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.

Please Note that this is a Very Early Draft

Combatting Obama's Creed

-- By AdamCarlis - 24 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!”

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.

- I think this might be moving in a better direction than your last paper. I think part of the danger with your topic is making it seem as if candidates are conspiring to put forth a racist argument. Obviously that's not only an inelegant summary of your point, but, well, not a summary of your point, since you make clear that you don't think any of this is (probably) some sort of evil master plan to play the race card. In any case, what I'm trying to say is that I think your paper rests on safer ground when it looks at what the voters are hearing, not what the candidates are trying to make the voters hear. Do other people agree?

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, 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]

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 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.

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