Mandel, D. (2016, September 9). Hillary’s First 100 Days. The New York Times. Retrieved September 13, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/books/review/hillarys-first-100-days.html
In this work of fictional journalism titled “Hillary’s First 100 Days,” David Mandel notes that “Since F.D.R., the first 100 days have come to be seen as the defining moment of each presidency and are used to measure each new president’s accomplishments.” In a most hilariously speculative fashion, he proceeds to create a mock (in both senses of the word) timeline of Hillary’s first 100 days in the Oval Office. In doing so, Mandel taps into the power of the absurd to make potent points about the discourse surrounding Clinton, including the stereotypes which drive the marginalization of women in American politics and society at large.
While at times the article gives recognition to certain common criticisms of Hillary, such as the email cover-up debacle or that she is a warmonger, it sometimes points out how these criticisms themselves subvert traditional gender norms; did you know, for example, that a woman could even be a warmonger? (I’m thinking specifically of “Day 33” here, where HRC wards off a Russian invasion of the US to the neglect of Time magazine, because we couldn’t have a mainstream news story about a woman being a skilled military tactician now, could we?) Despite recognizing certain criticisms of Hillary and stereotypes against women, the message is ultimately intended to be positive and supportive of Clinton’s capacity as a political leader (though at times I found myself wondering how much it fulfilled these intentions.)
To prompt our discussion, I should like to pose a few questions: what is the role of political satire in rhetoric? Can satire be effective as a rhetorical device? What modes of persuasion does it entail? (Does it appeal to logic or emotions, and is it credible despite being fiction?) How do fictional representations such as this probe at the truth? Can it be that there is sometimes more truth to be found in such fictional representations than there is in journalism presented as “true”?
Hillary Clinton and Beyond 
This is a knee-slapper! I caught myself laughing out loud at this injection of humor into our political discourse and thinking about how humor pokes at the truth…
What place does humor hold in political discourse?
Some would claim that humor as a rhetorical device is less effective than other more serious forms of discourse, however, I would argue that humor brings pleasure and/or laughter to a political spectrum too often plagued with pain and outrage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can certainly appreciate the value of satirical writing in welcoming others to politics who may otherwise steer clear, but when I see a comment like the one for Day 42 insinuating that Clinton accepts role as MVP of ISIS slipped in among otherwise benign and antithetical remarks, I find (or found) the end product a bit tasteless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You pose an interesting question about the role of humor in our political discourse. It makes me think of the rise of political satire on television. For many, it has become a main source of political news, which obviously comes with its own set of problems. The popularity of shows such as The Daily Show, Jon Oliver and Bill Maher I think show that there is want among consumers to receive their political information in the form of humor, as opposed to the more stately and studious formats traditionally used. The growing place that humor hold in our political rhetorical discourse could possibly be linked to the lack of agency many people feel within our current governmental system. We are more comfortable laughing at what is going on because, well what else are we going to do? The ability to be an agent of change seems out of reach for many with the reach the core structures of American power, but the insertion of humor, while a decisive indication of our times also sets a dangerous precedent for our future. A lack of political agency, coupled with a lack of political seriousness does not a informed and empowered electorate make.
LikeLike
I found myself chuckling a few times at this article! To address your questions, I think there is quite the big role of political satire in rhetoric. Humor can address the same exact issues as any other article would. All it takes is a different tone and approach, and an individual can publish an article that can make an audience simultaneously laugh and think about politics.
Humor affects both logic and emotions, but it depends on how it is portrayed. In the sense of the article you presented, the arguments are still clearly valid while maintaining that humorous edge. I believe if the point can be made to the audience, it can be deemed credible. By utilizing satire, an author can be upfront or precise about politics. Since satire is often used as a form of criticism, Mandel could be seen as criticizing Hillary’s critics.
LikeLike
I’m interested in what you said about humor affecting both logic and emotions. I think it would be fun and challenging to try to break down how each joke functions comedically and rhetorically — how it creates a laugh with an unexpected juxtaposition and how it undermines an argument or asserts an argument all its own. And how much does humor accentuate or mask the rhetorical points?
LikeLike
This is absolutely wonderful!! Right off the bat you have to love the oozing satirical slaps aimed at Trump and even the other possible candidates that would come after Trump. But even better is the underlying faith of the American people, whose voices and conspiracies heavily narrate these “first 100 days.” I also love how they add a bit of Melania into Hillary in this piece to make her the feminine women that the people and men expect her to be. Overall I think this is exactly what needed to be put out and ridiculed because i feel like some people actually expect this ridiculousness! Hillary may not be everyone’s first pick but I definitely feel that the American people, whether they will vote or not, expect this of her. When in reality I expect this twisted reality to be more of his actually reality as president. I think that this hilariously satirical portrait just proves how detached American society is and they disillusions they project onto both candidates.
LikeLike
The role of political satire in rhetoric is, in my opinion, to highlight the ridiculous, unspoken assumptions and/or expectations behind said rhetoric. Satire has certainly been effective as a rhetorical device for centuries – from Swifts “A Modest Proposal” to Colbert’s Republican-pundit-persona, satire has not only been used to inform, but to persuade via emotionally potent appeals to logic. Although it is less INFORMATIVE than hard-nosed journalism, I often find satire to be more ENLIGHTENING by far. Journalism strives for objectivity, but objectivity is merely an ideal. Every minor choice a journalist makes – whether it be the inclusion of one quote over another to how he/she chooses to end an article – expresses some sort of SUBJECTIVE opinion, no matter how subtle. Satire, on the other hand, is blatantly subjective, able to clearly “call out” another party. It does not have to balance out two sides, one of which may or may not be credible. I thought this article effectively emphasized the myriad ways in which Clinton, and women in general, have been and continue to be denigrated… i.e. the bits about a “girls’ weekend” with Angela Merkel!
LikeLike
Your distinction between “informative” and “enlightening” is really interesting and nuanced. Something I enjoy about political satire is that it touches upon timely issues, which allow viewers and readers the opportunity to research the relevant issues for themselves. Mediums like The Daily Show and The Onion, as well as satirical pieces such as “Hillary’s First 100 Days”, introduce people to political issues they may not otherwise be privy to, if they don’t follow politics or current events. It’s a valuable first step in becoming better informed. Someone could read this piece and think “Hillary and Libya? What’s the connection? Why the “special prosecutor” motif?” and be compelled to learn more on their own.
LikeLike
Great article–chuffed me to bits. Day 1 recalled this Instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/p/BKQqf74gKZV/?hl=en
To try to answer your question, satire functions as the proverbial spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down, the medicine here being dry news sources that claim to strive for objectivity yet often leave a fishy taste in one’s mouth. Effective satire adheres to the ancient goals of good poetry: to teach and delight, as articulated by Horace and expounded upon by Sir Philip Sidney. That many of us prefer to get our news these days from comedians and tongue-in-cheek articles such as this one attests to the enduring power of appealing to both emotion and logic rather than one or the other. Comedy is not exempt from following some line of logic, which, by definition, is premised on beliefs/values (John Oliver’s show gives a good example of this when he uses equally outrageous metaphors to emphasize the utter ridiculousness of some of our laws/traditions; we don’t know for sure if his metaphors are 100% factually correct, but they illustrate his point and make us laugh while doing so).
LikeLike
Love this insta post! There is another similar one but I cant find it. If I do I will post it.
LikeLike
The role of political satire is a crucial one. It allows pressing issues to become palpable while relating to our sense of humor. These heavily issues become more digestible for the masses. They allow us to really understand how ridiculous certain ideas, concepts, and issues are in the world, so to me it’s a very effective rhetorical device.
It allows for interpretation as well as begs for discussion without feeling doleful, while reading or viewing the commentary.
I enjoy this question “Does it appeal to logic or emotions” because as I was typing I was thinking it appeals to a range of emotions which is what really makes it more available and digestible for a larger mass. So you are able to interpret and analyze (logic) to decipher the text/shift through your feelings on the topic, as well as touch your emotions through humor.
An article like this really is just probing at the popular thoughts of those against Hillary or those that tend to stereotype her and then base their feelings on her leadership abilities on these assumptions and stereotypes.
LikeLike
The great thing about satire is that it makes topics easier for people to handle or discuss. Theyre rooted in fact but subsequently played with in order to exaggerate, criticize, endorse, etc. Being funny is generally an easier way to access people as it plays off emotional response (joy, laughter) – and since this is a positive response, people will be more likely to listen and/or care.
In this article many of the events are so absurd that they illuminate the problems faced by Hillary, women, politicians, etc. The pantsuit days got me the most for they do seem pretty accurate/likely, but still show how people focus more on Hillarys clothes than her policies.
Some concerns I wish to bring up though – there are serious criticisms, for any candidate, and with the bias in satire I fear that criticisms are sterilized by the author. The writer coming out of Hollywood is most likely liberal and a Hillary supporter, but there are many people who support Hillary who deserve to hear genuine critiques of her. It wouldve been more powerful had he made jokes about serious issues she has and shut them down successfully with his comedy.
LikeLike
I love this article so much! The digs at Trump were some of the most hilarious things I’ve ever read. I think it is important to dig deeper into the piece and realize that American society is a little disillusioned when it comes to different issues and the candidates themselves, so a satirical piece/a little ridiculousness is needed to show how ridiculous everyone else is being.
LikeLike
After reading Hillary Clinton’s 5th day account which was:
President Clinton makes tentative plans for the girls’ weekend with Angela Merkel. “We deserve it!”,I couldn’t help
remembering the memorable visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Germany.During the press conference,Merkel seemed to find it interesting to draw the curtain off a post with different pictures of her and Clinton .The pictures focused on the similar poses,pantsuits,solid colors and hair style which both ladies follow. Although Hillary didn’t show her true feeling at that moment ,which certainly wasn’t sharing the same joy shown on Merkel’s face,yet her changed hair style and addition of jewelry and bright colors showed her feminine response to the notion of having a common predictable style.The whole pantsuit business was really hilarious in “Hillary’s First Hundred Days”.I personally found this political satire a needed transition after the full list of accusations against her .
LikeLike