |
| |
<
< | [Adam, I will continue to edit this comment, because it's partly for my own benefit: giving you advice forces me to question and re-evaluate my own advice -- be patient for my sake ... -andrew] | | | | |
<
< | Your message pretends that you're value-neutral. But your language implies that you have SOME opinions. It's possible to teach and argue in one place, but it's harder to build the reader's trust -- you must
- ) convince him that you can separate the news and the editorial
- ) i.e. both "show" and "tell" him that he can trust your ability to choose and define words
- ) i.e. tell a really invisible lie.
| >
> | [Adam, be patient for my sake -- I'll keep editing this critique because it forces me to re-evaluate my own writing -- I know I'm making all the same mistakes I claim that you do. -andrew] | | | | |
<
< | Under that definition (of how to teach and argue in one place), you could do more to win my trust:
- 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.
| >
> | 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 your words present both "objective" facts and "subjective" beliefs, (see examples), you never defend a mechanism for distinguishing between the two.
| >
> |
- 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.
| | | | |
<
< | Looking at your paper as an editor instead of as a reader, I'll speculate that you want people to vote for Obama, and you think that his greatest vulnerability is that 1) "inexperience" is an epithet, and 2) it's hard for Obama to refute that epithet. If so, you're smart to be saying that when the public calls him "inexperienced," their reasoning is hopelessly subjective, i.e. unaccountable, i.e. vulnerable to abuse, i.e. mingled with race. But I suspect that because you want to appear 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 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.
| >
> | 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 |
|