Thanks, Ross, for the comments on the candidates' performances as debaters at the Soldiers Field Debate. I think you are pretty much on target with your "ballot" on who "won" and "lost" this round on the clash of issues, what there was of that. I hope the candidates themselves read it, and learn something useful.
But look at the video program as it was broadcast as a social text, including the visual and nonverbal aspects as well as the content of their arguments.
I think it is also important to keep our eye on the "beauty pageant" aspect of these debates, and one of the main underlying goals each candidate has by being there. Because as you and others have frequently pointed out, the seven Democrats on stage are trying to sing in harmony on most issues, not say things that can come back to haunt them later in the general election campaign after the primaries, when the seven are weeded down to just one candidate.
What is that underying goal? Nothing other than what Theodore White wrote about in 1960's The Making of the President: image building.
Aristotle wrote that ethos -- character-- is more a more important element in persuasion than logos. What kind of character does the speaker have, i. e., what characteristics are exhibited by the candidate?
What kind of characteristics does the only woman in the race have?
Communication theory has echoed Aristotle's insight by focusing on the overriding power of source credibility. [For instance, I can't believe it is an accident that John Edwards appeared throughout the debate with his hair tousled.] Trust, competence, and dynamism are the big three components of source credibility. Trust usually trumps competence.
For example: the big knock on Obama is his lack of experience, which translates into doubts about his competence as compared with somebody like Hillary or even Biden. Or even Dodd. They have the characteristics that attach to their track record of experience, which is of course a two edged sword.
Ross said it himself. Biden has a corporatist track record, which is one of the arguments you raised in your comments about the clash of issues. That's an image comment.
Hillary's major initiative before the 15,000 or so labor unionists, and he umpteen million MSNBC viewers, was to call herself their "girl." "I'm your GIRL!" she said with her patented smile and knowing nods."if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl!"
When I heard that brand new [to me] expression from her own lips, I could see the feminists gearing up for the next NCA convention in Chicago next November, planning panel discussions of Hillary's lapse in calling herself a "girl."
Is that a new linguistic tactic? Has she ever called herself a "girl" in campaign speeches before, or on the Senate floor? Has any other candidate, either Democratic or Republican, ever called her a girl? Has any reporter or pundit -- male or female -- ever, ever called her a girl?
If so, it has been under the radar of media coverage -- or I have just missed it up to now.
To me, it was as if Obama had made a similar declaration such as "If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your BLACK," only you can fill in a different, more colloquial diminuitive self-describing term than "Black." Or Richardson, "If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your HISPANIC."
Hillary is still the front runner among the candidates based on all the polls, so her comment obviously went through without damaging her image in the viewers' eyes.
In fact, it probably helped her. Because what she has been struggling with throughout the past year is the stubborn generic negatives she always gets -- constantly repeated reminders by the media that 40 or 50 percent of voters say they would never vote for her in the general election, no matter who the Republican candidate may be.
Why is it that so many people hate HIllary?
I suggest the obvious.
What is the Hillary image, and how does she project her image?
The obvious, to me, is that she is (1) the only female candidate running, and (2) she is Bill Clinton's wife.
Beyond that, she projects a certain kind of image of what being a woman in a public leadership role means.
Some people, I believe, look at her in the light of those two facts, that is, they view her image through those lenses, and those two facts represent the unuttered agenda behind why they say they won't vote for her.
Only now, after Soldiers Field, she has added a new variable into the mix.
By her own words, she's our "Girl."
Why didn't she say, "If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your WOMAN!"
I think the feminists would like that term a lot better than "I'm your GIRL."
Isn't it this way at your institution? When I was still teaching, one of the strong messages from the administration was directed at establishing the rules and boundaries for promoting diversity, and protecting the rights of minorities such as those named in Title IV of the federal civil rights laws, age, sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation.
Among other things, that meant that male professors like me could not use sexist language in class. "Girl" is a particularly offensive term when used to address, or refer to, females.
A girl is a female of a certain age, somewhere below the age of puberty. A girl is not yet a woman.
To refer to a female above that age as a "girl" is considered a demeaning put down, and also even a harassing power move by males against females. To call a woman a "girl" is tantamount to using hate speech against her.
In academia, we are all feminists, or we are gone.
But of course, the world outside of academia does not run on politically correct rules.
The world of the ordinary voting public listens to pop music a lot more than they read feminist theory and feminist literature. In the popular world, we -- men and women alike -- all like "girls" of all ages.
If that were not so, I'm sure at least Obama and Edwards would not have let her comment slip through unchallenged. The outspoken Biden would have been all over Hillary's linguistic sexism like white on snow. But of course, running feminist arguments against sexist language and sexist attitudes won't get any positive traction in a presidential election campaign. Quite the opposite, since in the public at large, "feminist" and "feminism" are still F-words.
She's now their Girl, too, I suppose.
Hillary's use of the term "I'm your girl" looks to me like a new argument ploy to change her image.
If I am right, and a lot of people won't vote for her because she is aspiring to make history as a woman in a traditional man's club, do you think it might soften their attitudes towards her if she signals that she's not the kind of woman they think they hate so much?
I think her sub-text is, "Look, guys, I'm not such a bad woman." Only you can fill in a different term to refer to what people actually call her.
Among the seven candidates still in the field, from now on, it's very possible that she's no longer going to be the only "woman candidate." Perhaps she's going to be the "girl candidate." As in, "girl group" or "girlfriend." Or in, "You go, Girl!"
It remains to be seen whether that resonates with the voters. I'll be listening to future speeches and watching future media reports to see if Hillary continues to call herself "Our Girl." And importantly, to see whether it does anything to affect her image in running to be the next President of the United States.
This is my observation. To me, it's a different perspective on the topic for your consideration. It may not amount to a hill of beans in the long run. But keep your eyes and ears open. If you see and hear the word "Girl" in Hillary's language more and more as time passes, remember you read it here first.
David Thomas
