Conflict in Hillary Clinton’s Political Speeches: A Rhetorical Analysis (2022)

1The present study analyses three speeches by Hillary Clinton, delivered in different periods of her life, while holding prominent positions in the American political context. A Senator for New York State from 2000 to 2008; a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election up to June when Senator Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee before his election in November; on January 22, 2009 she was appointed Secretary of State for foreign policy by the new administration.

2The main aim of this investigation is to highlight the various nuances in which the concept of conflict permeates Hillary Clinton’s speeches and to observe whether and to what extent the linguistic and rhetorical devices she uses, and which constitute a distinctive trait of her style, have a strong (either positive or negative) effect on the listeners, namely the American people but also the wider world audience.

3The American journalist Mark Lilla, in his article "New rules of political rhetoric" printed in the New York Times on January 24, 2002, following G.W. Bush’s State of the Union Address (the first after the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers) wrote "The right rhetorical style can still affect the course of events": that period marked the start of increasingly turbulent times for American and international affairs. This study will also try to shed light on what effect certain rhetorical strategics have, on how a figure of speech can increase the impact of a certain idea, or how it can affect the audience by directing and leading them to draw certain conclusions. After all, "studying rhetoric means studying the perlocutionary force of utterances, that is, the effect speakers intend them to have on their audience" (Partington 2003, 213). An effective and eloquent use of language can shape and alter the audience’s perception of certain phenomena and events.

4Writing with the awareness that, especially in the United States, speeches are drafted by "speechwriters" and tailored by "spin-doctors", often authors of memorable "soundbites", an analysis of political speeches necessarily has to rest on the assumption that contents and concepts are undoubtedly conceived by the politicians delivering the speech. Inasmuch as speakers strive to express their ideological convictions, linguistic forms, rhetorical devices, and the strategic use of language must serve their aims and purposes in the text. "The words and phrases that people choose to utter convey their beliefs and their universe of discourse" (Milizia 62), and as James C. Hume wrote in 1997, after working with five different presidents, in his Confessions of a White House Ghostwriter. Five Presidents and Other Political Adventures, "the speech-writer is more of an ‘image-maker than an ‘idea-maker’... Presidents don’t want ideas from writers" (qtd. in Ardizzone Berlioz 126).

5The textual analysis of the three speeches is conducted within the general framework of CDA, Critical Discourse Analysis. According to Fairclough (188) "one cannot properly analyse content without simultaneously analysing form, because contents arc always necessarily realized in forms, and different contents entail different forms and vice versa". The scholar highlights two complementary types of analysis within textual analysis: linguistic and intertextual. The former covers traditional levels of investigation (such as phonology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary and semantics, including coherence and cohesion at textual level); the latter shows how texts selectively draw upon orders of discourse, that is the particular configurations of conventionalized practices (genres, for example) which are available to text producers and interpreters in particular social circumstances (Fairclough 188). Intertextual analysis "draws attention to the dependence of texts upon society and history" and "crucially mediates the connection between language and social contexts" (Fairclough 188-189).

6The role held by rhetoric in the study of political speeches cannot be disregarded since undertaking a rhetorical analysis means scrutinizing the entire context of communication, that is the historical, cultural and social setting. "In modern times... the word rhetoric enjoys a very evil reputation. Knowledge of how to employ the techniques of persuasion is seen as one of the principle ways in which the ‘powerful’ both express and reinforce their power over the ‘powerless’" (Partington 2006, 15). Politicians present an argument which they want the audience to believe and language surely plays an important role in the creation and in the presentation of political reality. "There is an assumption that the aim of the analysis of political talk is to uncover the rhetorical techniques used by politicians to create and manipulate a specific view of the world" (Wilson 10). It happens in politics as in real life that "attempts to influence and convince others are likely to be met with suspicion and resistance, the more blatant the attempts, the deeper the suspicion" (Partington 2003, 212).

7This paper is based on the merely objective concept of rhetoric given by Teun A. Van Dijk (2007) that considers it as

the subdiscipline of discourse studies focusing on the use of special ‘rhetorical’ structures of text and talk, such as metaphors, comparisons, irony, hyperboles, euphemisms, etc.,... used especially to convey or produce specific effects, for instance as part of strategies of persuasion. These ‘figures’ emphasize or de-emphasize meaning and thus, draw special attention of recipients.

8Persuasion, argumentation and oratory skills seem to be the distinctive and constituent peculiarities of public political speeches, which are just one of the various genres within political discourse. Political speeches themselves encompass a number of subgenres such as the State of the Union Address, commemorative or inaugural address, but also parliamentary speeches, speeches on party conventions, speeches and slogans in election campaign, press releases and press conferences, speeches of heads or ministers and so on, each of which characterises spoken language as a form of social practice, embedded in specific fields of action, that is situations, institutional frames and social structures (Wodak and Meyer 66-68, Reisigl 247-261). "Genre not only provides a conventional framework but also affects all other textual features... and constrains their conceptual and rhetorical development, which in turn determines the linguistic choices made as the text unfolds" (Gotti 112). Thus, the linguistic form and the content of a text genre create patterns which may reveal social and political truths constraining the speaker and the recipients within (but also providing them with) accepted norms, features and values.

  • 1 All the data for the present study is easily retrievable from the Internet.

9The data for the present study consists of three speeches:1

(Video) Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on "Putin's puppet"

  1. "Women’s rights are human rights" address at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (HC1 henceforth) delivered on September 5, 1995 in Beijing, China;

  2. the concession speech Senator Clinton delivered on the suspension of her presidential campaign, at the National Building Museum, Washington, DC, on June 7, 2008 (HC2 henceforth);

  3. the Opening remarks on the President’s FY 2009 War Supplemental Request delivered by Secretary of State Clinton on April 30, 2009 (HC3 henceforth) as testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

10The transcription of these speeches docs not provide any phonetic or prosodie details: only the normal punctuation rules for English texts are observed. Transition from one paragraph to another is often signalled by the audience’s applause. Due to length constraints, all persuasive aspects in Hillary Clinton’s speeches cannot possibly be covered: in a spoken piece of discourse voice quality, pitch, volume, speed, gestures and visual aids are important contributions to the overall quality and impact and would alone deserve a thorough discussion.

11After classifying the three political speeches according to the typologies and criteria identified by Wodak and Meyer (68) and Reisigl (247-251) which include political speeches among the various dimensions of discourse as social practice, the analysis carried out was both quantitative and qualitative. Even though the frequency of certain lexical items can sometimes "reflect systematic metaphors or motifs" (Partington 2003, 205), this seems not to be the case here. The quantitative analysis proved to be not particularly relevant to the aims of this study, probably due to the small corpus which did not reveal any noteworthy patterns. The words "war" and "conflict" for example, computed for occurrences, do not figure among the most frequent items, ranking respectively 324 and 345 in the frequency list. Therefore, the analysis focused essentially on the qualitative aspects of certain patterns, dwelling in particular on the rhetorical employment of metaphors and three-part lists linked to the concept of "conflict" in its various connotations: "conflict as civil fight for women’s rights; "conflict as social and political struggle"; "conflict as military and armed war".

12Metaphors and three-part lists represent rhetorical devices typically used in the genre of political speeches. Metaphors often have a perlocutionary aim, making people believe something, urging them to act, or simply helping them to reflect on certain concepts, finding a link between what is being said and what is implicitly or covertly intended, in order to create mental bridges from one concept to another. It is believed that using metaphor enables speakers to acknowledge the listeners’ ability to understand and decode the intended message. This rhetorical figure is employed when speaking indirectly or in a veiled manner and is safer and less face-threatening than stating things openly and clearly. Metaphors help construct evaluations and representations of the world evoking strong emotional responses: since they appeal both to reason and emotions, they bear linguistic, pragmatic and cognitive characteristics (Charteris-Black 2).

13The so-called Critical Metaphor Analysis proposed by Charteris-Black (2004) aims at revealing the covert and possibly unconscious intentions of language users. In pragmatic terms, the choice of a conflict metaphor determines the nature of the speaker’s evaluation. Charteris-Black explains that the conflict is cither 1) for abstract goals that arc positively evaluated such as rights, freedom, faith, or 2) against social phenomena that are evaluated negatively, such as poverty, disease, injustice, discrimination, social ills, conceptualised as enemies.

14Critical Metaphor Analysis provides evidence for the conceptual metaphor that POLITICS IS CONFLICT, a common rhetorical strategy in identifying what is valued and what is rejected and therefore in creating political identity. It follows that metaphor analysis can be employed to explore ideology. For example, when the POLITICS IS CONFLICT metaphor is used by democratic politicians, the implication is that "political action against social ills is equally important as victory in military conflicts" (Charteris-Black 92).

15Three-part lists, on the other hand, make things clearer, stated once and for all, in a categorical manner and in a complete structure, one as perfect as the number three. If metaphors are believed to bolster ambiguity in a way, concealing things and giving them a vague flavour, three-part lists improve clarity, showing steadiness, self-control and self-confidence. Three-part lists give a sense of unity and completeness (Beard 38) to the entire text, using not only repetition of words or syntactic parallel structures, but also other prosodie features such as rhyme and alliteration, which play an important role especially in written-to-be-spoken texts. Three-part lists, like metaphors, appeal both to reason and to emotions, creating expectation and suspense since "[t]wo occurrences of a phrase structure arc sufficient to set up an expectation that there will be a third" (Partington 2003, 215).

16The three speeches under scrutiny can be easily ascribed to the broader category of political discourse, and in particular they relate to those functions or "socially institutionalised purposes" of political discursive practices as defined by Reisigl (247-251), who underlines that the several subgenres of speeches can often accomplish more than one of several political functions. Therefore, their assignment to the different fields of action within the context of political discourse can never be exclusive. Speeches can be classified into different typologies according to certain heuristic criteria, such as the speaker’s political function, the place and the occasion on which the speech is delivered, the time, the addressees, the mode of transmission, the main communicative function, the form and content of the speech.

17Being remarks as First Lady to the plenary session of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, HC1 might belong to what Reisigl (247-251) identifies as the field of action of "organisation of international/interstate relations". HC2, as a concession speech and endorsement of the rival Democratic candidate for nomination in the context of the American presidential election campaign, can be considered as an example of what the scholar cites as belonging to the field of "party-internal formation of attitudes, opinions and wills". Finally, since HC3 was addressed to the Senate by the Secretary of State, to advertise and promote the specific policy of the presidential Financial Year War Supplemental Request, it can be listed among those speeches that fit into the field of action of "lawmaking procedure".

(Video) Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Talk New Gutsy Docuseries & Trump’s Classified Document Scandal (Extended)

18Although fulfilling different communicative and political functions, all three speeches can be considered planned, written-to-be-spoken monologues uttered by a speaker holding a prominent institutional role: the audience present, whether specialist (members of the Senate) or non-specialist (the Democratic party supporters, the American people or the wider world audience) can utter words, cry out their sympathy, applaud and participate in a certain way, agreeing or disagreeing. No other person is given the floor during the speeches, nor is the speaker interrupted by questions. "The nature of the persuasive strategies characterizing a genre (or a subgenre) depends highly on the situational factors": in particular, the pre-planned character of the three speeches allows the speaker to pack the speech with certain linguistic forms and specific rhetorical features (Halmari 106-108). The two rhetorical devices, metaphor and three-part lists, are believed to fulfil strategic communicative functions in political discourse. They are used to underline a political action or present a political agenda, to inspire agreement or disagreement on important issues, but also to prompt response and action. Hillary Clinton’s wide use of rhetorical devices (Giordano 2008) characterizes her as an accomplished orator and a good political communicator, able to deliver stimulating and engaging speeches. Metaphors and three-part lists are often used in her speeches, along with contrastive pairs, anaphora, repetition, quotation of direct speech and metonymy, which will not be investigated here, but which constitute brilliantly effective ways of delivering a speech.

19Hillary Clinton’s address at the United Nations World Conference on Women ranks no. 35 in the "Top 100 American Speeches of the 20th century" according to a chart compiled in 1999 by 137 researchers of American public address at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Texas A&M University.2 In this speech, Hillary Clinton bases her argumentation on the imagery of sound versus silence, voice contrasted with silence, involving a sound, a voice to be spoken and to be heard, loud and clear, as in "The great challenge of this conference is to give voice to women everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard" (HC1, par. 24) and "No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture" (HC1, par. 40).

20Throughout the speech, the central theme is upheld by the key words "listen", "discuss", "talk", "speak", "speak up", "say", "hear", "echo", "voices", and "silence". Since "[a]ny intended meaning is normally assumed to be located beyond the surface structure of the sentence" (Wilson 105), the metaphorical expressions "give voice", "words go unheard", "remain silent", "break our silence", "silence our words", "speak freely", "right to be heard", "call to action", and "heed the call", denote and suggest, at once implicitly and explicitly, the necessity of breaking the silence and giving voice to counter the injustice, discrimination and violence of which women are victims. Delivered in China, before five thousand attendees representing almost 190 governments and two thousand NGOs, the speech directly addressed China and those Chinese women who were prohibited from attending the event:

I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break our silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.
These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a
history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
The
voices of this conference and of the women at Hairou must be heard loud and clear. (HC1, par. 43-45)

21Through the umbrella "metaphor of silence" many feminist writers point to women’s exclusion from the production of culture and the "absence of female perspectives in dominant cultural and disciplinary traditions" (DeVault 176). Silence denotes absence of voice, absence of sound, but, according to DeVault, silence has often been used metaphorically to mean not only not being present or not participating, but also talking but not being heard (or listened to), talking but being ignored. If "silence" equates to lack of importance, lack of influence and thus lack of power, "silencing" has been used with the implied meaning of censorship, marginalization, suppression and ghettoization (DeVault 177).

22By contrast, voice is associated with speech, but also inclusion, giving women voice and therefore "loud assertion" (DeVault 177), awareness, bravery, opposition to the power and control of others, the fight to defend one’s own rights: "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights... Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely. And the right to be heard" (HC1, par. 53-54). Hillary Clinton’s words thus come across as the declaration of a need, a need for struggle for attention, struggle for presence and visibility: "Let this Conference be our - and the world’s - call to action. And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity" (HC1, par. 66-67).

23The second speech by Hillary Clinton investigated here was delivered when she suspended her presidential campaign, in June 2008. The following statement is today one of the most famous and most cited among Hillary Clinton’s utterances:

Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it’s got about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. (HC2, par. 65-66)

24The "metaphor of the glass ceiling" in HC2 and the image of the transparent barrier stopping women’s achievements in the American political arena is representative of women’s conflicts and struggles to see their own capabilities and skills recognized in the world of work. Hillary Clinton uses the metaphor of the glass ceiling as the barrier impeding women’s upward advancement in the world of politics and decision-making as a means to explain her election defeat. Her personal defeat represents the defeat of all women: the use of the inclusive pronoun we invites the audience to participate in her struggle and to overcome the setback.

25The image of the White House, symbol of the highest and unachievable position an American woman could aspire to or could dream of, lies beyond that "highest, hardest glass ceiling". The eighteen million cracks in the glass, symbol of the numerous votes received by the Senator during the Democratic primaries, pull together the women and the people of the United States and the woman leader who strongly believed they could win, and fiercely fought to break the last obstacle into pieces. This time they "weren’t able to shatter it" but, thanks to Hillary Clinton’s supporters, the transparent, yet impenetrable and impassable ceiling has eighteen million cracks allowing the light to shine through it like never before. The negative connotation of BARRIER, seen as one of the "entities that hinder the achievement of social good" (Charteris-Black 73), similar to a barricade, is juxtaposed to the positive connotation of LIGHT, that light which now shines through the thick and solid glass, that light which gives not only hope or expectation, but the "sure knowledge" and awareness of women’s determination and willpower. For the first time in American history, a woman has been tantalisingly close to the achievement of the highest position in the power hierarchy.

(Video) Hillary Clinton Concession Speech

  • 3 "The Fawcett Society traces its roots back to 1866, when Millicent Garrett Fawcett began her lifeti (...)

26As far as gender issues and the question of women’s participation in prominent political roles are concerned, according to the Fawcett Society,3 a charity which "campaigns for equality between women and men in the UK on pay, pensions, poverty, justice and politics", there are four main arguments in favour of increasing women’s representation in politics. These can be summarised as the Four S’s: a) symbolism: women should be present in equal numbers to men so that a Parliament would be seen as legitimate; b) substance: thanks to their experience and knowledge, women would be able to effect change on certain issues such as childcare and domestic violence; c) sense: having more women MPs appeals to women voters who prefer a party that uses the expertise of its female politicians; and last but not least, indeed the most important argument for the purpose of this study is d) style implying that women "practise a ‘feminised’ politics", being "less adversarial and confrontational and more consensual and constructive".

  • 4 "Q&A with Professor Deborah Cameron, author of The Myth of Mars and Venus", by Barbara Gonzalez, Ma (...)

27During a talk at Oxford University’s Radical Forum4 on March 6, 2009, Deborah Cameron, a Linguistics professor at Worcester College whose research interests include the interaction between language, gender and the media, exposed some of the common generalizations implying alleged differences between men and women and the way in which these generalizations can hide, or even exacerbate a real gender gap in terms of power and status. According to Cameron, women do not govern differently from men, and they are not all consensus lovers and necessarily less confrontational than men. She underlined that women in power "most often change nothing about a political institution unless they specifically organize to change it, not simply because they are women but because they believe for political reasons it should change".

28In the same speech, the metaphor of FIGHT, utilized throughout the text, represents politics as the struggle to achieve a certain goal. "Certain metaphors will abound in one kind of speech or writing and be practically absent in another. In fact,... one of the characterising features of a genre is the kind of metaphor found therein" (Partington 2003, 198). Hillary Clinton is suspending her campaign, but she will continue to be there because "the dreams we share are worth fighting for" (HC2, par. 14). It has been a "tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family" (HC2, par. 27). The metaphor of fight is an example of how the fight men and women imagine "is constructed in different terms" (Footitt 64-69). If Hillary Clinton’s fight had Barack Obama as an opponent at the beginning of the electoral campaign, at this point her fight is not against an adversary, her fight is for the people and with the people. This would seem to substantiate Footitt’s belief that "[t]he political site imagined by women is one in which conflict is more attenuated, with less emphasis on metaphorical armed warfare, and more on defensive struggle and protection" (73).

29Therefore, "the way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States" (HC2, par. 21). The emphasis is not on the enemy in conflict, but rather on what needs to be protected, looked after and saved (Footitt 70). However, not everybody in the United States agrees on this when referring to Hillary Clinton.

30In speech HC3, addressing the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Chairman and members, Hillary Clinton states that "The foreign policy of the United States is built on the three Ds: defense, diplomacy and development" (HC3, par. 7). A three-part list combined with the further rhetorical and poetic feature of alliteration creates an even more emphatic and easy-to-memorize pattern. She then continues by underlining that the government has launched a "new diplomacy powered by partnership, pragmatism, and principle" (HC3, par. 10), again a three-part list with alliteration and the emphasis placed on the sounds /d/ and /p/. The three Ds are to be reached through the three Ps, but in order to "help Iraq to move forward" and create the future of the three Ss "stability, sovereignty, and self-reliance" (HC3, par. 14) it is necessary to provide funds and to send more troops to conclude the mission of the three Ds, that is to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al-Qaida" (HC3, par. 15).

Fig. 1

Zoom Original (jpeg, 59k)

(Video) Watch the full first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

31A cycle (Fig. 1) which seemed to start from a new diplomacy, a new approach to foreign policy and global issues based on partnership and pragmatism, is not in the end closed and complete, but unexpectedly turns towards a different path of disruption and destruction. The passage from Bush’s administration hard power to Obama’s soft or smart power does not seem to be fulfilled here.

32It is evident that different rhetorical figures are adopted according to the composition of the audience and the specific aims of the communicative event. HC1 and HC2 address wide, varied and in general non-specialist audiences and the metaphors used appeal both to reason and emotion, inducing listeners to create mental bridges between what Hillary Clinton is saying and what actually underlies her words. HC1 and HC2 are also rich in repetitions and three-part lists, sometimes related to the concept of conflict as social and political fight, such as "And I will continue to stand strong with you every time, every place, in every way that I can" (HC2, par. 14). Her main aim is to shake public opinion on certain issues such as women’s rights (in HC1) or to thank voters for their support and convince them to divert their votes to Barack Obama instead (in HC2). Metaphors allow for vagueness and permit speakers to make indirect statements in order to avert direct criticism of their personal convictions. Three-part lists, on the contrary, reveal a certain steadfastness, self-confidence and assertiveness on the part of the speaker: a marked intonation along with the rhetorical figure of three elements as well as syntactic parallelism are highly effective elicitation techniques, triggering not only acclamation or applause from the listeners, but urging them to action and expecting their consent and support on a specific and pressing policy.

33Other examples of parallel syntactic structures displaying three elements are used throughout HC3 such as in

Finally, if the State Department is to pursue an ambitious foreign policy agenda that safeguards our security and advances our interests and really exemplifies our values, we have to have a more agile, effective State Department and USAID. We have to staff those departments well. We have to provide the resources that are needed. We have to hold ourselves accountable. Our supplemental includes $747 million to support State and USAID mission operation around the world. (HC3, par. 23)

34The anaphoric repetition of the words "We have to" is a means to prompt members of the Senate into action: by including herself in the group through the use of the first person plural, Hillary Clinton herself takes responsibility for supporting and advancing the President’s foreign policy agenda.

35From a linguistic viewpoint, Hillary Clinton is undoubtedly a skilled orator, and a prolific speech-giver, able to utilize the most striking rhetorical features in the political speeches genre. As already pointed out in a previous study, Hillary Clinton’s metaphors are generally present throughout the entire speech and contribute to what textual analysis calls "global coherence", keeping meaning, ideas and concepts together, and providing the text with clear overall organization (Giordano 2008).

36Notwithstanding her charismatic ability to capture audiences’ attention, and evoke an atmosphere of emotion and sentiment, it must be remembered that Hillary Clinton is also a controversial figure whose behaviour generates conflicting opinions and mixed feelings in many people. During her twelve years as First Lady, as President Clinton’s wife during his presidency and before, during his governorship in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton successfully supported and put forward many proposals for women’s and children’s rights and health care for the American people, some of which are currently being implemented by President Obama. Her commitment in social issues has never changed. Nevertheless, she also supported the war in Afghanistan and Iraq begun by the Bush administration and she supports, and continues to uphold, supplemental military appropriations for those wars; for this she earned herself the epithet of "foreign policy hawk".

  • 5 Justin Raimondo is an American author and editorial director of the website Antiwar.com.

37Her foreign policy now favours multilateral diplomacy and respect for international institutions, even calling for a withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East, but some would say that she opportunistically, again as in the past, "shed her hawk’s plumage for the white of a dove", as stated by Muravchik (2007), a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Part of the American public opinion and of the press, many forums and blogs on the Internet, point to her natural bellicosity, her dishonest, unclear and constantly shifting position on the war, calling her the "War Goddess" (Raimondo5 2006a), the "Amazonian Wing of the Democratic Party" and the "Democrats’ Athena" who "only differs from Bush on the details" (Raimondo 2006b).

  • 6 Chris Bowers is a blogger for OpenLeft. His studies focus on polling and data-driven analysis of US (...)

38Hillary Clinton’s "zigzagging" between different and contrasting positions is nothing new (Muravchik 2007): many people, and especially many women in the States dislike Mrs Clinton and their reactions are essentially against her support of the war and the supposed apparent inconsistency between what she says and what she actually does. Surely Hillary Clinton has to develop a language, and maybe expand her corpus of rhetorical techniques to accurately and truthfully describe where she stands when it comes either to supporting or opposing and combating wars or armed conflicts in general, since so far she has been "struggling mightily to simultaneously depict herself as both resolute and as anti-Bush foreign policy. However, she clearly has not developed a language to do this yet..." (Bowers6 2007).

(Video) Lies, Politics and Democracy: Mona Charen (interview) | FRONTLINE

39Many Americans ask, if she is a feminist, if she advocates and is committed to women’s and social issues, if she really believed she could bring about a revolution through her presidential candidacy, how can she continue to support military operations in foreign countries, apparently oblivious to the tragic deaths and mutilations of millions of children, the mistreatment and abuse of hundreds of women and the death of thousands of soldiers, including American soldiers? Some point out that those generally considered to be feminine qualities, such as strength, patience, sensibility, responsiveness and hard-working character, may indeed have helped her more than the toughness, resoluteness, staunchness, and apparently opportunistic behaviour she manifested in the running of her campaign.

Videos

1. Hillary Clinton's Full Concession Speech | NBC News
(NBC News)
2. Hillary and Chelsea Clinton | Person to Person with Norah O'Donnell
(CBS News)
3. Hillary and Chelsea Clinton on "Gutsy" women
(CBS Sunday Morning)
4. James Comey A Factor In Hillary Clinton's Loss, But Not Only One | Morning Joe | MSNBC
(MSNBC)
5. Watch the full first 2016 Presidential Debate | PBS NewsHour
(PBS NewsHour)
6. Donald Trump Victory Speech
(VOA Learning English)

You might also like

Latest Posts

Article information

Author: Greg O'Connell

Last Updated: 09/20/2022

Views: 5429

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (62 voted)

Reviews: 85% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Greg O'Connell

Birthday: 1992-01-10

Address: Suite 517 2436 Jefferey Pass, Shanitaside, UT 27519

Phone: +2614651609714

Job: Education Developer

Hobby: Cooking, Gambling, Pottery, Shooting, Baseball, Singing, Snowboarding

Introduction: My name is Greg O'Connell, I am a delightful, colorful, talented, kind, lively, modern, tender person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.