|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 38 - 30 Mar 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | | Combatting Obama's Creed | |
<
< | -- By AdamCarlis - 24 Mar 2008 | >
> | -- By AdamCarlis - 30 Mar 2008 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | This season’s Democratic primary has pitted two gifted politicians against one another, providing insight into how campaigns rise and fall based on their ability to create and maintain a creed that captures the widest possible audience. | >
> | This season's Democratic primary has pitted two gifted politicians against one another, providing insight into how campaigns rise and fall based on their ability to create and maintain a creed that captures the widest possible audience. | | | The Early Campaign
A One-Way Race | |
<
< | Early on, there was no Democratic primary. Hillary was running as the inevitable candidate; the one best positioned to beat the Republicans in the fall. Her creed was simply a promise to deliver what democrats most desired: a Democrat in the White House. | >
> | Early on, there was no Democratic primary. Hillary was running as the inevitable candidate; the one best positioned to beat the Republicans in the fall. Her creed was a simple promise to deliver what democrats most desired: a Democrat in the White House. | | | The Emergence of Hope | |
<
< | John Edwards and Barak Obama, however, changed the dynamic of the race. By speaking forcefully about change, they pushed Clinton onto the defensive. She pushed back, citing her experience and preparation for the job. For the first time, competing creeds emerged: change v. experience. | >
> | John Edwards and Barak Obama, however, changed the dynamic of the race. By speaking forcefully about change, they pushed Clinton onto the defensive. She pushed back, citing her experience and preparation for the job. For the first time, competing creeds emerged. | | | | |
<
< | John Edwards would fight for change, championing the working class who, along with their unions, supported him in droves. That tent, however, wasn’t big enough. While representing a sizable share of Democratic Primary voters, it alienated many others. The party’s Wall Street crowd and many moderates were turned off. Perhaps overestimating American’s animosity towards big business, Edward’s pitched a pop tent and not enough voters could fit inside. | >
> | John Edwards would fight for change, championing the working class who, along with their unions, supported him in droves. That tent, however, wasn't big enough. While representing a sizable share of Democratic Primary voters, it alienated others. Moderates and the Wall Street crowd were turned off. Perhaps overestimating American’s animosity towards big business, Edward’s pitched a pop tent and not enough voters could fit inside. | | | | |
<
< | At the same time, Obama pitched the biggest tent of them all. He campaigned for “one America” – a nation where divisions of political party, and, and, most strikingly, race become obsolete. Arguing that change comes from collaboration, he invited everyone in and promised reconciliation. Arnold himself couldn’t have created a broader, more appealing creed. | >
> | Simultaneously, Obama pitched the biggest tent of them all. He campaigned for "one America" – a nation where divisions of political party, and, most strikingly, race become obsolete. Arguing that change comes from collaboration, he invited everyone in and promised reconciliation. Arnold himself couldn’t have created a broader, more appealing creed. | | | | |
<
< | The race became Obama’s “One America” against Hillary’s predictable stewardship. | >
> | The race became Obama’s "One America" against Hillary's predictable stewardship. | | | Obamamania | |
<
< | One characteristic of Obama’s campaign, highlighted by the media and exalted by his supporters, is that he somehow “transcends race.” He is a black man who is not angry at white America, not demanding or confronting, but rather articulating a message of hope, unity, healing, and moving forward. His creed implies an opportunity for America to move past divisiveness. This message is both necessary to maintain the “One America” creed and what makes it desirable to a broad audience, particularly white voters looking for redemption from historic sins. | >
> | One characteristic of Obama's campaign, highlighted by the media and exalted by his supporters, is that he somehow "transcends race." He is a black man who is not angry at white America, not demanding or confronting, but rather articulating a message of hope, unity, healing, and progress. His creates an opportunity for America to move past divisiveness. This message is both necessary to maintain the "One America" creed and what makes it desirable to a broad audience, particularly white voters looking for redemption from historic sins. | | | Misguided Attacks | |
<
< | Clinton’s early attempts to derail Obama were either too ambitious or misinterpreted and therefore failed to directly confront his popularity. Since they didn’t undermine his creed, these attacks failed. | >
> | Clinton's early attempts to derail Obama were either too ambitious or misinterpreted and therefore failed to directly confront his popularity. Since they didn’t undermine his creed, they failed. | | | | |
<
< | First, Clinton tried to bring the whole tent down in one blow. She mocked Obama’s creed, arguing that change and hope are just words, which, in the end, don’t get you very far. While perhaps true, the attacks played right into his argument that when you stand for something as powerful as change and a united country, the status quo will reject you out of hand. Clinton was asking voters enamored with possibility and hope to choose between a candidate promising them the world and one who promised a steady hand and more restrained expectations. Because her attacks failed to directly question the veracity of “One America” they were unsuccessful. | >
> | First, Clinton tried to bring the whole tent down in one blow. She mocked Obama's creed, arguing that change and hope are just words, which, in the end, don’t get you very far. While perhaps true, the attacks played right into his argument that standing for change and unity, causes resentment by the status quo. Clinton asked voters enamored with hope to choose a steady hand and restrained expectations over a candidate promising the world. They chose Obama. Because her attacks failed to directly undermine the veracity of "One America," they were unsuccessful. | | | | |
<
< | Next, Clinton argued that she, too, represented change. While obviously true, Clinton had to take a back seat on the issue. Not only was she late to show, but the idea of electing a woman has thus far proven less appealing than the idea of moving beyond racial divisions. Our long history of racial animosity makes the idea of coming together and transcending prior divisions more powerful than a female president: the past and present animosity between men and women in this country and the pain associated with it just does not rise to same level. While this attack have slightly broadened Clinton’s appeal, it, again, failed to undermine the basic premise of Obama’s creed and so didn’t undermine his campaign. | >
> | Next, Clinton argued that she, too, represented change. While obviously true, Clinton had to take a back seat on the issue. Not only was she late to show, but the idea of electing a woman has thus far proven less appealing than the idea of moving beyond racial divisions. Our long history of racial animosity makes the idea of coming together and transcending prior divisions more powerful than a female president: the past and present animosity between men and women in this country and the pain associated with it just does not rise to same level in the minds of voters. While this attack slightly broadened Clinton's appeal, it, again, failed to undermine the basic premise of Obama’s creed and so didn’t undermine his campaign. | | | Holes in the Tent | |
<
< | Since Texas and Ohio, however, the Clinton campaign has done a better job undermining the tent posts supporting Obama’s broad creed. | >
> | Since Texas and Ohio, however, the Clinton campaign has done a better job undermining the tent posts supporting Obama's broad creed. | | | | |
<
< | First, Clinton publicly discussed Obama as a potential Vice President as if to say, “You can have ‘change,’ feel good about bridging the chasms that separate us, and still vote for me.” Obama, sensing the damage that this would do to the central premise of his campaign, immediately rejected the VP job. Still, the seed was planted that perhaps Clinton could deliver on both her promises of leadership and Obama’s promises of “One America.” | >
> | First, Clinton publicly discussed Obama as a potential Vice President as if to say, "You can have 'change,' feel good about bridging the chasms that separate us, and still vote for me." Obama, sensing the damage that this would do to the central premise of his campaign, immediately rejected the VP job. Still, the seed was planted that perhaps Clinton could deliver on both her promises of leadership and Obama’s promises of "One America." | | | | |
<
< | Second, the Clinton campaign directly poked a hole in the idea that Obama is someone above politics. Despite her own shady land deals, Clinton pushed the Tony Rezko story, arguing that Obama is part of the same political muck that plagues Washington. This is a perfect attack on Obama’s creed with little cost to Clinton. Since she had been unable to get Obama dirty by lobbing shots at his campaign, she just grabbed on and dragged him down into the mud with her, basically announcing, “See, he is dirty like the rest of us!” | >
> | Second, the Clinton campaign directly poked a hole in the idea that Obama is someone above politics. Despite her own shady land deals, Clinton pushed the Tony Rezko story, arguing that Obama is part of the same political muck that plagues Washington. This is a perfect attack on Obama's creed with little cost to Clinton. She basically announced, "See, he is dirty like the rest of us!" This was an important move because it had the potential to change the way voter’s viewed Obama. Those in his tent because he represented a departure from politics as usual were left questioning whether Obama truly was what he said he was. | | | | |
<
< | Recently, Clinton has shaken the very foundation of Obama’s creed by questioning whether he truly can transcend race. By highlighting his pastor’s divisive words, Clinton has raised the question whether, deep down, Obama is actually an angry black man who can’t look beyond race. For white voters, such a charge brings with it serious misgivings. No longer is Obama the fearless leader poised to move the country beyond its deep divisions. His campaign becomes, as Bill Clinton sought to point out when he sowed the seeds of this argument many weeks ago, in many ways indistinguishable from Jesse Jackson’s. Without racial unity and reconciliation, “One America” quickly becomes many America’s again and the whole in the creed lets votes escape. | >
> | Recently, Clinton has shaken the very foundation of Obama's creed by questioning whether truly transcends race. By highlighting his pastor's divisive words, Clinton raised the question whether, deep down, Obama is actually an angry black man who can't look beyond race. For white voters, such a charge brings with it serious misgivings. No longer is Obama the fearless leader poised to move the country beyond its deep divisions. His campaign becomes, as Bill Clinton argued many weeks ago, in many ways indistinguishable from Jesse Jackson's. Without racial unity and reconciliation, "One America" quickly becomes many America’s again and the whole in the creed lets votes escape. | | | | |
<
< | Too Little Too Late? | | | | |
<
< | The race isn’t quite over. Obama seems to have stopped the bleeding. If he can get off the defense, he has a great chance of winning the nomination. Either way, the battle between these two politicians, with similar politics and very different creeds has given us some insight into what it takes to cobble together and maintain a creed sufficiently broad enough to win an election. | >
> | Too Little Too Late? | | | | |
>
> | The race isn't quite over. Obama seems to have stopped the bleeding. If he can get off the defensive, he has a great chance of winning the nomination. Recent endorsement by Casey and, perhaps more importantly, Richardson, should re-entrench the idea that his appeal crosses racial lines. Regardless, the battle between these two politicians, with similar politics, but quite different politicking, has given us some insight into what it takes to cobble together and maintain a creed sufficiently broad enough to win an election. | | |
|
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 37 - 24 Mar 2008 - Main.AdamCarlis
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Paper 1 Redux - Starting again, seeking feedback (see diffs for background). | >
> | Paper 1 Re-Redux - Starting again (again), seeking feedback (see diffs for background). | | | Comments encouraged. | |
>
> | Writer's Note: Comments seems to be centered on my supposed support of Obama. Frankly, I find him impressive, but deeply disagree with him on numerous issues of paramount importance to me. | | | | |
<
< | Obama's Experience Problem | >
> | Please Note that this is a Very Early Draft | | | | |
<
< | -- By AdamCarlis - 29 Feb 2008 | >
> | Combatting Obama's Creed
-- By AdamCarlis - 24 Mar 2008 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | Assuming he is the nominee, Obama will face amplified concerns about his experience. Given his thin resume, relative youth, and race, it will be difficult for him to assuage voters' anxiety regarding his readiness to govern, costing him potentially decisive votes. | >
> | This season’s Democratic primary has pitted two gifted politicians against one another, providing insight into how campaigns rise and fall based on their ability to create and maintain a creed that captures the widest possible audience.
The Early Campaign
A One-Way Race
Early on, there was no Democratic primary. Hillary was running as the inevitable candidate; the one best positioned to beat the Republicans in the fall. Her creed was simply a promise to deliver what democrats most desired: a Democrat in the White House. | | | | |
<
< | The Liability of Inexperience | >
> | The Emergence of Hope | | | | |
<
< | In this election, being viewed as inexperienced is a handicap. Because of the perceived inexperience and subsequent failures of the Bush administration, concerns about national security, and our crumbling economy, the public wants a president who can step into the office ready to lead. Unfortunately for Obama, general election voters cite "inexperienced" as the word that best describes him. This characterization could lead many American’s who might have otherwise supported Obama's candidacy to vote for the more tested candidate, particularly if the current economic and political instability continues. | >
> | John Edwards and Barak Obama, however, changed the dynamic of the race. By speaking forcefully about change, they pushed Clinton onto the defensive. She pushed back, citing her experience and preparation for the job. For the first time, competing creeds emerged: change v. experience. | | | | |
<
< | Barriers to Overcoming the Criticism | >
> | John Edwards would fight for change, championing the working class who, along with their unions, supported him in droves. That tent, however, wasn’t big enough. While representing a sizable share of Democratic Primary voters, it alienated many others. The party’s Wall Street crowd and many moderates were turned off. Perhaps overestimating American’s animosity towards big business, Edward’s pitched a pop tent and not enough voters could fit inside. | | | | |
<
< | Unlike McCain, Obama is poorly positioned to convincingly argue that he has sufficient experience to lead. First, his resume is not sufficiently robust to withstand attack. Second, Obama's age and race do not fit the stereotype of an experienced politician. Finally, his adversary is an archetypal presidential candidate prepared to capitalize on this issue. | >
> | At the same time, Obama pitched the biggest tent of them all. He campaigned for “one America” – a nation where divisions of political party, and, and, most strikingly, race become obsolete. Arguing that change comes from collaboration, he invited everyone in and promised reconciliation. Arnold himself couldn’t have created a broader, more appealing creed. | | | | |
<
< | Inexperience | >
> | The race became Obama’s “One America” against Hillary’s predictable stewardship. | | | | |
<
< | Obama cannot credibly claim the experience mantle in the general election. Instead, McCain? 's lengthy Congressional record, popular military service, and nine additional months on the attack, will allow him to further entrench questions about Obama's readiness to lead. Moreover, the perception of McCain? as a "maverick" allows him to be seen as experienced without being portrayed as a Washington insider or party crony. Therefore, he is well-positioned to capitalize on the uncertainty created by volatile circumstances without the usual baggage accompanying such attacks. | >
> | Obamamania | | | | |
<
< | Just as the Republicans turned John Kerry into a waffling opportunist, they will exploit the public perception of Obama's unpreparedness. Obama’s relatively thin resume (3 years in the Senate, 8 in state government, and 15 as a community organizer, attorney, and academic) provides the little bit of truth necessary to make the charge stick and the Republican machine will provide the rest. The fact that Obama would neither be the youngest man elected president nor the least "experienced" – regardless of how the word is defined – will be lost in a chorus of "Do you want him answering the phone at 3a.m.?" | >
> | One characteristic of Obama’s campaign, highlighted by the media and exalted by his supporters, is that he somehow “transcends race.” He is a black man who is not angry at white America, not demanding or confronting, but rather articulating a message of hope, unity, healing, and moving forward. His creed implies an opportunity for America to move past divisiveness. This message is both necessary to maintain the “One America” creed and what makes it desirable to a broad audience, particularly white voters looking for redemption from historic sins. | | | | |
<
< | Since a head to head experience battle favors McCain? , Obama’s best hope is to mitigate the damage of McCain? 's attacks by shifting focus and deemphasizing the issue. Thus far, Obama, perhaps "masquing treason," has tried to shift the argument from "experience" to "judgment." However, this tactic does not change public's perception of his experience; it only mitigates its importance. If the long campaign forces the issue, even Obama's best defense, a comparison to Lincoln, acknowledges his inexperience, perhaps costing him votes. | >
> | Misguided Attacks | | | | |
<
< | Age | >
> | Clinton’s early attempts to derail Obama were either too ambitious or misinterpreted and therefore failed to directly confront his popularity. Since they didn’t undermine his creed, these attacks failed. | | | | |
<
< | When the 60 and over crowd was at Woodstock, Obama was eight years old. It is not easy to convince people old enough to be your parent that you are ready to lead the country (especially when standing next to their older brother). Nevertheless, the issue's ability to entrench the perception of Obama as inexperienced is balanced by voter hesitancy to elect a 72 year old. In fact, Obama's surgical use of "half century of service," while perhaps cementing the idea that age equals experience, has, at least, forced McCain? to deemphasize age as much as he emphasizes his own experience. "Old" is the word voters most associate with McCain? and so he will have to find a way to focus on experience without looking his age, possibly reducing the potency of his attacks. | >
> | First, Clinton tried to bring the whole tent down in one blow. She mocked Obama’s creed, arguing that change and hope are just words, which, in the end, don’t get you very far. While perhaps true, the attacks played right into his argument that when you stand for something as powerful as change and a united country, the status quo will reject you out of hand. Clinton was asking voters enamored with possibility and hope to choose between a candidate promising them the world and one who promised a steady hand and more restrained expectations. Because her attacks failed to directly question the veracity of “One America” they were unsuccessful. | | | | |
<
< | Race | >
> | Next, Clinton argued that she, too, represented change. While obviously true, Clinton had to take a back seat on the issue. Not only was she late to show, but the idea of electing a woman has thus far proven less appealing than the idea of moving beyond racial divisions. Our long history of racial animosity makes the idea of coming together and transcending prior divisions more powerful than a female president: the past and present animosity between men and women in this country and the pain associated with it just does not rise to same level. While this attack have slightly broadened Clinton’s appeal, it, again, failed to undermine the basic premise of Obama’s creed and so didn’t undermine his campaign. | | | | |
<
< | With embarrassingly few African Americans 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. Intelligent and well-spoken maybe, but, experienced, likely not. Therefore, at least subconsciously, Obama’s race both facilitates believing that he is inexperienced and makes it harder for him to convince voters that he is ready to lead. | >
> | Holes in the Tent | | | | |
<
< | Additionally, "experience" provides cover for people unwilling to vote for an African American to cast a vote for McCain. While most people voting based on race wouldn't support Obama's policies, some Democrats and Independents are searching for a socially acceptable reason to justify their anti-Obama vote. Whether they are the elderly white voters highlighted by the Times (including my own grandmother, a life-long Democrat, who remarked, after being pressed on her criticisms of Obama, that "we’re just not ready for a black president"), or the “Bradley Effect” voters, saying one thing and voting another, the experience issue can be used to justify an otherwise discriminatory vote. Without the cover of experience, these voters would not support Obama, but using experience to justify their otherwise discriminatory vote adds fuel to the inexperience argument. | >
> | Since Texas and Ohio, however, the Clinton campaign has done a better job undermining the tent posts supporting Obama’s broad creed. | | | | |
<
< | While Obama's race alone may not spontaneously raise mainstream concerns about experience, by making it harder for white voters to picture Obama as ready to do the job and adding voices to the chorus questioning his experience, race makes the experience argument stick. | >
> | First, Clinton publicly discussed Obama as a potential Vice President as if to say, “You can have ‘change,’ feel good about bridging the chasms that separate us, and still vote for me.” Obama, sensing the damage that this would do to the central premise of his campaign, immediately rejected the VP job. Still, the seed was planted that perhaps Clinton could deliver on both her promises of leadership and Obama’s promises of “One America.” | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | >
> | Second, the Clinton campaign directly poked a hole in the idea that Obama is someone above politics. Despite her own shady land deals, Clinton pushed the Tony Rezko story, arguing that Obama is part of the same political muck that plagues Washington. This is a perfect attack on Obama’s creed with little cost to Clinton. Since she had been unable to get Obama dirty by lobbing shots at his campaign, she just grabbed on and dragged him down into the mud with her, basically announcing, “See, he is dirty like the rest of us!”
Recently, Clinton has shaken the very foundation of Obama’s creed by questioning whether he truly can transcend race. By highlighting his pastor’s divisive words, Clinton has raised the question whether, deep down, Obama is actually an angry black man who can’t look beyond race. For white voters, such a charge brings with it serious misgivings. No longer is Obama the fearless leader poised to move the country beyond its deep divisions. His campaign becomes, as Bill Clinton sought to point out when he sowed the seeds of this argument many weeks ago, in many ways indistinguishable from Jesse Jackson’s. Without racial unity and reconciliation, “One America” quickly becomes many America’s again and the whole in the creed lets votes escape.
Too Little Too Late?
The race isn’t quite over. Obama seems to have stopped the bleeding. If he can get off the defense, he has a great chance of winning the nomination. Either way, the battle between these two politicians, with similar politics and very different creeds has given us some insight into what it takes to cobble together and maintain a creed sufficiently broad enough to win an election. | | | | |
<
< | It is possible for Obama to turn the age issue against McCain? and even convincingly argue that good judgment trumps experience. However, on race, to borrow from Gandhi, Obama is the change he wants to see in the world. As a result, it will be next to impossible for him to convince some voters that he is ready and capable until he does it and does it well. Until then, Obama will be waging an uphill battle to cast off the shroud of inexperience. In what is likely to be a close race, this could cost him the election. | | |
| | | 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 | |
>
> |
- Andrew, I appreciate your comments. I would love to hear your thoughts on the next round. --Main.AdamCarlis - 24 Mar 2008
| | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AdamCarlis |
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 36 - 22 Mar 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| 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 |
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 35 - 22 Mar 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | |
- I really appreciate it, Amanda ... what do you think of the new draft? -- AdamCarlis 26 Feb 2008
| |
<
< | Adam, | >
> | [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] | | | | |
<
< | It looks like you're using "inexperience" to mean two different things: why you think Obama is inexperienced, versus why other people do. Yet you don't show how you know there's a difference -- aside from the fact that they're not voting for him, and [you imply] you are. | >
> | 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.
| | | | |
<
< | You might have settled for a different (equally fallible, but more relevant-sounding) breakdown in the way you see inexperience with respect to Obama:
- allegations of inexperience whose causes you can't precisely account for, versus allegations whose causes you can;
- inexperience as a datum, a thing seen and attested to, versus "inexperience" as a synonym for "QED," i.e. appearing after a list of "experiences" whose relevance to presidency the paper takes for granted;
- "subjective" versus "objective" inexperience.
| >
> | 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.
- 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 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.
- 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]
| | | | |
<
< | This poor overlap could be a problem with my labels, but it is also could be a problem with your paper. Arguably, my labels successfully account for what you are doing half-successfully: since you support Obama, you're smart to be labeling persons who call him "inexperienced" as hopelessly subjective, in order to argue that their arguments are unaccountable, and thus vulnerable to abuse, such as being mingled with race. But, if that's your goal, you fail to recapture the authority to define Obama's experience in a way you prefer. 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, why can't we defend Obama's experience? | >
> | 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. | | | | |
<
< | And that itself is a meaningful question: why is it hard to defend Obama on experience grounds to persons who criticize him on experience grounds? My theory: 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. | >
> | 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. | | | | |
<
< | But then, does the fact that you're voting for Obama really tell us anything about the people who aren't? Imagine again that poll of General Election voters (pro-Obama and anti-Obama) who used "inexperience" to "best describe Obama." If they'd also been asked, "What word do you think most OTHER people imagine best describes Obama?", I too suspect that a larger proportion of people, freed from political correctness, would say "Black." But I wouldn't call that racism: you and I both just did it.
| >
> | 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.
| | | -- AndrewGradman - 21 Mar 2008 | |
>
> | | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AdamCarlis
|
|
|
AdamCarlis-FirstPaper 34 - 21 Mar 2008 - Main.AndrewGradman
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| | |
- I really appreciate it, Amanda ... what do you think of the new draft? -- AdamCarlis 26 Feb 2008
| |
>
> | Adam,
It looks like you're using "inexperience" to mean two different things: why you think Obama is inexperienced, versus why other people do. Yet you don't show how you know there's a difference -- aside from the fact that they're not voting for him, and [you imply] you are.
You might have settled for a different (equally fallible, but more relevant-sounding) breakdown in the way you see inexperience with respect to Obama:
- allegations of inexperience whose causes you can't precisely account for, versus allegations whose causes you can;
- inexperience as a datum, a thing seen and attested to, versus "inexperience" as a synonym for "QED," i.e. appearing after a list of "experiences" whose relevance to presidency the paper takes for granted;
- "subjective" versus "objective" inexperience.
This poor overlap could be a problem with my labels, but it is also could be a problem with your paper. Arguably, my labels successfully account for what you are doing half-successfully: since you support Obama, you're smart to be labeling persons who call him "inexperienced" as hopelessly subjective, in order to argue that their arguments are unaccountable, and thus vulnerable to abuse, such as being mingled with race. But, if that's your goal, you fail to recapture the authority to define Obama's experience in a way you prefer. 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, why can't we defend Obama's experience?
And that itself is a meaningful question: why is it hard to defend Obama on experience grounds to persons who criticize him on experience grounds? My theory: 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 then, does the fact that you're voting for Obama really tell us anything about the people who aren't? Imagine again that poll of General Election voters (pro-Obama and anti-Obama) who used "inexperience" to "best describe Obama." If they'd also been asked, "What word do you think most OTHER people imagine best describes Obama?", I too suspect that a larger proportion of people, freed from political correctness, would say "Black." But I wouldn't call that racism: you and I both just did it.
-- AndrewGradman - 21 Mar 2008 | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, AdamCarlis
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | |
|
|