Writing Analysis
Connotation vs Denotation
“When I use a word, it means just
what I choose it to mean – neither more
nor less.”
(Humpty Dumpty)
Corey Cameron
27 April 2007
Some Definitions
according to Merriam-Webster:
DENOTATION:
1 : an act or process of denoting
2 : MEANING; especially : a direct specific meaning as distinct from an
implied or associated idea
3 a : a denoting term : NAME b : SIGN, INDICATION <visible denotations of
divine wrath>
4 : the totality of things to which a term is applicable especially in logic
CONNOTATION:
1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly
names or describes b : something suggested by a word or thing :
IMPLICATION <the connotations of comfort that surrounded that old chair>
2 : the signification of something <that abuse of logic which consists in
moving counters about as if they were known entities with a fixed
connotation -- W. R. Inge>
3 : an essential property or group of properties of a thing named by a term
in logic
Since I didn’t like Merriam-Webster’s…
DENOTATION:
CONNOTATION:
“the referential relationship
between the sign itself and the
reality it points to” (Shead)
Ex:
“the associations and values
attached to the word, which can
be personal and/or public” (Shead)
ORANGE
or
the fruit
the color
“the definitional, ‘literal’, ‘obvious’
or ‘commonsense’ meaning of a
sign” (Chandler)
favorite fruit
political
“the socio-cultural and ‘personal’
associations of the sign [related to
interpreter]” (Chandler)
Chandler on SIGNS:
-a 'signifier' is the form which the sign takes; and
the 'signified‘ is the concept it represents.
Connotation would be the second order
of signification: uses the denotative
signifier as its sign and attaches an
additional signified
Denotation would be the first order of
signification: a sign consisting of a
signifier and a signified
’You should say what you mean,’ the March Hare went
on.
‘I do,’ Alice hastily replied; ‘at least – at least, I mean
what I say – that’s the same thing, you know.’
‘Not the same thing a bit!’ said the Hatter.
The “meanings” (whether we mean dictionary
definitions or our intentions when speaking certain
words) of many words have changed throughout time.
Semantic change is important when examining writing:
often times dictionaries are out of date, they have not
quite caught up to current usage of a word (as we saw
in Melissa and Katie’s presentation). While current
uses of a word may not influence the dictionary
definition (exception: OED) it has a great influence on
the connotation of words in today’s society.
Osgood’s “Semantic Differential”
--measured the dimension of meaning we call CONNOTATION
-- concerned with semantics
--plotted differences between individuals’ connotations for words
“Subjects were given a word, for example 'car'
and presented with a variety of adjectives to
describe it. The adjectives were presented at
either end of a seven-point scale, ranging from,
say, 'good' to 'bad' or from 'fast' to 'slow'. In this
way, he was able to draw up a 'map' of people's
connotations for a given word.”
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/semdif.html
Osgood’s “Semantic Differential” continued…
Osgood’s map of people’s
connotations for the word
‘polite’ showing 10 scales
used by Osgood. The map
shows the average
responses of 2 groups of 20
subjects.
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/semdif.html
My assignment was to analyze a
“popular piece of writing”…does
a Tim McGraw song count??
When someone calls you a ‘ho’ you
don’t expect to see a gardening tool the
next time you look in the mirror…
“Back When”
Chorus:
Back when a hoe was a hoe
Coke was a coke
And crack's what you were doing
When you were cracking jokes
Back when a screw was a screw
The wind was all that blew
And when you said I'm down with that
Well it meant you had the flu
I miss back when
I miss back when
I miss back when
…
I'm readin' Street Slang For Dummies
Cause they put pop in my country
I want more for my money
The way it was back then
I, just like Tim, once thought coke was
something that you drank, either in the
red can or the silver can that indicated
the diet variety…
I buy screws at the hardware store but I
guess they can be purchased other
places these days…
Sunday, May. 08, 2005
Hillary in 2008? No Way!
By Joe Klein
I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing
impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know
too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and solid; she
inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—
her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the left-wing
harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels.
It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember
several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger,
the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we could
use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties.
Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.
Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose
creative compromises.
But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary
has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large
audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her
emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far,
Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.
And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really
want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former
President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in
his?
"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes
and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even
the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get
one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist
resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes
trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)
“She is smart and solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her.
She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters
difficult
issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of
I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing
impatient.
"Enoughon
of this,"
said. "What about
Hillary?" Welcome
to my life. In airports, on
checkout
the doctor's
office: "What
about
Hillary?"
both
parties
thehe Armed
Services
Committee—and
she
is lines,
not ateven
vaguely
the
left(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know
wing
portrayed
byShethe
right.”
too,
right?harridan
So here it is. I like
Senator Clinton.
has aPrecambrian
wicked, ironic sense of humor
(in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and solid; she
inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—
her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the left-wing
harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels.
It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember
several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger,
the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we could
use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties.
Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.
MW: of, relating to, or being the earliest era of geological
Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose
creative
history
or compromises.
the corresponding system of rocks that is
But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary
characterized
by real
thepolitical
appearance
ofhas
singlehas become one of the very few people who know what to do about
health care." Still,especially
she has some very
limitations. She
a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks
informality;
she
isn't
a
particularly
warm
or
eloquent
speaker,
especially
in front of large
celled organisms and is equivalent to the Archean and
audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her
Proterozoic
-- seepolitician
GEOLOGIC
TIMEfeminine
tablepresidential style. So far,
emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public
sogginess. It willeons
take a brilliant
to create a credible
Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.
And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
OED:Prominent
A. adj.Democrats—friends
Of, relating to,
orClintons—were
designating
thetheir
earliest
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk.
of the
wringing
hands. "Do we really
want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should
the
sins
of
the
husband
be
visited
upon
the
wife?
Absent
any
evidence,
the former
division of geological time, from the formation of the earth,
President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
believed
to have
been
about
4,600
ago,than
to she had in
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man
with such a huge
personality
would
have a less
activemillion
role in heryears
Administration
his?
the beginning of the Cambrian period and the Phanerozoic
"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes
and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even
eon, about 542 million years ago B. n. With the. The
the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get
one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional
eight years.
What's more,
I suspect theretime;
would be
innate
and appropriate
Precambrian
division
of geological
the
system
of populist
resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes
rocks
dating
from
trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of
retainers,
supporters
and this
enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)
Precambrian-
>>What do you think of? (“So easy a caveman can do it”)
“I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many
levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested
public life in the 1990s.”
I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing
impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know
too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and solid; she
inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—
her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the left-wing
harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels.
It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember
several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger,
the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we could
use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties.
Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.
Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose
creative compromises.
But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary
has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large
audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her
emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far,
Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.
And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really
want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former
President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in
his?
"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes
and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even
the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get
one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist
resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes
trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)
Circus-
MW:1 a : a large arena enclosed by tiers of seats on
three or all four sides and used especially for sports
or spectacles (as athletic contests, exhibitions of
horsemanship, or in ancient times chariot racing) b :
a public spectacle
OED: 1. a. Roman Antiq. A large building, generally
oblong or oval, surrounded with rising tiers of seats,
for the exhibition of public spectacles, horse or
chariot races, and the like. c. A disturbance or
uproar; a lively or noisy display. colloq. (orig. U.S.)
“But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domesticpolicy overreach.”
Hawk-
I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing
impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know
too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked,
sense
humor (in private)
and a great
raucous
laugh.
She is smart to
andasolid; she
MW:1ironic
: any
ofof numerous
diurnal
birds
ofbelly
prey
belonging
inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—
suborder
of the
order
Falconiformes)
including
all
her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues
of both(Falcones
parties on the Armed
Services
Committee—and
she is notand
even vaguely
the left-wing
harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels.
the smaller members of this group; especially : ACCIPITER
It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the2New
Observer
last week,
these sites
aren't getting
much
traffic—yet.
will. I remember
: aYork
small
board
or metal
sheet
with a
handle
onBut
thetheyunderside
several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger,
hold
mortar
the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience used
would beto
a walk
in the
park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the3right,
the last
thingtakes
we needais militant
a campaign attitude
that would polarize
the nation even more.
Indeed, we could
: one
who
and advocates
immediate
use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties.
: a supporter
of a than
waralmost
or warlike
policy -Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate.vigorous
And it is true action;
that Clintonespecially
has far more leeway
to run as a moderate
any other Democrat.
Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she
will have to
do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose
compare
DOVE
creative compromises.
But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary
has become one of the very few people who know what to do
about health
she hasbird
some of
veryprey
real political
She has any
a clenched,
public
OED:1.
a. care."
Any Still,
diurnal
usedlimitations.
in falconry;
birdwary
of the
presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large
family conundrum:
Falconidæ.
Inconstantly
Nat. Hist.,
to a
bird
of the
subfamily
audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness
she will
have to restricted
prove her strength
and
be careful
about
showing her
emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far,
Accipitrinæ, with rounded and comparatively short wings, which
Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.
And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid.
A few its
weeks
ago, near
the Newthe
York ground;
Post ran a photo
of Bill Clinton leaving
a local
restaurantor
with
an
chases
prey
distinguished
from
a falcon
bird
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really
ofknow—should
the subfamily
has
pointed
wingstheand
lofty
want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't
the sins Falconinæ,
of the husband be which
visited upon
the long
wife? Absent
any evidence,
former
President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty.
But
there
is
another
problem:
What
role
would
the
big
guy
play
in
a
Hillary
Clinton
Administration?
flight 3. fig. Applied to a person, in various senses derived from the
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in
nature of the his?
bird of prey: e.g. one who preys on others, a
"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?"
a
Hillary
supporter
yelled
at me. "That
the mostone
incredibly
sexist
I'veand
ever heard." Yes
rapacious person, a
sharper
or ischeat;
who
is thing
keen
and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even
officer
of the
law
whododgy.
pounces
on line
criminals
(as
the Democratic base—would give her a very close look andgrasping;
conclude that an
a Hillary
presidency
would
be slightly
The Clinton
in 1992 was,
Buyin
one, get
one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full,
constitutional
eight
years.
What's
more,
I
suspect
there
would
be
innate
and
appropriate
populist
vagabonds' phrase, ware the hawk: see WARE). Also in Politics, a
resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes
person
whosupporters
advocates
a hard-line
policy,
opp.
to isaadove
trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps
of retainers,
and enemies.
Bill Clinton or
waswarlike
a good President.
Hillary
Clinton
good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)
(cf. DOVE n. 2f). Also attrib. or as quasi-adj.
“She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public
sogginess.”
I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing
impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know
too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and solid; she
inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—
her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the left-wing
harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels.
It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember
several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger,
the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we could
use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties.
Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat.
Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose
creative compromises.
But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary
has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large
audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her
emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far,
Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.
And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really
want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former
President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in
his?
"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes
and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even
the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get
one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist
resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes
trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)
Soggy-
MW: 1 : saturated or heavy with water or
moisture: as a : WATERLOGGED,
SOAKED <a soggy lawn> b : heavy or
doughy because of imperfect cooking
<soggy bread>
2 : heavily dull : SPIRITLESS <soggy
prose>
OED:1. Of land: Soaked with water or
moisture; boggy, swampy, marshy. 2. a.
Saturated with wet; soppy, soaked. b.
Resulting from, caused by, moistness or
wetness. 3. Of bread: Sodden, heavy. 4.
a. Of persons: Dull, spiritless.
Sources:
• Chandler, Daniel. “Semiotics for Beginners.”
(http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem06.html.)
• “Semantic Differential.”
(http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/sem
dif.html)
• Klein, Joe. “Hillary in 2008? No Way!” Time. 5/8/2005.
(http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1059000,00
.html)
• Oxford English Dictionary Online. (BC Libraries)
• Merriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/)
• “Osgood and Semantic Differential.”
(http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/spring_02/adv382J/kc
w2287/Measurement%20Theory/semantic.html)
• Shead, Jackie. “The meaning of meaning: Jackie Shead considers
the public and personal domains of meaning.” The English Review.
16.4, p.13.