`There's a big difference between us, speeches vs. solutions, talk vs. action,'' Clinton told workers after touring a General Motors Corp. assembly plant at Lordstown, Ohio.
During her speech, she stated:
"Speeches don't put food on your table. Speeches don't fill up your tank. Speeches don't fill up your prescriptions or do anything about your stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That's the difference between me and my democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches, I offer solutions."
So, we are back to pre-New Hampshire days. It seems this argument didn't work so well the first time but she offers it again, with a new twist: "solutions" replaces "action."
Now, here we have this speech/ action divide, again, which is terribly problematic. But, if I were a reporter on the campaign, I would ask her two questions:
1) How do you reach a decision on a topic or is that not important? Should we just do something?
2) Why are you making speeches? Shouldn't you just attempt to take the presidency?
5 comments:
In the Clinton family, speeches most certainly do pay the bills, put food on the table, etc.
Exactly...
It also pays for presidential campaigns...
It is true that they are all making speeches, and to a limited extent, one might even say they are committing speech acts.
Still, it is not to be denied that Clinton here is channeling a refrain that has been on the minds of many as the campaign has worn on.
What legislation would Obama attempt to get passed, if elected?
What is the basis for his claim that he can Unite the Partisan divides?
Would said galvanization rally around Policies preferred by the Party whose banner Obama is currently asking to carry? And, does he understand that if he does intend to make such a move, he is going to have to fight for it?
That kind of stuff.
Harrogate-
1) visit his web site. It offers a lot of useful information about what he would like to do.
2) He refrains from discussing these during a speech format (except for today when he did) because most of the speeches you see are after primary/ caucus victories. The rhetorical situation requires a ceremonial address where you praise your ideas and blame the vices of your opponents.
3
)the unity argument is an argumentative stance. the assumption is that there are many areas of common ground in the US. let's begin with those places and build through consensus. Clinton's strategy assumes we are divided, we will be divided, and compromise will not work. Instead, she needs heavy majorities to accomplish goals and party discipline to ensure success. At some point she will need to comprise but he beliefs will catch up with her (see 1992 - 1994 with Health Care.)
Your presumption of weakness (not a fighter) needs evidence. The campaign turned when he responded to Bill, undercutting Hillary's authority and putting Bill in his "place" over race.
The point of number two is that you do not delivery a policy address when the occasion calls for a ceremonial address.
Post a Comment