After winning the primaries in New Jersey, California, New Mexico, and South Dakota on June 7, 2016, Clinton addressed her supporters from a rally in Brooklyn.
Clinton addresses the historic milestone we have achieved by her nomination, thanks her volunteers and supporters (calling out her friends in New Jersey–a group I am honored to be a part of), and assures the American people that she will “always have your back.” Reaching out to supporters of Senator Sanders, she congratulates him for his campaign, notes the similarities in their positions, and distinguishes her agenda from the agenda of her Republican opponent. These parts of the speech contribute to her effective ethos. She evokes pathos in appealing to her audience’s identities as Americans. Her references to the Declaration of Sentiments and to her mother’s lessons to her not only appeal to the women’s rights values of her supporters but also tell them who Clinton is as a candidate and as a person. Her argument that this election “really is about who we are as a nation” is the strongest element of her logical appeals.
What do you think are the strongest of her appeals to her audience? How do you think this speech compares to her Beijing speech delivered over twenty years earlier? How has she changed as a rhetor?
Hillary Clinton and Beyond 
Though I am not the biggest Hillary fan, this speech really spoke to me, it was enjoyable at parts and a bit annoying at others. Hillary as a rhetor in this specific speech definitely made me a bit more keen to her; however, there still were some points that turned me off. The most appealing points, for me, were in the beginning when she talked about ‘breaking through the glass ceiling’, the rise of women at Seneca Falls, and, at the end, the birth of her mother on the day, in 1919, when senate passed the 19th amendment. Some other things that were helpful to Hillary’s speech, thought they preceded it, was the music that used words like freedom that are very popular in pop culture. I really just don’t like her voice when she is making speeches, like we have said before, she sounds too polished, and at times she seems to be pushing too hard- very off putting.
-brie
LikeLike
As you note in the summary of this speech, the idea that this election is more about “who we are as a nation” than anything else strikes me as the strongest part of her rhetoric. The United States is not an isolated country – it is involved in international trade, American businesses operate across multiple nations, and American people travel extensively out of the country. From business owners with contacts and customers across seas to regular working people who want to visit other countries, there is a perception that the leader of a country is an extension of the American individual. This is the person that has been chosen to lead, and everyone is part of that process, whether they vote one way, the other, or not at all. People are dreading how the United States will be perceived by the international community if Trump is elected; Hillary is telling her audience that the United States is not the kind of nation that would elect a man like Donald Trump as president, causing her listeners (or readers after the fact) to think “of course not; we are not like Donald Trump and we do not want him representing us.” If the United States is not that nation, then it is a nation that casts their vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic ticket. It’s a clever approach, not using policy differences to distance her vision of the United States from Trumps, but appealing to the audience’s own perception of who America is.
LikeLike
I completely agree that this is Hilary Clinton’s strategy in this speech, to appeal to the America’s definition of who we are as a nation in order to create a desired difference between herself and Donald Trump. However, with Trumps still relatively high polling numbers, I wonder if she is actually appealing to the version of America that the nation finds most appealing. Yes, she is speaking to America’s better nature, but the events of this presidential campaign make me question whether or not that is the image the American public actually takes pride in. It seems like the logical assumption to build America up, to take pride in the inherent goodness of our American nature, as Hilary Clinton would see it, but is this actually what America wants to hear at this moment in time? It makes me extremely disappointed to question which appeal would be rhetorically stronger to the American public, but I believe this campaign forces the question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a rhetor, I think Hillary still has a long way to go. Her approach is good, but it certainly needs some fine-tuning. I think it is a matter of her tone which bothers me the most, though still not nearly as bothersome as that of her opponent. There is a 21 year gap between this speech and her Beijing speech, and we can see the difference in her further inclusion and her suggestions of technological usage in order to gain campaign support. However, I think Hillary’s arguments could have used more sources for stronger arguments. Her Seneca Falls/Mother’s birth story was excellent, however I think the tone she illustrated the story with was a tad too stiff. She has the potential for a strong approach but if she wants to reach out to the younger generation, then I think her tone needs some reworking. Otherwise, she provides a very strong speech, both the Beijing one and this one, 21 years later.
LikeLike
I think comparing the Brooklyn speech and the Beijing speech feels a little like comparing apples and oranges to me. The Beijing speech felt stronger rhetorically, but I think that had a lot to do with the fact that it had a single purpose while the Brooklyn speech was tasked with a host of purposes from welcoming Sanders supporters to attacking Trump.
What I was most interested in, though, was how the circumstances and themes of the Beijing speech allowed Hillary to position herself as speaking on behalf of others. Hillary felt more comfortable to me in the Beijing speech and I wonder if that might be related to the way that she could position herself as a listener. She could authentically give voice to the disempowered in that speech in a way that I don’t think she could in the Brooklyn speech. I think when you’re running for office, when you’re asking people to vote for you, it becomes very difficult to authentically speak as a listener no matter how many individuals’ stories you relate.
One other issue that came up: I found it difficult to tell whether I was comparing the speeches rhetorically or just thematically. There’s probably some overlap between the two, but I’d be interested in discussing the distinction.
LikeLike
Hi benmizel,
I think a comparison can be made between the Beijing speech THEN and the Brooklyn speech NOW: perhaps not in terms of content or purpose (with regard to your final question, there is some thematic overlap, but it seems subtle, as she is addressing a much larger audience in the latter speech) but in terms of history.
We can argue that Beijing was the first speech to set Clinton apart from her husband, introducing her as an powerful actor on the international stage. We can also argue that Clinton’s recent victory speech reintroduces herself to the United States and to the world – as, potentially, the MOST powerful actor in politics, and as the first female nominee/president.
Both, then, are two of her most memorable, definitive speech acts: one at the precipice of her political career, and one at the “tail end” of it (although we know she has much more to do!).
The first speech is focused, detailed, and somewhat-detached in tone, while the second is just as focused, more general, and a bit less detached… although she continues to have some issues with tone, in my opinion. Perhaps the most significant oratory strategy she’s retained from one to the other, I think, is giving important, historically significant context to her arguments.
I also really like your idea of “speaking as a listener”! I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on the subject in class.
Thanks,
Isabella Hamilton (ciaobellalou)
LikeLike
“It takes a village to raise a child” was the sentence Hillary Clinton used in the middle of her speech in June 7,2016 to appeal to her audience to stand united together .It perfectly reflects her theme of “Stronger together”.Furthermore,she based her speech on an analogy of shared beliefs “We ALL believe in cooperation..not conflict,unity…not division, empowerment …not resentment.” However,the climax of her analogy was upon drawing on her opponent’s idea of building a wall on the southern border and clearly stating “We all believe that bridges are better than walls.”
As an experienced rhetor ,she follows the same pattern used in many of her previous speeches,similar to her speech in Beijing, of drawing on the ‘Epideictic Rhetoric’ in celebrating the present moment and considering it “a milestone in American history to have a woman nominee .”Then moving to a ‘Ferensic Rhetoric’ with her mention of The Declaration of Sentiments in 1848 which bestowed women with equal rights as well as her mention of the 19th amendment of the constitution which granted women the rights to vote.Finally,her ‘Deliverative Rhetoric’was excessively used towards the end of her speech with her call on the necessity of being”great as we can’t be small.’
Moreover,her final use of a logos appeal was cleverly stated and I think raised her audience’s expectations of living in “A big-hearted,fair-minded country”where America is “One nation under God,indivisible with liberty and justice for ALL.”
LikeLike
I felt that in the June 7th speech, her quote from the Pledge of Allegiance was also pathos driven. This Pledge is something that many Americans hold dear to their heart; I grew up saying it nearly everyday in public elementary school. I felt emotional when Clinton quoted it, as I personally had lost a lot of hope in our political system, and had voted for Sanders. I think that her purpose of the speech was to help unite the Democratic Party behind her and thus, when she said this, I felt a renewed sense of hope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After watching the Beijing Speech and her June 7th speech, I find it odd that people find Hillary Clinton to be devoid of emotion, as, her strongest appeals in both of these speeches are pathos driven. For example, Hillary Clinton mentions her late mother in the June 7th speech and ends with
the emotional call for America to make decisions that its children can be proud of. Her Beijing Speech also draws on pathos by plainly speaking about human rights violations. Clinton mentions the violent atrocities of burning women alive and broken baby spines to appeal to the audience’s empathy.
Clinton also uses rhetorical devices in her Beijing and June 7th speeches. Clinton uses anaphora in Beijing Speech, beginning each sentence in one section of seven with the words “It is a violation of human rights..” She further uses anaphora in her June 7th speech several times, notably beginning one secession of sentences each with “We believe…” Clinton expands upon this anaphora device in her June 7th speech, however, by also ending each of these sentences with the words “look to the future.” This allows the audience to enjoy the repetitive nature of anaphora in the beginning while also carrying the audience through to the end of the message.
In comparison to her Beijing Speech, her June 7th speech uses antithesis several times. She uses the rhetorical strategy of antithesis to compare herself to Donald Trump, placing herself as “good” and Donald as, rightfully, “evil.” For example, she is cooperation, against conflict. She places herself as
empowerment versus Donald’s resentment. Finally, she states that she is the bridge to Donald’s wall, which honestly made me laugh out loud. This use of antithesis shows how she has grown as a rhetor and allowed herself to have a more critical voice of her opponents.
Notably, Hillary evolves her definition of the terms, “we” and “our” from her Beijing to June 7th speeches. These terms at first meant her fellow women, and at present mean the collective America regardless of gender, thus through speech, uniting the democratic party behind her.
LikeLike
I always go back and forth with my thoughts on Hillary, but I really enjoyed this speech and her use of pathos. She really knows how to appeal to her audiences and their emotions and does so really well when talking about the rise of women empowerment (the women at Seneca Falls). I really like that like she added an anecdote about her mother’s birth (the day the 19th amendment was passed) as a personal tie to her platform. Her use of the pronouns “we” and “our” allows her to relate closer to her listeners instead of being seen as above us.
LikeLike
I agree with pmurphy54 that her strongest appeal here is the one that assumes the best of us Americans, that we are smart enough to make the right choice of preventing an unqualified bigot from becoming President. It seems like she’s trying to build up the ethos of the audience rather than of herself, so perhaps the use of this technique explains why some voters feel that she is not as trustworthy as other candidates. I can see how not talking enough about oneself and one’s credentials during the course of one’s bid for presidency can diminish the public’s faith, but as someone who also prefers listening to talking, hers is a different style of leadership that I think should be given a fair chance. Speaking of the Vox article, it surprised me that Obama wasn’t deemed the greatest listener and that this deficiency (for lack of a better term) deterred him from making the personal relationships necessary to forge political compromises.
Echoing a comment from the Beijing speech thread, something about that speech moved me to tears even though I was only half-paying attention to the video during my first viewing, so it must have been her impassioned tone/delivery. Her delivery was noticeably less effective in the 2016 speech, but its content improved in quality; it seems like she’s really pushing a message of inclusivity with a collective call to action (her pronouns of choice are “we,” “us,” and “ours” as opposed to the “I” and “me” preferred by her opponent). She uses the metaphor of writing the next chapter of the American history book TOGETHER, as an all-inclusive body: “We, however, we want to write the next chapter in American greatness, with a 21st century prosperity that lifts everyone who’s been left out and left behind, including those who may not vote for us but who deserve their chance to make a new beginning.” Later on, she says, “Now you are writing a new chapter of that story. This campaign is about making sure there are no ceilings – no limits – on any of us. And this is our moment to come together.” Though her delivery may have faltered over the years, I found myself feeling just as inspired by reading the transcript of this latest speech as I was hearing the one from Beijing. In keeping with my overlooking of her fashion choices, I would like to think that I care less about the style/delivery of her speeches than its actual content.
LikeLike