This New York Times op-ed contribution by Richard W. Painter gives Hillary Clinton some unsolicited advice about how she should proceed in regards to the Clinton Foundation “scandal.” I chose this article because Painter exhibits rhetorical appeals in his writing that I found to be successful. He begins by stating that he was the White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush. This is an ethical appeal to his rhetorical credibility. As a reader I feel as though his interpretation of the Clinton Foundation is educated and informed. He also ends the editorial by stating that he is a Republican who believes Hillary Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate. I appreciated the bipartisan nature of the article and think it offers a candid perspective as to how Clinton can appeal to voters across party lines. In short, this article may serve to offer valuable insight into how Clinton can adjust her rhetoric and political strategies to appeal to voters across party lines, and ultimately win the presidential race.
I am really interested to hear my classmates thoughts about Painter’s suggestion that Hillary Clinton should entirely remove herself, and her family, from the Clinton foundation for good should she win the presidency. Is this necessary? Even more important – would it dissolve concerns? Also Painter explains the reasons that the Clinton Foundation “scandal” is not much of a scandal at all. Do you agree with this interpretation? Feel free to check out this article for more on the subject, I am still working to understand the discrepancies myself.
Image via New York Times