7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\>6FULSSV&ROOHJH@
2Q0D\
$FFHVVGHWDLOV$FFHVV'HWDLOV>VXEVFULSWLRQQXPEHU@
3XEOLVKHU5RXWOHGJH
,QIRUPD/WG5HJLVWHUHGLQ(QJODQGDQG:DOHV5HJLVWHUHG1XPEHU5HJLVWHUHGRIILFH0RUWLPHU+RXVH
0RUWLPHU6WUHHW/RQGRQ:7-+8.
:RPHQ
V6WXGLHV
3XEOLFDWLRQGHWDLOVLQFOXGLQJLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUDXWKRUVDQGVXEVFULSWLRQLQIRUPDWLRQ
KWWSZZZLQIRUPDZRUOGFRPVPSSWLWOHaFRQWHQW W
)LQGLQJ+HU9RLFH+LOODU\&OLQWRQ
V5KHWRULFLQWKH3UHVLGHQWLDO
&DPSDLJQ
0LFKHOOH%OLJKD-HQQLIHU0HUROODD-HDQ5HLWK6FKURHGHOD5DQGDOO*RQ]DOH]D
D
&ODUHPRQW*UDGXDWH8QLYHUVLW\&ODUHPRQW
2QOLQHSXEOLFDWLRQGDWH2FWREHU
7RFLWHWKLV$UWLFOH%OLJK0LFKHOOH0HUROOD-HQQLIHU6FKURHGHO-HDQ5HLWKDQG*RQ]DOH]5DQGDOO
)LQGLQJ+HU
9RLFH+LOODU\&OLQWRQ
V5KHWRULFLQWKH3UHVLGHQWLDO&DPSDLJQ
:RPHQ
V6WXGLHV٢
7ROLQNWRWKLV$UWLFOH'2,
85/KWWSG[GRLRUJ
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Women’s Studies, 39:823–850, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0049-7878 print / 1547-7045 online
DOI: 10.1080/00497878.2010.513316
FINDING HER VOICE: HILLARY CLINTON’S RHETORIC IN
THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
MICHELLE BLIGH, JENNIFER MEROLLA, JEAN REITH SCHROEDEL,
and RANDALL GONZALEZ
Claremont Graduate University, Claremont
“It’s not that voters and her opponents think Clinton is experienced
and competent, and they don’t like or trust her. It’s that they think she’s
experienced and competent and that’s why they don’t like or trust her.”
—Gerber, 2007
After her somewhat surprising third place finish in the 2008 Iowa
Democratic caucus,1 the following week’s New Hampshire primary
became an almost must win situation for Hillary Clinton. Rather
than coasting to a series of easy primary wins, polls were showing
Clinton in a dead heat or losing to Obama, with the momentum seemingly swinging toward the younger, less experienced first
term senator from Illinois. In the context of Obama’s double-digit
advantage in the polls leading up to the voting, Clinton entered
a diner in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where a middle-aged
woman asked a seemingly innocuous question: “How did you get
out the door every day? I mean, as a woman, I know how hard it is
to get out of the house and get ready?”
Clinton seemed to choke up before saying, “I just don’t want
to see us fall backward as a nation. I mean this is very personal for
me. Not just political. I see what’s happening. We have to reverse
it.” Her voice cracked and tears appeared to well up in her eyes, as
she went on, “Some people think elections are a game: who’s up or
who’s down. It’s about our country. It’s about our kid’s future. It’s
about all of us out there together.” She then moved on to points
from her stump speech before coming back to the personal side
1
Clinton garnered 29% of the votes in the Iowa caucus as opposed to 38% for Obama
and 30% for Edwards.
Address correspondence to Michelle Bligh, 123 East Eighth Avenue, Claremont, CA
91711. E-mail: michelle.bligh@cgu.edu
823
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
824
M. Bligh et al.
with, “This is one of the most important elections we’ll ever face.
So as tired as I am and as difficult as it is to keep up what I try to
do on the road, like occasionally exercise, trying to eat right—it’s
tough when the easiest thing is pizza.” In a barely audible voice,
Clinton concluded “I just believe . . . so strongly in who we are as a
nation. I’m going to do everything that I can to make my case and
then the voters get to decide” (Breslau). A couple days later, after
her 39–36 point victory over Obama in New Hampshire, Clinton
announced she had “found my own voice” that day in Portsmouth.
The meaning of Clinton’s tears, as well as the electoral significance of finding her “voice,” almost immediately became a
subject of media scrutiny; much of which was hostile. A Newsweek
web headline asked, “A Muskie moment, or a helpful glimpse of
the ‘real Hillary’?” (Breslau).2 Jon Meacham in another Newsweek
piece asked whether Clinton was trying to “humanize herself?”
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd scathingly recounted
that another reporter claimed, “That crying really seemed genuine. I’ll bet she spent hours thinking about it beforehand”
(Dowd). Washington Post blogger Mary Ann Akers attributed
Clinton’s success in finding her voice to her employing Michael
Sheehan, a voice and drama coach (Akers). Glenn Beck of CNN
Headline News asserted, “I don’t buy the tears. . . . Apparently
Hillary Clinton isn’t just running for president, but she’s also making a run for the best actress nomination.” Later in the broadcast,
Beck went on to state, “Hillary, we see what’s happening here.
You’re losing, and this is some sort of bizarre, last ditch strategy
to ingratiate you with women, maybe? Or make you seem less like
the Terminator? I mean, I’ve—I wouldn’t put it past you to have
your eye fall out and this little red light coming out of your eye
socket” (reprinted in Boehlert and Foser).
As academics rather than media pundits, our questions about
Clinton finding her “voice” are somewhat different than those
cited above. We are not particularly concerned with whether
Clinton’s show of emotion was genuine or not. We are, however,
interested in whether there really was a change in Clinton’s campaign message. In this study, we examine the following specific
2
The Muskie reference was to an incident in the 1972 presidential campaign when
Edward Muskie’s cheek got wet during an interview where attacks on his wife were raised.
Although people still debate whether it was real tears, the result of the event is indisputable.
Muskie’s campaign was destroyed and he was labeled as too emotional for the office of
president.
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
825
researchquestions:DidClintonreallyfindher“voice”inPortsmouth,
or was that simply a campaign or media story?3 And if there was an
identifiable shift in her message, what exactly did that entail? Given
the unique challenges facing the first female serious contender for
the White House, was the shift in a more stereotypically “masculine”
or “feminine” direction? And finally, did “finding her voice” involve
shifts toward a more charismatic, change-oriented style?
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
The Clinton Campaign as a Critical Case Study
Single case studies are an appropriate methodological choice
when the phenomenon being analyzed is new or previously inaccessible to researchers. The method is ideally suited to explain
the “how” or “why” something occurred (Yin). The Clinton presidential campaign is just such a case study situation because it
provides one of the first opportunities to study a politically viable
female candidate for president negotiating competing demands
to project a presidential image, while at the same time not violating gender norms. We propose to examine her response to
these competing demands by comparing the linguistic choices
of Clinton before and after she “found her voice.” The conventional story line is that Clinton projected “too strong” of an image
prior to Portsmouth, and thereby turned off both male and female
voters, albeit in different ways: the male voters found her to
be emasculating prior to Portsmouth, while women did not feel
like she connected with their lives and represented them.
Gender Stereotypes and the Office of the Presidency
There is a substantial literature on the influence of gender stereotypes on voters’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses
3
There is a substantial literature showing that the media covers female candidates
differently than male candidates (Carroll and Schreiber; Kahn Does Being Male Help; Kahn
Does Gender Make a Difference; Kahn Political Consequences of Being a Woman; Kahn and
Goldenberg), although more recent research indicates that the gender differences have
been declining (Bystrom, Robertson, and Banwart; Jalalzai). Countering this, however, is
research suggesting that the gender bias in media coverage is greatest with presidential
candidates (Aday and Devitt; Bystrom; Heldman, Carroll, and Olson).
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
826
M. Bligh et al.
of male and female candidates. These stereotypes fall into two
general classes: belief- and trait-based.4 With respect to belief
stereotypes, women are generally seen as more liberal than
they actually are (e.g., Koch Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes;
Matland and King; McDermott, but see Hayes), and as better
able to handle issues involving women, education, civil rights, and
poverty, but as less able to handle traditionally male duties such
as the military, foreign policy, and crime (e.g., Burrell; Huddy
and Terkildsen Gender Stereotypes and the Perceptions; Huddy and
Terkildsen Consequences of Gender Stereotypes; Lawless; Matland).5
When issues that advantage women have a high degree of salience
to voters, the gender stereotype can favor female candidates
(Dolan; Huddy and Terkildsen; Kahn Political Consequences of Being
a Woman; Paolino; Plutzer and Zipp), but the opposite can also
be true. With respect to trait stereotypes, women are generally
seen as more compassionate, trustworthy, willing to compromise,
and more empathetic, while men are viewed as stronger leaders,
and more assertive, active, and self-confident (e.g., Burrell; Huddy
and Terkildsen Gender Stereotypes and the Perceptions; Huddy and
Terkildsen Consequences of Gender Stereotypes; Matland and King).
It is commonly held that these stereotypes make it more difficult
for women to gain the higher levels of political office, as these
offices are generally associated with more “masculine” characteristics (Fox and Oxley; Huddy and Terkildsen Consequences of Gender
Stereotypes).
Research on leadership, primarily from social psychology,
provides insights into the interaction between socio-demographic
factors and trait-based stereotypes. There is a large literature
exploring how linguistic styles and choices of words can be used
to convey messages about an individual’s leadership style (e.g.,
Inch, Moore, and Murphy). Social psychologists also have found
that judgments about individual leaders are based in part upon
evaluations of their perceived warmth and competence (Fiske
4
Belief stereotypes refer to the ideology and issue competencies that individuals
ascribe to males and females, while trait stereotypes refer to the personal qualities and
characteristics that people infer about men and women (Huddy and Terkildsen Gender
Stereotypes and the Perceptions).
5
Male duties are also generally perceived as more important than female duties, and
this is more pronounced at higher levels of office (Rosenwasser and Dean; Rosenwasser
and Seale).
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
827
et al. (Dis)respecting Versus (Dis)liking ; Fiske et al. Model of (Often
Mixed) Stereotype Content; Judd et al.). But these judgments do not
occur in a vacuum; instead they are heavily influenced by sociodemographic factors, most notably biological sex (see Cutler).
For example, competence in male leaders is viewed as a positive trait, but competent women are often seen as cold, resulting in negative evaluations (Fiske et al. Model of (Often Mixed)
Stereotype Content). Moreover, other studies (Hogg Organizational
Orthodoxy and Corporate Autocrats; Hogg Uncertainty, Social Identity
and Ideology) have found that the desire for a prototypical male
leader is strongest during times of uncertainty and stress.6
Overall, the research suggests several important points about
Clinton finding her “voice” in New Hampshire. First, all of the
research indicates that the office of the president is intertwined
with notions of masculinity, and this is likely to pose significant
problems for any female presidential candidate. Second, findings in social psychology suggest that it is difficult for females
in leadership positions to garner positive evaluations on the two
dimensions (warmth and competence) identified as being essential to effective leaders. A linguistic style and choice of words that
conveys strength and competence in a male leader may result in a
female leader being labeled as “cold,” but a more caring/maternal
style may signal the female leader lacks the strength necessary to
handle crises.
Leadership in the Context of the 2008 Election
While there were clearly a multitude of salient leadership themes
in the 2008 election, and candidates evoke many different styles
of leadership to appeal to voters, charismatic leadership has been
shown to be a particularly appealing, powerful style that resonates
strongly with followers (Bass; Bligh, Kohles, and Pillai; Bryman;
Fiol, Harris, and House; House, Woycke, and Fodor; Merolla,
Ramos, and Zechmeister). Evaluations of a candidate as more
or less charismatic influences perceptions of leader effectiveness
6
Political scientist, Jennifer Lawless, also found that one year after the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks that respondents to a national public opinion survey had a strong
preference for male leaders in times of crisis.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
828
M. Bligh et al.
(see Bligh, Kohles, and Pillai), and are likely to have significant
influence in the voting booth. In addition, given the unique context and circumstances leading up to the recent election, a more
charismatic leadership style may have been particularly appealing to voters in 2008. According to Shamir and Howell, aspects
of charismatic, change-oriented leadership are particularly attractive in the following situations: (1) levels of low performance lead
to the desire for new leadership; (2) the potential for a new leader
to replace a somewhat non-charismatic leader; and (3) a relatively
“weak” situation (Mischel) characterized by ambiguity or crisis
(see also Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl Charisma Under Crisis; Madsen
and Snow; Merolla, Ramos, and Zechmeister).
By the time of the 2008 election, George W. Bush’s approval
ratings had “dipped to 20%, the lowest ever recorded for a president” (CBS News Poll). As Shamir and House point out, when
opportunities exist for a new leader to be elected or appointed,
expectations for change among followers are likely to increase, as
the new leader represents “opportunities to re-frame and change
existing interpretations, suggest new solutions to existing problems, and infuse a new spirit” (273). Therefore, we argue that the
2008 election had characteristics likely to enhance the appeal of
more charismatic, change-oriented styles of leadership.
Perhaps even more relevant for our purposes, charismatic
leadership uniquely straddles or transcends the double-bind of
gender stereotypes. In essence, prototypical charismatic leaders
appeal to followers on both stereotypically masculine (e.g., agentic, dominant, determined) and stereotypically feminine (e.g.,
emotional, caring, empathetic, other-oriented) levels. In our analyses, we explore the extent to which Clinton’s speech before and
after Portsmouth represents a shift toward more stereotypically
feminine aspects of charismatic leadership (i.e., empathetic similarity to followers, less tangible and more ambiguous speech)
versus more stereotypically masculine aspects (i.e., active, aggressive speech).
The Rhetoric of “Charisma”
Charismatic leadership was originally described by Max Weber as
a somewhat “magical” process involving a leader with “exceptional
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
829
powers or qualities” (Weber 358). Previous research has attempted
to “demystify” charismatic leadership style, focusing on the role of
a leader’s visionary rhetoric in understanding charismatic leadership (e.g., Emrich et al.; Seyranian and Bligh). Shamir, House, and
Arthur highlight the role of communication in their self-concept
based theory, which argues that the effects of charismatic leadership are largely due to a leader’s ability to increase the appeal of
collective goals by clearly linking core aspects of the leader’s vision
to core aspects of followers’ self-concepts.
While previous research has examined the content of visionary and change-oriented rhetoric in political contexts (e.g., Bligh
and Robinson), this research has not considered the role of gender stereotypes in the usage of visionary rhetoric. In the present
study, we examine whether or not the content of Hillary Clinton’s
speech changed along these dimensions as she found her “voice”
in the presidential campaign. We examined constructs regarding
the content of leadership rhetoric that have been theoretically
(see Shamir et al. 1993) and empirically (see Bligh, Kohles,
and Meindl Charisma Under Crisis) linked to engaging the collective identity of followers and enhancing charismatic attributions.
Three of the constructs are more stereotypically communal or
“feminine”: collective orientation, followers’ worth, and similarity
to followers, two are more stereotypically agentic or “masculine”:
action and adversity, and three are relatively gender neutral: values or moral justifications, temporal orientation, and tangibility.
A description of the eight constructs follows. In addition, the
content analysis dictionaries for each construct, along with a
brief description and sample words from each is located in the
appendix. Due to the fact that we are specifically interested in the
gendered aspects of each dictionary, we examine each construct
separately in order to allow a more nuanced picture of Clinton’s
rhetoric.
Stereotypically Feminine Aspects of Charisma
According to Thomas, “because women have traditionally been
associated with nurturant, less individualistic values, some people
assume that they will transform the political arena along ‘kinder,
gentler’ lines” (12). In order to examine the extent to which
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
830
M. Bligh et al.
Clinton’s rhetoric mirrored these gender stereotypes before and
after Portsmouth, we examined levels of collective focus, support
for followers, and similarity to followers in her speeches.
Collective focus. To build consensus and trust, prior research
suggests that inclusive language affirms and highlights followers’ social identity (Tajfel; see also Hogg, Hains, and Mason;
Shamir, House, and Arthur). People are more likely to be persuaded (Cialdini and Trost) and to trust (Fiske) similar others. Construing him or herself as a member of the audience’s
in-group enhances a leader’s ability to influence others (Reicher
and Hopkins), which can partially be accomplished by using high
levels of collective language (e.g., “we,” “us,” and “our”) (Fiol,
Harris, and House). Prior research also suggests that a collective,
inclusive style of leadership is associated with increasing numbers of women in the legislature, who invoke a more integrative,
collaborative, and consensual style than their male counterparts
(Dodson and Carroll; Kathlene; Rosenthal; Thomas). To examine
this construct in Clinton’s speeches, we examined Clinton’s references to collectives versus her use of self-referential terms (“I” and
“my”).
Follower’s worth. Charismatic and transformational leaders
have been argued to demonstrate confidence in their followers
and enhance their collective efficacy (House et al. 1991; Shamir,
Arthur, and House) in order to bolster confidence in followers’
abilities to achieve a better future under the new leader. Praising
followers is one means for leaders to both flatter and ingratiate
themselves to voters. We therefore examined the praise dictionary,
consisting of positive affirmations of a person, group, or abstract
entity, and the satisfaction dictionary, which incorporates terms
associated with positive affective states and moments of joy and
triumph.
Similarity to followers. By stressing similarity with the American
public, a political leader may gain followers’ trust and emphasize
his or her status as members of the in-group (Bligh, Kohles, and
Meindl Charisma Under Crisis; Fiol, Harris, and House; Shamir,
Arthur, and House). Stressing one’s similarity to her followers
may also help women leaders in particular to mitigate the potential backlash effect or social rejection of challenging traditional
gender roles (Rudman). To explore this aspect of speech, we
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
831
examined the use of language focused on familiarity and human
interest. These dictionaries include language used to ignore
individual differences and build a sense of completeness and
words that specifically focus on human beings and their activities.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Stereotypically Masculine Aspects of Charisma
We also examined two aspects of political rhetoric more traditionally associated with agentic leadership: action and adversity.
Action. A bold, purposeful vision and a sense of confidence in
attaining that vision are considered important elements of charismatic leadership (Conger). A number of studies have highlighted
the role of proactivity (Deluga) and strong action (Maranell and
Dodder) in predicting presidential success. Prior research suggests that successful political candidates must mobilize followers
into action (Fiol, Harris, and Robert House; Shamir, House, and
Arthur) and create a sense of excitement and adventure (Bass)
around their campaigns.
Additional research has highlighted the importance of masculine characteristics (e.g., analytic skills, agency) in communicating suitability for political office, suggesting “it may behoove
women to develop attributes traditionally considered ‘masculine’”
(Rosenwasser and Dean 83). Women in political leadership roles
tend to exhibit more stereotypically masculine characteristics,
such as high self-confidence, dominance, and high levels of
achievement (Constantini and Craik). To assess this construct,
we examined Clinton’s relative use of words in the aggression
and accomplishment dictionaries. These dictionaries reflect a
candidate’s use of words reflecting competition, action, and
triumph.
Adversity. Agentic and decisive leadership is also associated
with a leader’s ability to articulate why action is necessary and in
some cases inevitable. To assess this variable, we examined
Clinton’s references to blame and hardship, or language intended
to “describe or exaggerate the current situation as intolerable”
(Conger 36). Prior research highlights the ability of a changeoriented leader to articulate how dangerous the enemy is or how
unnecessary the suffering is in order to challenge the status quo
832
M. Bligh et al.
and motivate followers. In this manner, the leader attempts to generate support for his or her candidacy and vision to overcome
adversity (Fiol, Harris, and House). Thus, this construct includes
language reflecting social inappropriateness, evil, unfortunate
circumstances, and censurable behavior.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Gender Neutral Aspects of Charisma
Values and moral justifications. Shamir, Arthur, and House also
theorized that change-oriented leaders make more references
to values and moral justifications. According to Awamleh and
Gardner, leaders can enhance followers’ perceptions “by using
symbolic language that challenges and appeals to followers’
higher level values” (359). Including dictionaries for religious
terms and inspiration, we were able to identify speech that focuses
on the morality of the leader’s cause and draws on themes of values and morality in an attempt to incite followers to identify with
moral integrity of the leader’s vision of the future.
Temporal orientation. Shamir, Arthur, and House also suggest
that charismatic leaders will make repeated references to the continuity between past and present, in an attempt to highlight their
role in spearheading the short and long-term changes that they
hope to implement. However, in the context of a presidential election in which Clinton was attempting to signal a break with both
the Bush administration and the former controversial presidency
of her husband, we might expect to find lower levels of past and
present-oriented speech as Clinton developed her own voice and
vision for her presidency. To examine this aspect of rhetoric, we
examined the temporal awareness dictionary, which includes references to literal time (e.g., century, instant, mid-morning) as well
as metaphorical designations (e.g., nowadays).
Tangibility. Finally, a number of scholars have suggested that
charismatic and transformational leaders will make more references to intangible future goals and fewer references to concrete,
tangible outcomes (Shamir, Arthur, and House; Willner; Conger).
To test this notion, we examined the dictionary for tenacity, which
includes verbs connoting confidence and totality. Lower scores
represent a speaker’s preference for precise speech as opposed
to flowery or grandiose speech.
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
833
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Methodology
Our primary data set is comprised of the 87 speeches and interviews that Hillary Clinton gave during the course of her primary presidential campaign (dating from February 7, 2007 to
the Democratic National Convention in August, 2008). These
speeches were downloaded from the Clinton campaign website,
and are thus arguably representative of the primary content that
the campaign hoped to disseminate to the voters. It is important to note that these speeches do not represent the entirety
of the speeches and appearances that Clinton gave during the
campaign (See Appendix for the list of speeches). The data set
is almost evenly divided, with 41 of the speeches and interviews
given prior to the January 7th visit to the Portsmouth diner and
46 from January 7th onwards, so we have a relatively balanced
representation of her before and after she found her “voice.”
As a methodology, content analysis provides insights into
the word choices employed by candidates themselves in context,
making it a valuable tool for research into how candidates use language to appeal to broad groups of voters. One of the primary
rationales for using computerized content analysis is to probe a
text on a deeper and subtler level than the ordinary person can.
This approach assumes that the specific choice of words that a
candidate uses can be particularly illustrative of the leadership
themes that he or she hopes to convey and the issues that he
or she wishes to highlight. Linguistic styles provide insights into
a candidate’s approach to issues and leadership style. And given
the highly visible and politicized nature of presidential campaigns,
computerized content analysis has the additional advantage of
providing an impartial analysis, devoid of partisan and ideological
bias (Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl Charting the Language of Leadership;
Schuh and Miller).
There are, however, some additional benefits and limitations
inherent when using this approach. Content analysis is perfectly
objective and reliable, avoiding the inherent bias “which so often
results when something as volatile and emotional as politics is
examined by something as volatile and emotional as a human
being” (Hart Verbal Style and the Presidency 101). In addition, due
to its microscopic level of detail, the program is ideal for uncovering aspects of language that even the trained human ear may
834
M. Bligh et al.
not readily perceive (see Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl Charting the
Language of Leadership). Important limitations should be noted as
well. First, there is the assumption that higher frequency usages
of a word mean that a concept is more meaningful or important to the speaker than less frequently utilized words. Second,
it is important to note that words are divorced from their original
contexts (for a more thorough discussion of the content analysis
limitations, see Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl Charting the Language of
Leadership; Hart DICTION 5.0).
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Procedure
We chose Diction 5.0 (Hart DICTION 5.0) for our analyses, a
content analysis program specifically designed for political discourse. Diction has been used to study semantics in a variety
of social discourse arenas such as politics and communication
(Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl Charisma Under Crisis; Hart DICTION
5.0; Hart Redeveloping DICTION ). Because we wanted the measure
of Clinton’s speeches to be as impartial as possible, Diction was
an appropriate choice due to its explicit development for political
discourse and grounding in linguistic theory (see Hart Verbal Style
and the Presidency, Hart DICTION 5.0; Hart Redeveloping DICTION
for discussion of the development of Diction). To our knowledge,
Diction is the only program that has been specifically designed
for political dialogue, containing words “most frequently encountered in contemporary American public discourse” (Hart Verbal
Style and the Presidency 110). By default, Diction uses 33 dictionaries, containing over 10,000 search words, to analyze a passage.
All of the dictionaries contain individual words only, and statistical weighting procedures are utilized to deal with homographs.
In addition, Diction scores each 500-word passage of text, allowing
easy comparison across passages and candidates.
Results
The overall means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for
each of the constructs are listed in Table 1. Before analysis, the
variables were scanned for accuracy and examined for outliers.
835
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Collective Focus
Temporal Orientation
Followers’ Worth
Similarity to Followers
Values/Moral Just.
Tangibility
Action
Adversity
1
Note. N = 631. ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01.
Variables
.51
36.31
11.75
169.44
6.38
69.08
3.49
12.26
2
10.95
8.03
5.42
16.35
4.69
29.74
10.62
5.61
1
−.11∗∗
−.06
.03
.08∗
.32∗∗
.28∗∗
.14∗∗
2
.18∗∗
.14∗∗
−.03
−.09∗
−.01
−.07
3
4
.12∗∗
.21∗∗
−.13∗∗
.03
−.17∗∗
TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Hillary Clinton
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
.14∗
−.38∗∗
−.15∗∗
−.10∗
5
−.14∗∗
.05
.07
6
8
.23∗∗
.02 −.02
7
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
836
M. Bligh et al.
A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was
then conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in Clinton’s speech before and after January 7th. The
dependent variables included the fourteen pre-defined constructs, and the occurrence of the speech segment (pre- or post)
was the independent factor. The total number of words per
speech, which varied from less than 500 words to nearly 9,000
words, was included as a covariate. Overall, there were significant
differences pre– and post–January 7, 2008, Wilks’ # ⊂ = .66, F (14,
71) = 2.61, p < .01, |2 = .34. Thus, we can reject the assertion that
the content of Clinton’s speech was the same before and after the
New Hampshire primary.
Univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) tests were conducted on each of the dependent variables as follow-up tests to
the significant MANCOVA. An overview of the mean differences
on each of the constructs, along with the means and standard
errors, univariate F tests, partial eta squared, and observed power
is provided in Table 2. Turning first to the stereotypically feminine constructs, the univariate ANCOVA was significant for both
collective language and self-reference, highlighting that Clinton
scored significantly lower on collective focus after the event
in Portsmouth. These results suggest that in the latter stages
of the campaign, Clinton became less focused on the collective, using significantly more self-references (i.e., “I,” “my,” and
“myself”) than collective oriented language (e.g., “we,” “us,” and
“our”). For example, on the stump in December in Iowa, Clinton
remarked:
Who knows what we will invent if we get serious about energy and global
warming. Let’s unleash the innovative genius of America again. There
isn’t anything we can’t do if we put our minds to it. (December 17, 2007,
Johnston, Iowa)
In contrast, we see a shift to more self references after the New
Hampshire primary:
I have been to Africa and have seen how disease—HIV, AIDS, Tuberculosis,
Malaria—undermine progress across an entire continent. I pushed our
government to start battling the global AIDS epidemic because this affects
our security too. I’m very hopeful that we will make progress in Africa dealing with the multiplicity of challenges that the continent faces. (February
25, 2008, Washington, D.C.)
837
10.02
13.09
5.85
7.01
122.83
43.25
3.86
12.91
1.36
4.01
6.59
4.29
16.53
32.29
Collectives
Self reference
Praise
Satisfaction
Familiarity
Human interest
Aggression
Accomplishment
Blame
Hardship
Inspiration
Religious values
Temporal orientation
Tenacity
.58
1.03
.42
.60
2.23
2.65
.43
.71
.16
.32
.54
1.37
.72
1.32
SE
8.01
15.97
6.21
7.80
117.37
47.19
5.20
11.39
1.52
2.97
6.04
6.09
14.88
34.83
Post-2/7
mean
Note. Pre-2/7/08 N = 41, Post-2/7/08 N = 46. † p < .10, ∗ p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01.
Pre-2/7
mean
Charismatic construct
.55
.97
.39
.56
2.09
2.50
.41
.67
.15
.30
.51
1.29
.68
1.25
SE
TABLE 2 Mean Comparisons for Clinton Constructs Pre- and Post -“Voice”
Eta
squared
.07
.04
.01
.01
.03
.01
.05
.03
.01
.06
.01
.01
.03
.02
Univariate
F (1, 630)
6.51∗∗
3.88∗
2.54
.86
3.00†
1.10
4.79∗
2.32
.54
5.08∗
.51
.85
2.6
1.83
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
.71
.50
.09
.15
.40
.18
.58
.33
.11
.61
.11
.15
.36
.27
Observed
power
838
M. Bligh et al.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Overall then, it appears that the story promoted by the media
was not factually accurate. Clinton did not adopt more language
reflective of the “feminine” aspects of charisma, and was lower
on the collective focus dimension. If we turn to the stereotypically male constructs related to charisma, we find that Clinton’s
language became significantly more aggressive post January 7th,
with less focus on the dimension of adversity. Thus, she became
more inclined to use language reflecting energy and goal oriented
action. A fighting spirit was apparent post-Portsmouth:
Many times the national press and the pundits have said: “Butte’s a goner.”
But you said: “No, we aren’t.” And your progress today proves you were
right. I’m awfully happy to be among people who have the spunk, the
courage, and the determination to stay in the fight, to keep fighting for
a better tomorrow, to know that we’re going to bring that same spirit to
this campaign. (April 4, 2008, Butte, Montana)
The findings for the male constructs do not consistently support
the pundit claims that Clinton “softened” her image post–New
Hampshire, if by soften we mean used less masculine language.
While she did use more aggressive speech, she made significantly
fewer references to hardships in her campaign. Finally, on the gender neutral constructs, there were no significant differences in her
speeches pre– and post–New Hampshire on the tangibility and
temporality constructs.
A Rhetorical Comparison: Clinton and the Opposing Candidates
We collected a comparative sample of the primary male contenders in the 2008 presidential election, from January 2007
until the respective party conventions in August and September,
2008. Our final sample included Republicans John McCain (137
speeches) and Mitt Romney (25 speeches), as well as Democrat
Barack Obama (172 speeches). Republican Mike Huckabee was
excluded from analysis due to the small number of speeches
collected (N = 10).
To examine how Clinton’s speeches compared to her male
opponents, we performed a univariate ANOVA, with candidate as
the independent variable and the eight constructs as the dependent variables. We found significant differences for all of the
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
839
variables, with the exception of tangibility, suggesting that the
political candidates’ speeches differed significantly on seven of
the eight variables (see Table 3). We subsequently conduct posthoc follow-ups to the significant ANOVAs, utilizing the Bonferroni
correction procedure. Mean differences from Clinton for each of
the other candidates are listed by variable in Table 3.
With respect to the stereotypically feminine aspects of
charisma, Clinton’s speeches included significantly less language
focused on the collective relative to Obama, with a similar frequency of references as compared to the Republican primary
candidates. However, her speeches included significantly more
positive affirmation of followers relative to Obama and more
language indicating similarity to followers relative to McCain.
However, her language praising followers was significantly lower
than Romney’s. It seems then that there is a mixed bag with
respect to the feminine aspects of charisma across the candidates.
Since Clinton scored higher on some dimensions and lower on
others, she is not significantly more likely to use the stereotypically
feminine language than the opposing male candidates.
With respect to the stereotypically masculine constructs of
charisma, we find that Clinton is significantly lower on action
oriented language relative to McCain and on adversity language
relative to Obama and McCain. The picture that emerges for this
construct is thus more consistent, with Clinton being less inclined
to use the more agentic language than some of her male counterparts. Finally, on the gender neutral constructs, Clinton had a
higher use of temporal language relative to the two Republican
candidates, and a lower use of language reflecting morality and
values than all three male candidates.
Discussion and Conclusion
That Clinton was considered not only a serious contender, but the
front runner in the 2008 Democratic primary is a sign that bias
against female candidates may be waning. However, it certainly
does not mean that gender stereotypes have disappeared from
the American political landscape. The whole media frenzy over
Clinton getting choked up in New Hampshire prior to its primary
election is a testament to this statement. It is likely that trait- and
840
8.92
14.69
5.95
7.45
119.97
44.68
4.43
12.20
1.45
3.32
5.89
3.98
15.54
34.04
Collectives
Self reference
Praise
Satisfaction
Familiarity
Human interest
Aggression
Accomplishment
Blame
Hardship
Inspiration
Religious values
Temporal orientation
Tenacity
.53
.93
.48
.87
1.65
1.65
.38
.57
.15
.32
.41
1.25
.65
.96
SE
9.4
12.53
5.26
5.68
126.81
38.97
5.51
13.59
1.76
4.84
6.51
5.80
18.85
34.83
Obama
mean
.36
.64
.33
.60
1.14
1.14
.26
.39
.10
.22
.28
.86
.45
.66
SE
10.05
15.87
8.86
6.72
120.68
36.80
7.19
12.76
2.38
6.21
8.38
4.85
13.08
30.76
McCain
mean
.42
.73
.38
.69
1.30
1.31
.30
.45
.12
.26
.32
.99
.52
.76
SE
11.12
10.63
9.06
7.73
121.64
43.97
7.13
11.32
1.64
4.78
6.41
12.99
14.04
35.42
Romney
mean
Note. Clinton N = 87, Obama N = 172, McCain N = 137, Romney N = 25. † p < .10, p < .05, ∗∗ p < .01, ∗∗∗ p < .001.
Clinton
mean
Construct
TABLE 3 Mean Comparisons between Clinton and Her Opponents
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
.95
1.68
.88
1.57
2.99
2.99
.69
1.02
.27
.59
.74
2.27
1.18
1.73
SE
1.79
5.56
19.23∗∗∗
1.30
6.13∗∗∗
5.38∗∗∗
12.06∗∗∗
2.45†
9.12∗∗∗
15.92∗∗∗
9.43∗∗∗
4.40∗∗
25.08∗∗∗
6.19∗∗∗
F (3,416)
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
841
belief-based gender stereotypes about candidates will persist for
some time.
In this article we sought to explore whether or not the pundits’ claims that Clinton found her “voice” held any weight or
whether it was just plain media hype. The perception among
the media was that she became less “masculine” and showed her
“feminine” side after New Hampshire. To systematically examine
these claims, we analyzed Clinton’s campaign rhetoric before and
after that event. We conceived of voice as the particular leadership style expressed in Clinton’s speeches. More specifically, we
assessed the degree to which her language reflected the eight component parts of charismatic language. Although studies of trait
based stereotypes stop at the finding that men are advantaged
on the dimension of strong leadership, charismatic leadership
is multidimensional and the constructs associated with it have
some components that reflect stereotypically masculine traits, but
others that reflect feminine ones.
We did find some element of truth to the media claims.
Although we cannot assess if Clinton found her “voice,” we did
observe a statistically significant difference in her speeches across
five of the eight constructs that make up charismatic language
before and after the event. Clinton became less inclined to use
the masculine language surrounding action and more likely to
use two of the feminine constructs after New Hampshire. She was
more likely to use language related to similarity with and praise
of followers, but less likely to use the construct associated with a
collective sense of mission.
As a point of comparison, we also compared her speeches relative to Obama and two of the Republican primary contenders.
Here we found Clinton was significantly less inclined to use masculine constructs of action and adversity relative to her male
counterparts, but she was not necessarily more likely to use feminine constructs. She was higher than Obama on followers’ worth,
but lower than Romney, and higher on similarity to followers than
McCain. However, she was lower than all three on a collective
sense of mission.
Overall, we note that for all of the importance that the media
places on politicians’ leadership style, we have very little systematic analysis of the concept, its use and its effects. In addition, we
have little data on the role of competing gender and leadership
842
M. Bligh et al.
stereotypes in the candidacies of women at the highest levels of
political office. Our goal was to systematically analyze Clinton’s
“voice” in the 2008 campaign, and highlight different aspects of
leadership style that candidates may utilize to signal their potential
viability and likelihood of success in political campaigns. We hope
that future research will continue to explore the interaction of
leadership rhetoric, media coverage, and gender stereotypes in
both helping and hindering the ascension of women into the oval
office.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Works Cited
Aday, Sean, and James Devitt. “Style over Substance: Newspaper Coverage of
Elizabeth Dole’s Presidential Bid.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics
6.2 (2001): 61–73.
Akers, Mary Ann. “The Sleuth: A Clue to How Hillary Clinton Found Her Voice.”
The Washington Post 4 February 2008. <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/
sleuth/2008/02/a_clue_to_how_hillary_clinto.html> 12 March 2009.
Awamleh, Raed, and William L. Gardner. “Perceptions of Leader Charisma and
Effectiveness: The Effects of Vision Content, Delivery, and Organizational
Performance.” The Leadership Quarterly 10.3 (1999): 345–373.
Bass, Bernard. Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and
Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press, 1990.
Bligh, Michelle C., Jeffrey C. Kohles, and James R. Meindl. “Charisma Under
Crisis: Presidential Leadership, Rhetoric, and Media Responses Before and
After September 11th Terrorist Attacks.” Leadership Quarterly 15.2 (2004): 211–
239.
———. “Charting the Language of Leadership: A Methodological Investigation
of President Bush and the Crisis of 9/11.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89.3
(2004): 562–574.
Bligh, Michelle C., Jeffrey C. Kohles, and Rajnandini Pillai. “Crisis and Charisma
in the California Recall Election.” Leadership 1.3 (2005): 323–352.
Bligh, Michelle C., and Jill L. Robinson. “Was Gandhi “Charismatic”? Exploring
the Rhetorical Leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.” The Leadership Quarterly.
Forthcoming.
Boehlert, Eric, and Jamison Foser. “Media Figures Claimed Clinton’s Emotional
Moment in NH was ‘Pretend,’ not ‘Genuine.’” Media Matters for America,
9 January 2008. <http://mediamatters.org/items/200801090005> 12 March
2009.
Burrell, Barbara. A Woman’s Place in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the
Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: The U of Michigan P, 1994, 1996.
Breslau, Karen. “Hillary Tears Up: A Muskie Moment or a Helpful Glimpse of
‘the Real Hillary.’” Newsweek 7 January 2008. <Http://www.newsweek.com/
id/85609/output/print> 12 March 2009.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
843
Bryman, Alan. Charisma and Leadership in Organizations. London: Sage, 1992.
Bystrom, Diane G. “Advertising, Web Sites, and Media Coverage: Gender and
Communication Along the Campaign Trail.” Gender and Elections. Eds. Susan
J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. 239–262.
Bystrom, Diane G., Terry Robertson, and Mary Christine Banwart. “Framing the
Fight: An Analysis of Media Coverage of Female and Male Candidates in
Primary Races for Governor and Senate in 2000.” American Behavioral Scientist
44.12 (2001): 1999–2013.
Carroll, Susan J., and Ronnee Schreiber. “Media Coverage of Women in the 103rd
Congress.” Women, Media and Congress. Ed. Pippa Norris. Oxford: Oxford UP,
1997. 131–148.
CBS News Poll. “Poll: McCain Gains, But Obama Well Ahead.” CBS, 3 November
2008. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/03/opinion/polls/main
4566821.shtml> 3 April 2009.
Cialdini, Robert B., and Melanie R. Trost, “Social Influence: Social Norms,
Conformity and Compliance.” The Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th Ed., Vol.
2. Eds. Daniel Gilbert, Susan Fiske, and Gardner Lindsey. New York: Oxford
P, 1998. 151–192.
Conger, Jay A. “Inspiring Others: The Language of Leadership.” Academy of
Management Executive 5 (1991): 31–45.
Constantini, Edmond, and Kenneth H. Craik. “Women as Politicians: The Social
Background, Personality, and Political Careers of Female Party Leaders.”
Journal of Social Issues 28 (1972): 217–236.
Cutler, Frederick. “The Simplest Short-Cut of All: Voter-Candidate SocioDemographic Similarity and Electoral Choice.” Journal of Politics 64.2 (2002):
466–490.
Deluga, Ronald J. “American Presidential Proactivity, Charismatic Leadership,
and Rated Performance.” The Leadership Quarterly 9.3 (1998): 265–291.
Dodson, Deborah L., and Susan J. Carroll. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State
Legislatures. New Brunswick, NJ: The State University of New Jersey, 1991.
Dolan, Kathleen. “Voting for Women in the ‘Year of the Woman.”’ American
Journal of Political Science 42.2 (1998): 272–293.
Dowd, Maureen. “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” The
New York Times 9 January 2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/
opinion/08dowd.html?_r=l&pagewanted=print> 12 March 2009.
Emrich, Cynthia, H. H. Brower, J. M. Feldman, and H. Garland. “Images in
Words: Presidential Rhetoric, Charisma, and Greatness.” Administrative Science
Quarterly 46 (2001): 527–557.
Fiol, C. Marlena, Deanne Harris, and Robert House. “Charismatic Leadership:
Strategies for Effecting Social Change.” The Leadership Quarterly 10.3 (1999):
449–482.
Fiske, Susan T. “Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination.” The Handbook of
Social Psychology. 4th Ed., Vol. 2. Eds. Daniel Gilbert, Susan Fiske, and Gardner
Lindsey. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. 357–411.
Fiske, Susan T., Jun Xu, Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Peter Glick. “(Dis)respecting Versus
(Dis)liking: Status and Interdependence Predict Ambivalent Stereotypes
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
844
M. Bligh et al.
of Competence and Warmth.” Journal of Social Issues 55.3 (1999):
473–491.
———. “A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and
Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition.” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 82.6 (2002): 878–902.
Fox, R.L. and Z.M. Oxley. “Gender Stereotyping in State Executive Elections:
Candidate Selection and Success.” Journal of Politics, 65 (2003): 833–850.
Fridkin, Kim L., and Gina Serignese Woodall. “Different Portraits, Different
Leaders? Gender Differences in U.S. Senators’ Presentation of Self.” Women
and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future. 2nd Ed. Eds. Sue Thomas and Clyde
Wilcox. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005. 81–93.
Hart, Roderick P. Verbal Style and the Presidency: A Computer-Based Analysis. Orlando,
FL: Academic P, 1984.
———.
DICTION 5.0: The Text-Analysis Program. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Scolari/Sage Publications, 2000.
———. “Redeveloping DICTION: Theoretical Considerations” Theory, Method,
and Practice of Computer Content Analysis. Ed. M. West. New York: Ablex, 2001.
26–55.
Heldman, Caroline. “Cultural Barriers to a Female President in the United
States.” Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White
House. Eds. Lori Cox Han and Caroline Heldman. Boulder: Lynne Reinner
Publishers, 2007. 17–42.
Heldman, Caroline, Sue Carroll, and Stephanie Olson. “She Brought Only a
Skirt: Print Media Coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s Bid for the Presidential
Nomination.” Political Communication July–September (2005).
Hogg, Michael A. “Organizational Orthodoxy and Corporate Autocrats:
Some Nasty Consequences of Organizational Identification in Uncertain
Times.” Identity and the Modern Organization. Eds. Caroline A. Bartel,
Steven Blader, and Amy Wrzesniewski. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2005.
35–60.
———. “Uncertainty, Social Identity and Ideology.” Advances in Group Processes.
Vol. 22. Eds. Shane R. Thye and Edward J. Lawler. San Diego: Elsevier, 2005.
203–230.
Hogg, Michael A., Sarah C. Hains, and I. Mason. “Identification and Leadership
in Small Groups: Salience, Frame of Reference, and Leader Stereotypicality
Effects on Leader Evaluations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75
(1998): 1248–1263.
House, Robert J., James Woycke, and Eugene M. Fodor. “Charismatic
and Noncharismatic Leaders: Differences in Behavior and Effectiveness.”
Charismatic Leadership. Eds. Jay Conger and Robert Kanungo. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass, 1988. 98–121.
House, R.J., W.D. Spangler, and J. Woycke. “Personality and Charisma in the U.S.
Presidency: A Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administration
Science Quarterly, 36 (1991): 364–395.
Huddy, Leonie and Nayda Terkildsen. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perceptions
of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37.1
(1993): 119–147.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
845
———. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at
Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46.3 (1993):
503–525.
Inch, Gary S., Jo Ellen Moore, and Lisa D. Murphy. “Content Analysis in
Leadership Research: Examples, Procedures and Suggestions for Future Use.”
The Leadership Quarterly 8.1 (1997): 1–25.
Jalazai, Farida. “Women Candidates and the Media: 1992–2000 Elections.” Politics
& Policy 34.3 (2006): 606–633.
Judd, Charles M., Laurie James-Hawkins, Vincent Yzerbyt, and Yoshihisa
Kashima. “Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding
Relations between Judgments of Competence and Warmth.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 89.6 (2005): 899–913.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin. “Does Being Male Help: An Investigation of Gender and
Media Effects in U.S. Senate Races.” Journal of Politics 54.2 (1992): 497–517.
———. “Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of Sex
Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns.” American Journal of
Political Science 38.1 (1994): 162–195.
———. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman. New York: Columbia UP,
1996.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Edie Goldenberg. “Women Candidates in the News: An
Examination of Gender Differences in U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Public Opinion
Quarterly 55.2 (1991): 180–199.
Kathlene, Lyn. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The
Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American
Political Science Review 88 (1994): 560–576.
Koch, Jeffery. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’
Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62.2 (2000): 414–429.
Koch, Jeffery. “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens’ Impressions of House
Candidates’ Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 46.2
(2002): 453–462.
Lawless, Jennifer. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in
the Post September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57.3 (2004): 479–490.
Madsen, Deborah, and Peter G. Snow. The Charismatic Bond: Political Behavior in
Time of Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1991.
Maranell, Gary M., and Richard Dodder. “The Evaluation of Presidents: An
Extension of the Schlesinger Polls.” Journal of American History 57 (1970):
104–113.
Matland, Richard E. “Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test: An Experimental
Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of
Norwegian Voters.” British Journal of Political Science 24.2 (1994): 273–292.
Matland, Richard, and Gary King. “Women as Candidates in Congressional
Elections.” Women Transforming Congress. Ed. Cindy Rosenthal. 2003. Norman,
OK: U of Oklahoma P, 2002. 119–145.
McDermott, Monika. “Voting Cues in Low Information Elections: Candidate
Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States
Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 41.1 (1997): 270–283.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
846
M. Bligh et al.
McDonald, Forrest. The American Presidency: An Intellectual History. Lawrence: U of
Kansas P, 1994.
Meacham, Jon. “Letting Hillary Be Hillary.” Newsweek 21 January 2008.
<http://www.newsweek.com/id/9175/output/print> 12 March 2009.
Merolla, Jennifer L., Jennifer M. Ramos, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. “Crisis,
Charisma, and Consequences: Evidence from the 2004 U.S. Presidential
Election.” Journal of Politics 69.1 (2007): 30–42.
Mischel, Walter. “The Interaction of Person and Situation.” Personality at the
Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology. Eds. David Magnusson and
Norman S. Endler Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1977. 333–352.
Paolinio, Philip. “Group-Salient Issues and Group Representation: Support for
Women Candidates in the 1992 Election.” American Journal of Political Science
39 (1995): 294–313.
Petrocik, John R. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case
Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40.3 (1996): 825–850.
Plutzer, Eric, and John Zipp. “Identity Politics, Partisanship, and Voting for
Women Candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60/Spring (1996): 30–57.
Reicher, Stephen D., and Nicholas Hopkins. “Self-Category Constructions
in Political Rhetoric: An Analysis of Thatcher’s and Kinnock’s Speeches
Concerning the British Miners’ Strike (1984–85).” European Journal of Social
Psychology 26 (1996): 353–372.
Rosenthal, Cindy S. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures.
New York: Oxford UP, 1998.
Rosenwasser, Shirley M., and Jana Seale. “Attitudes toward a Hypothetical Male
or Female Presidential Candidate—A Research Note.” Political Psychology 9
(1988): 591–598.
Rosenwasser, Shirley M., and Norma G. Dean. “Gender Role and Political
Office.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 13 (1989): 77–85.
Rudman, Laurie A. “Self-Promotion as a Risk Factor for Women: The Costs
and Benefits of Counterstereotypical Impression Management.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 74.3 (1998): 629–645.
Schuh, Anna Marie, and Geralyn M. Miller. “Maybe Wilson was Right: Espoused
Values and their Relationship to Enacted Values.” International Journal of Public
Administration 29 (2006): 719–741.
Seyranian, Viviane, and Michelle C. Bligh. “Presidential Charismatic Leadership:
Exploring the Rhetoric of Social Change.” The Leadership Quarterly 19.1
(2008): 54–76.
Shamir, Boas, Michael B. Arthur, and Robert House. “The Rhetoric of
Charismatic Leadership: A Theoretical Extension, a Case Study, and
Implications for Research.” The Leadership Quarterly 5.1 (1994): 25–42.
Shamir, Boas, Robert House, and Michael B. Arthur. “The Motivational Effects of
Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory.” Organization Science 4
(1993): 577–594.
Shamir, Boas, and Jane M. Howell. “Organizational and Contextual Influences
on the Emergence and Effectiveness of Charismatic Leadership.” The
Leadership Quarterly 10.2 (1999): 257–283.
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
847
Tajfel, Henry. “Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior.” Social Science Information
13 (1974): 65–93.
Thomas, Susan. “Why Gender Matters: The Perceptions of Women
Officeholders.” Women and Politics 17.1 (1997): 27–53.
Weber, M. From Max Weber. (H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills, Trans). New York:
Oxford UP. 1946.
Willner, Ann R. The Spellbinders: Charismatic Political Leadership. New Haven, CT:
Yale U P, 1984.
Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Rev. Ed. Beverly Hills: Sage,
1989.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Appendix: Clinton Speeches
Date
01/27/07
01/28/07
02/10/07
02/10/07
02/11/07
02/17/07
02/19/07
03/11/07
03/11/07
03/14/07
03/17/07
03/19/07
03/26/07
03/27/07
03/30/07
04/02/07
04/02/07
04/02/07
04/03/07
04/13/07
04/16/07
04/20/07
04/20/07
04/21/07
04/25/07
04/27/07
04/27/07
05/05/07
Speech Location
Des Moines
Davenport
Concord
Berlin
Keene
Dover
Columbia
Nashua
Nashua
Washington
Houston
Charleston
Des Moines
Washington
Concord
Ft. Madison
Burlington
Elizabeth
Iowa City
Manchester
New Brunswick
New Brunswick
New York
Des Moines
Washington
San Diego
Washington
Baton Rouge
IA
IA
NH
NH
NH
NH
SC
NH
NH
DC
TX
SC
IA
DC
NH
IA
IA
NJ
IA
NH
NJ
NJ
NY
IA
DC
CA
DC
LA
848
M. Bligh et al.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Date
05/05/07
05/11/07
05/12/07
05/12/07
05/19/07
05/21/07
05/24/07
05/29/07
05/31/07
06/02/07
06/14/07
06/20/07
06/22/07
06/23/07
06/25/07
06/27/07
07/02/07
07/06/07
07/06/07
07/10/07
07/17/07
07/17/07
07/20/07
07/25/07
07/26/07
07/27/07
07/28/07
07/31/07
08/04/07
08/07/07
08/08/07
08/10/07
08/14/07
08/15/07
08/15/07
08/18/07
08/20/07
08/20/07
08/23/07
09/04/07
09/05/07
09/07/07
09/07/07
Speech Location
Wilberforce
Portsmouth
Columbus
Orangeburg
New Orleans
Miami Beach
Washington
Manchester
Sunnyvale
Cedar Rapids
Manchester
Washington
Los Angeles
Little Rock
Scottsdale
Washington
Philadelphia
New Orleans
Cleveland
Des Moines
Washington
Richmond
Des Moines
Albany
Columbia
Fairfax
Columbia
Storm Lake
Chicago
Derry
Rochester
San Francisco
Dubuque
Waukee
Waterloo
Cedar Rapids
Little Rock
Kansas City
Lebanon
Washington
Philadelphia
Boston
Atlantic City
OH
NH
OH
SC
LA
FL
DC
NH
CA
IA
NH
DC
CA
AR
AZ
DC
PA
LA
OH
IA
DC
VA
IA
NY
SC
VA
SC
IA
IL
NH
NH
CA
IA
IA
IA
IA
AR
MO
NH
DC
PA
MA
NJ
Finding Her Voice: Hillary Clinton’s Rhetoric
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Date
09/15/07
09/16/07
09/17/07
09/17/07
09/17/07
09/17/07
10/04/07
10/08/07
10/10/07
10/11/07
10/13/07
10/13/07
10/16/07
10/17/07
10/24/07
11/01/07
11/01/07
11/02/07
11/04/07
11/05/07
11/06/07
11/12/07
11/17/07
11/24/07
11/24/07
11/25/07
11/26/07
11/27/07
11/28/07
12/05/07
12/07/07
12/08/07
12/08/07
12/08/07
01/04/08
01/04/08
01/24/08
01/30/08
02/06/08
02/11/08
02/16/08
02/16/08
02/25/08
849
Speech Location
North Charleston
Indianola
Washington
Chicago
Des Moines
Des Moines
Washington
Cedar Rapids
Merrimack
Plymouth
Birmingham
Des Moines
Manchester
Washington
Ames
Wellesley
Durham
Manchester
West Burlington
Cedar Rapids
Newton
Denver
Las Vegas
Sioux City
Sac City
Perry
Concord
Aiken
Ankeny
New York
Des Moines
Winterset
Williamsburg
Washington
Milford
Milford
Greenville
Atlanta
Arlington
Charlottesville
Lubbock
Amarillo
Washington
SC
IA
DC
IL
IA
IA
DC
IA
NH
NH
AL
IA
NH
DC
IA
MA
NH
NH
IA
IA
IA
CO
NV
IA
IA
IA
NH
SC
IA
NY
IA
IA
IA
IA
NH
NH
SC
GA
VA
VA
TX
TX
DC
850
M. Bligh et al.
Downloaded By: [Scripps College] At: 17:21 25 May 2011
Date
02/28/08
03/02/08
03/06/08
03/07/08
03/17/08
03/19/08
03/20/08
03/24/08
03/27/08
03/29/08
04/01/08
04/04/08
04/04/08
04/06/08
04/08/08
04/10/08
04/11/08
04/11/08
04/14/08
04/16/08
05/02/08
05/09/08
05/10/08
06/04/08
Speech Location
Houston
Mayfield Heights
Canton
Media
Washington
Detroit
Terre Haute
Philadelphia
Raleigh
New Albany
Philadelphia
Grand Forks
Grand Forks
San Juan
Washington
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Washington
Raleigh
Louisville
Billings
Washington
TX
OH
MS
PA
DC
MI
IN
PA
NC
IN
PA
ND
ND
PR
DC
PA
PA
PA
PA
DC
NC
KY
MT
DC