I write this entry with some sadness. I am a 57 year-old woman who is trained in the practice and analysis of public debate. I also fully appreciate the historic nature of the 2008 presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton winning a number of Democratic presidential primaries‑something no other woman has done. What makes me sad is witnessing the strategic demise of Senator Clinton’s presidential bid.
Anyone who uses sarcasm and ridicule in the political arena runs the risk of being seen as defensive, harsh and rude. Not surprisingly, when Senator Hillary Clinton used sarcasm in the two February debates against Senator Obama, her rhetorical tone became the meat of media stories and not the substance of her arguments.
In everyday conversation when a person uses ridicule about another’s character, onlookers jump to the defense of the person they see as being unfairly attacked. When Senator Hillary Clinton used sarcasm in the February debates against Senator Barack Obama, she cut away at her own lead, not his. These snide comments may have been intended to show strength; instead they made her appear petty. Senator Hillary Clinton must learn (or be reminded) that both sarcasm and ridicule, as rhetorical tactics in debates, have very sharp edges.
During the February 26th debate from Ohio, she also pushed back at the moderator when asked a tough lead question. She said she always got the tough questions first, and repeated her displeasure about the order of questioning. Most debaters would welcome the opportunity to get lead questions. That’s when she can define the key terms and frame a response to the question that casts the other candidate in the diminished role of a “Me, too” follow-up speaker. Senator Clinton has proven that she can handle tough questions and accusations. So, what was with the little fit about order of questioning? Again, pettiness made her appear defensive and sharp edged, rather than confident about her arguments.
Much has been written and said about her rhetorical “style” and gender in the 2008 campaign. Much will be written in the years ahead. As the sole woman running for a major party nomination, gender is an ever-present constraint for the Clinton campaign. But, constraints are wonderful rhetorical opportunities. For every instance of awkwardness, there is a chance to transform past practices into new traditions. Her closing statement in the Texas debate was wonderful. It was political rhetoric so well crafted that most people listening were moved by her words. In that closing, Senator Clinton seemed comfortable telling a life story that drew people to her as a candidate, as a leader, and as a woman.
Senator Clinton often refers to her 35 years of experience in positions that required advocating on behalf of others in some of the most demanding chambers imaginable. Throughout her career in public service, her rhetorical skills have been refined. She is smart, eloquent, analytical and capable of putting together an argument better than the other candidates. She is a varsity political debater. But underlying every campaign performance is the gender factor. How will SHE perform? How will SHE respond to tough questions and pressure? How will SHE manage her campaign? And, how will SHE convince the American public that she should be President of the U.S.?
She has said she is very mindful of being the sole woman in this presidential race. Yes, the Hillary Clinton campaign is historic because it is plausible. She is close enough to the Democratic nomination and possibly the Presidency that voters like me are sad to see her slipping into the “she ran a strong, but losing campaign” category. If there is another Clinton-Obama debate, I hope Senator Clinton shows up without the sharp edges.
Dr. Jane Elmes-Crahall
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment