Welcome to SPCH 310
This blog is for SPCH 310-Intellectual Foundations of Communication. Use the links to the right to find an updated copy of the syllabus, course assignments, and readings. The main page will include the weekly blog entry- open for comments and discussion.
If you have any questions, contact Anand Rao at arao at umw.edu.
Hillary in New Hampshire
Much has been written about Sen. Clinton’s emotional response to a question in New Hampshire last week. What do you make of it? Was it sincere, or were the tears fabricated? What was Sen. Clinton trying to communicate? Was there an alternate agenda? Did it matter how it was delivered?
Your comments should include your reaction, as well as how you would critically analyze the success of this speech act.
I’d like to preface the specific answers to the question with a little bit of a discussion of the reaction to this much watched clip. We’re all so baffled, some angry, some sympathetic, because we have absolutely no idea how to contextualize this since she’s the first female candidate for president that actually has a shot at winning. Hillary has more or less found herself in a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation where she’s viewed as an emotionless automaton at some points and with this, now someone who might be viewed as too emotional.
That said, its tough to view anything within hotly fought contests as anything but political, and while I don’t think it was scripted, I think that Hillary spun it right to her advantage when she turned this moment into an attack on her competitors. Like anyone who is used to being on a stage she took an unexpected moment and played it off like a pro. We got to see her emotional but remain a strong woman who demanded the best out of her country.
The delivery method was perfect for the situation, because this was the best venue for anything like this to occur. Surrounded by, presumably, caring supportive voters in a local restaurant. If she did this to the face of Obama and Richardson at the debates which supposedly were what got her so down, she’d look like she was showing weakness at the sign of a threat. Here she was within an environment where it could be seen as more casual.
This act was, as we all know now, extremely successful. While some paint this as Hillary going back to what they view is her ability to constantly run back to being the victim, the voters, and people responding in polls now (however accurate they are) don’t agree. To me personally, watching it the first time, it is a bit affecting. And then I get my normal cynicism.
Without getting into the politics of who I’m going to vote for, I will say that this speech off the bat struck me as fake. Hilary Clinton over time has shown us that she is a strong, unemotional, and powerful woman. When the entire scandal with her husband broke you saw her “standing by her man” never breaking down. She stood by President Clinton for her own political gain. I can easily see that this was nothing more then her being told by the people that run her race to do something to look human and this is what she came up with. The media makes a big deal about how the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire can’t be swayed by Washington politics and they focus more on the real issues at hand. Hillary had to appear human to win favor in these states, so she spoke about normal things like finding time to work out, trying to eat right and eating pizza. All of which seemed too coached and contrived. Today the world will hold any female running for President to a higher standard, hence the extreme media coverage of this interview. I think Hilary might have been trying to steal female voters away from Obama with her tears, but in the end I believe it will hurt her cause. The world doesn’t want to see their president brought to tears because campaigning is hard.
Personally I do not follow politics at all. I hadn’t even heard of this happening until class the other day and was a bit surprised at hearing that Mrs. Clinton was caught shedding tears. I do not think they were real. I believe that she was using this as a way to show her softer more human side in order to show the women that she really is a woman and not just some other candidate. She was showing that she too feels things and it helps give validity in what she says next, that she cares only about our country. I think that this endeavor of hers was very successful because I think that a lot of women were glad to see Hillary showing her human side. She put it in terms that would strike more emotional people rather than rational thinkers. Honestly if everyone thought rationally we would think that it was ludicrous that she was crying over the campaign. If the campaign is that hard that you need to cry on national television about it, maybe you shouldn’t be running for the presidency (since I’ve heard it is pretty hard…). But other than that I know nothing of the campaign so I can’t really add if this will help her or hurt her since I do not know who is for or against her etc.
I don’t really know just how genuine the tears were, and I would have believed in the possibility of them being legit if I wasn’t cut off by the attempted humor at the end. The comment about “trying to get in exercise and eating right is hard when the easiest food is pizza” took away from the impact of the speech I thought. I really haven’t been following too closely with politics lately (which is partially due to the writers strike putting a hold on the daily show and colbert report I’m sad to say) but from what little bit I have heard everything she said sounded exactly like what every other candidate has been saying in terms of change. Her delivery was very good though I have to say. She didn’t stumble or hesitate throughout the entire thing which adds to its credibililty.
I have to agree with the comment before mine about Clinton’s attempt at humor towards the end of the speech. I was automatically put off by that comment about pizza and working out. It seemed like a blatant attempt to show that Clinton is just an everyday American like the rest of us. Even if what she said is true and she does struggle to find time for healthy food and exercise, it does not make her an average citizen. She is a presidential candidate and that alone singles her out as not average.
I admit that the first time I watched this video was after it was assigned to us in class and I do not closely follow the campaigns. When Clinton appeared to tear up, I felt torn. They seemed genuine, but I automatically questioned their impact. Simply because it was a presidential candidate makes the motive of these tears scrutinized and subject to question. To me, it all seemed too perfect and contrived. She was in the perfect setting where she was supported and comfortable. She reacted with emotion but was able to keep composure. While this may mark a good quality in communication by a presidential hopeful, to me it seemed rehearsed and symbolized an alternate agenda. My response after tearing up about something that I care deeply about would not be so composed. I feel that most people would not be able to give such a concise statement without pausing more or stumbling a little bit. That being said, she does have much more practice doing that than the average American does. Another reason that I felt this was more than an off the top-of-her-head comment was how out of character her response seems to have been. She has been painted as a strong, unemotional, and driven individual and a reaction like this is out of character. In order to seem more compelling and likable, it would seem like a good strategic move to speak to people’s emotional side. Again, this seems like a speech act that had a manipulative and contrived agenda.
I don’t know how critically I can analyze the success of this speech act because I am unaware of how it has been received. All I really know is that it has become a huge topic of debate. From that standpoint, it has been successful. It was able to stir up controversy and attention to Clinton’s campaign. It can be said that it was at least successful in that aim. It is hard to objectively look at any political speech act. Everyone has political beliefs that they bring to the table and use in their analysis. Most logically, I think that this speech act will create stronger support from those already attached to Clinton and push those opposed to her further away because they will see it how they want to see it. They will see it as emotional and heartfelt or they will see it as manipulated and pre-planned.
For me, this speech had little passion and even less connection to the audience (i.e. me). However, I know I am greatly influenced by my immediate distaste for politics, but I’ll try my best to be objective. Was it a good speech? There was a little bit of humor, some emotion, a progressive attitude, vague promises, an attempt to connect with others, and a casual, intimate atmosphere. I don’t know much about writing speeches, but I would say this had all the ingredients to be a “good” speech. Her manner of speaking was very controlled, she effectively put emphasis on specific words, and maintained steady eye contact, all of which are great speaking techniques. I also think that the subtlety of her emotions will work in her favor (because we all know what happens when you bust out a Howard Dean). However, the tears did not seem genuine, or even appropriate for the subject matter. It was as if she almost pulled it off; she got her voice to quiver, she bowed her head, and blinked her eyes to try and will a few tears out…but it just didn’t happen. I think one of the general fears of having a female president is the stereotypical image of the emotional, irrational woman. I don’t think Hilary needs to prove she has heart; she needs to prove she can act rational and present a strong image. This includes finding an emotional demeanor somewhere between knot-on-a-log, and cry baby.
In agreeing with some of the other blogs, I feel that this is a lose/lose situation for Senator Clinton. While the widely criticized clip has received both positive and negative attention, Senator Clinton just cannot win in this situation. As the first female candidate running for President, she is known for her solid position, but the second that she gets teary-eyed she is immediately criticized as too emotional. I feel that whatever she does will be criticized to the extreme and at a higher standard as a woman in her position. As someone who does not follow politics as much as I should, (regardless of whether or not one agrees with what Senator Clinton believes and supports), I feel like this speech act was relatable and that is appealing to me individually as an audience.
I am not a huge Hillary fan, but I tried to be objective while watching this clip. Even so, I still feel like she turned on the waterworks for sympathy.
This performance comes on the heels of mostly negative reviews of her composure in a New Hampshire debate – I feel like she thought she needed to endear herself to the American public to make up to her surprise trailing of Obama and Edwards at the Iowa caucus. Whether or not her tears were real, they seemed to help her since she won the New Hampshire caucus shortly after this moment.
In class, Rao asked if the fact that Hillary was a presidential candidate was important when evaluating her tears – I think it’s absolutely important. That fact is the very reason we’re spending time evaluating her reaction to the lady’s question. Had Hillary been some Joe Schmo in the diner talking with friends and had been asked a question that made him tear up, no one outside of his family and friends would discuss the breakdown.
Whether or not crying was a calculated move on Hillary’s part, the way that the message was delivered mattered. So many more discussions and analyses have been centered on this scene than there would have been had she had simply answered the questions without as much emotion. And real tears or not, they impacted her audience – some were swayed to feel for Hillary’s plight, while others found the show disdainful.
I do sympathize with Hillary in that no matter what she does she is going to have people who dislike her choices or actions. While some people responded positively to her showing her “human” side, others might see this as a potential weakness.
Despite that, the timing of her tears still just seemed too suspect for me. I would love a woman president, but I would prefer one that comes across more sincere.
I find this speech to be highly compelling and effective. Clinton keeps her message very simple and appropriate to the context, utilizing repetition to make her points resonate more thoroughly (the “some of us” sequence, for example, is especially persuasive).
I feel that Clinton’s emotional display was intentional, but I don’t think that means it wasn’t effective. Even though her “humanizing” moment seems too rigidly controlled to come off as genuine, it really grabs the audience’s attention. Especially since it seems so unusual for her, I found myself literally hanging on her every word after she choked up.
I was also impressed by Clinton’s use of body language and gesture throughout this segment. For someone who supposedly lost her composure, her comportment is flawless. For example, when she chokes up, she brings her hand to her face, making it seem as though her articulation is even more personal and confessional than it might have seemed without that gesture. Afterwards, however, the polished gestures we generally associate with great political orators reemerge to enhance our response to both the emotional moment and her subsequent message.
Senator Hillary Clinton’s emotional moment. Here we go.
I’ll start with Senator Clinton’s sincerity during this moment. The day it happened when I viewed it for the first time, I’ll be honest, my first thought was that it was staged. The planted questions controversy that surrounded the Clinton campaign and the constant almost robotic fashion in which she presents herself, my first inclination was that this was probably not a moment based in the utmost sincerity.
My tune has changed slightly since that initial reaction, but not too much. Politics is a calculated game, and although during this conversation she says it is not just about “who’s up and who’s down,” I find it difficult to buy into that argument. No rational politician would consciously take an extreme stand on an issue or go on a rampage about something he or she knew would alienate a large part of their constituency, or even a large part of the country. I’m not saying it’s never been done, but chances are it would not result in a favorable outcome.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that she knew she needed to do something, and I think that a show of some type of emotion was what the nation was asking her for. This is how she responded. Along those same lines, I don’t believe this makes her emotional “episode” any less sincere, but I do think it is highly likely that it was strategically placed. It occurred at a time where she was behind in the polls before an important primary, she needed to do something and I don’t think that was a secret to her campaign.
In terms of what she was trying to communicate, I think she wanted people to know that she may have more dimensions than what we have seen to this point. As I mentioned previously, the coverage I had seen of her up until that point, in the media and during debates, she lacked a more personal dimension. I think she was trying to break through that and show that there is more to her than just what has been shown to this point. This was definitely part of her agenda, I don’t think many things happen along the campaign trail that are truly “unscripted moments”—those can bring about unintended and detrimental consequences.
Along those lines, though, I think she had to be careful about how she went about this display of emotions. If overplayed, I think it might have made many people question whether or not she could lead a country if she was prone to emotional outbursts. The threats of the 21st century are numerous and often unpredictable; the job of President of the United States is not for someone that is unprepared to handle those colossal responsibilities. Since she is a woman, I think there are probably many people in this country that think she is probably already too emotional. I’m not saying whether that’s right or wrong, I’m merely saying that it is most likely a reality. Since she has that added complexity of being a woman in a previously male-dominated realm, she has to overcome these types of obstacles. An uncontained emotional outburst could eliminate her credibility as a decision maker.
I think, overall, it was somewhat successful. If you trust poll data to be accurate, she was behind in them prior to this episode and she did go on to win the New Hampshire primary. I do not think that it is inherent that there is a causative relationship; however, it does provide an interesting correlation. (I think it’s hard to say there is one defining moment that causes anyone to win or lose in a campaign, there are so many factors that are in play that I think it’s impossible to make such a claim.)
After sitting through a semester of Business Communications and how to apply successfully you-attitude to your audience, I thought this speech was rather pathetic. It isn’t all about her. Most of her speech she said “I’m tired, I’m hungry, I’m trying to do this and so on.” Atleast if you have to say those things and talk about yourself say it because its what you’re doing to help her audience. Forget about how hard the campaign is, because let’s face it if she can’t handle the campaign 4 years in the White House scares me even more. With all the major issues the next president is going to face, crying won’t get the job done. The speech appeared to be rather successful and frankly I’m not quite sure how.
So maybe I’m gullible a little. I don’t like Hillary, but I watched this speech and sympathized with her. I understood where she was coming from, admired her passion and composure, and in the end thought to myself, “Okay Hillary, I’ll give you that one.” She seemed very sincere in what she said, and whether or not she juiced up her emotions a little to bring up a few tears, I believed her when she spoke of her personal relationship to the campaign and how much she cares about our nation. If a presidential candidate did not feel this way, I don’t think s/he would make it.
However, as a previous comment mentioned, politics is a very calculated activity, and contrary to what Hillary said, I think that it is a game - a game of strategy. Despite sincerity or passion or drive, it is a game of strategy, and I believe that Hillary and her campaign directors knew what they were doing when they allowed her and probably advised her to “get personal.” With that said, Hillary’s speech “got personal” extremely effectively, in my opinion. She showed her investment in our nation, confirmed her opponents’ investment in our nation, and then undermined their abilities in a very non-accusative way that only made her own drive seem more powerful. Does it matter that she was behind in the primaries? Yes, it was a deliberate, smart, yet also sincere move.
To conclude, I do not doubt the strategy of this performance, yet I do not doubt the sincerity of Hillary’s message. Really, in performing, she has done nothing that other politicians are not doing all the time.
I do not believe Senator Clinton’s initial tears were fabricated; however, once she did tear up I think she realized the opportunity she created for herself. The remainder of her speech was delivered in a slow manner, as if she needed to reassure and convince her audience that she too is human. Clinton related to her audience by letting everyone know that sometimes she finds it hard to exercise and turns to pizza for meals, which to me seemed a bit scripted. In the end, I think this speech act, planned or not, will hurt her because Americans do not want to see their potential president in tears because campaigning “isn’t easy.” The success of this speech act can be measured by change in voter polls from the weeks preceding and following this particular speech. I also wonder how different the reaction of the American public would be had a male candidate given a teary-eyed speech.
I agree with the majority of what people are posting. I believe this showing of Hillary’s emotional side was a good campaign move. She needed to express to her audience that she has these emotions and isnt always stern and strict as she appears. However, I am not sure if the tears and the message were totally sincere since it took her this long to show it and this only happend after her lose.
I have watched this clip in many different contexts by now. And I am not a political pundit; but I am an American citizen, and a voter, who, faced with the rhetorically saturated political process must make my own choices. As such, I believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tears in this video were real. Anyone who knows anything about the marathon process by which we elect our Head of State will realize that Clinton is physically/emotionally exhausted in this clip. Very simply, she is tired and the tears come from that place.
I don’t believe, as many do, that this “moment” was carefully constructed for PR, any more than any other moment in the Clinton campaign. She is a long-standing public figure who (no doubt) cannot evade a consciousness of being watched and judged always. Therefore, she is in tune with the fact that cameras are rolling. What is she trying to say?
1. It is clear that Clinton is showing herself as personable. The word tossed around CNN was “humanity.” Which I think is kind of redundant. Clinton is a human, of course she has “humanity”–weaknesses, vulnerabilities, the ability to empathize. That specific character trait is one which we require of our politicians, but also damn them for if they cannot remain “professional enough.”
2. Clinton is trying to communicate that her desire to be President and serve the common good outweighs her personal sacrifice to attain that office. She is tired, suffering public scrutiny, and walking an almost indefensible line between being a political figure and being a woman. (Refer to linguist Deborah Tannen’s take on the near impossibility of Clinton’s dual identity: http://www.brijit.com/abstract/12441/Deborah-Tannen). However, her speech is geared towards revealing that despite these personal attacks and trials, she (and presumably other public servants) feel compelled to serve their country in this way, indeed “to save it” in her own terms.
I am not the person who are believe politicians, but also not the person who has negative views of politics as well. Because of the movie’s quality, I couldn’t see Hillary’s tear, but I could easily know that she was in an emotional state.
I am sure the way to deliever like that(with tears) affects to get sympathy from audiences and even speech’s meaning itself. The image of Hillary is kind of a stubborn, strong, and strict person so far. With a drop of tear, it could be changed in an instant, because it brings the fact that she is a “woman” into relief.
But, I am not sure it was sincere or a strategy. Actually, who knows except her. Also, her answers were emotional. I couldn’t understand some points.
Nevertheless, whether it was true or not, it is sure that it was very effective.
I am not the person who are believe politicians at all, but also not the person who has negative views of politics as well. Because of the movie’s quality, I couldn’t see Hillary’s tear, but I could easily know that she was in an emotional state.
I am sure the way to deliever like that(with tears) affects to get sympathy from audiences and even speech’s meaning itself. The image of Hillary is kind of a stubborn, strong, and strict person so far. With a drop of tear, it could be changed in an instant, because it brings the fact that she is a “woman” into relief.
About the truth, I am not sure it was sincere or a strategy. Actually, who knows except her. Also I could see that she replied emotionally. It could make people doubt about sincerity.
Nevertheless, whether it was true or not, it is sure that it was very effective.
am not the person who are believe politicians at all, but also not the person who has negative views of politics as well. Because of the movie’s quality, I couldn’t see Hillary’s tear, but I could easily know that she was in an emotional state.
I am sure the way to deliever like that(with tears) affects to get sympathy from audiences and even speech’s meaning itself. The image of Hillary is kind of a stubborn, strong, and strict person so far. With a drop of tear, it could be changed in an instant, because it brings the fact that she is a “woman” into relief.
About the truth, I am not sure it was sincere or a strategy. Actually, who knows except her. Also I could see that she replied emotionally. It could make people doubt about sincerity.
Nevertheless, whether it was true or not, it is sure that it was very effective.
Remember the tears we shed to get an allowance, new bike, first guitar, first car?
Imagine ourselves raising money for a election.
It’s hard to get the actor to cry on cue.
Shes raising money for her chance at being
the leader of our country.
This is the goal.
Maybe it’s something worth crying about.
(no more than let’s say 4 seconds worth)