San Antonio College students' network for the 2008 election
Clinton- You Should "Tryforgetin"
Should a voter forgive a candidates multiple “mishaps” (for lack of a better word), and elect such a candidate to an office of almost unlimited power (i.e. President)? This is the very question the political ad “Tryphorgetin” is asking about Senator Hillary Clinton. The video takes the premise of morality using George Lakoff’s “Strict Father” model.
It’s not clear whether this is a republican or democratic video, but it does seem to be an anti-Hillary video. The video mocks Hillary Clinton supporters by basically saying, you’d have to forget about an entire political career, with all its mistakes, in order to support her. It brings up several situations in which Hillary seems to make the wrong decision. There are many situations discussed in this political ad, attacking something different about Hillary, and each conforming to one of Lakoff’s metaphors. These situations include: Hillary destroying the reputation of the women Bill sexually harassed, the missing files from Vince Fosters office, Chinagate, Madison Guarantee swindle, money for pardons, and finally Hillary standing by Bill after he raped a Juanita Broaddrick. Obviously a lot of the aforementioned situations of moral disregard should actually be placed on the shoulders of Bill. But being as both were “in the White House” at the time Bill was in office, the blame, in the eyes of the public, either equally lies on both of them, or the one that’s in the public’s eye at the time (i.e. Hillary now).
To give a better background for the ad, I’ll explain some of the situations that are mentioned in the ad. I will start with the accusation of the missing files from Vince Foster’s office. This refers to,
…whether a file relating to a failed Arkansas savings-and-loan owner and his investment firm was taken from the White House office of Vincent W. Foster Jr. after he committed suicide in July... (Johnston).
It was said Foster kept a file on James McDougal, the before mentioned savings-and-loan business owner. The news article goes on to basically cover that there is no proof such a file exists and the federal investigators involved will not release their source of information.
These files, if ever existing, would have been crucial (bringing us to our next situation) to the investigation of the Madison Guarantee swindle, also known as “Whitewater.” Whitewater,
…all started with a little real estate deal 20 years ago. In 1978, the-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, joined a partnership with James and Susan McDougal to buy 220 acres of riverfront land from the Whitewater Development Corp. (Froomkin).
The major accusations, which were investigated, were if the Clintons (and McDougals) embezzled money for themselves. They were charged with fraud and conspiracy. (Kind of makes you think twice whether to trust them with the national budget or not huh?)
Another major issue was Bill Clinton’s pardons during his last hours in office, which totaled one-hundred forty-one. Now one may ask how this is related to Hillary (since she is the one under question here). Well, “Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s younger brother and a Miami Lawyer, accepted nearly $400,000 from Braswell and the Vignali family to act on their behalf.” (‘Clinton Pardons’). Almon Glenn Braswell and Carlos Vignali were two of the one-hundred forty to be pardoned by Bill himself. This brings into question whether Hillary, being Rodham’s older sister, helped her brother by convincing Bill to pardon them. When this payment became public, however, Rodham returned the money at the insistence of the Clintons. Another notable name, which brings us back to Whitewater, is “McDougal, Susan H.” (United States).
As long as we’re on the subject of illegal funds, let’s talk about Chinagate. Some analysts believe a good sum of Bill Clinton’s campaign money was supplied by the representatives of the People’s Republic of China for future hope of future favors (we see this throughout Bill’s terms). Clinton’s favors towards china come as a surprise because, “[Bill] Clinton had criticized Bush [Sr.] for… giving China most-favored-nation trade status…” (Woodward).
If all these attacks on the Clintons’ politics are not substantial evidence to their unethical lives, maybe we should delve into their personal lives. No, I do not mean Monika Lewinsky. That scandal was too overplayed, and in my opinion, was just some girl who wanted sexual relations with the president and then to get paid (i.e. court suits). I speak of Juanita Broaddrick. If you have not heard of her, she accused Bill of rape and assault sometime in April, 1978. Once again we are seeing Hillary taking the fall for Bill right? Wrong. In a letter to Hillary, Juanita wrote,
…you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying ‘we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill’. At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight year. You said, ‘Everything you do for Bill’. You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering. (Broaddrick).
She believes this was in reference to her keeping her mouth shut about the rape.
Given that some of these situations were brought upon solely by her husband, it shows her inability to “keep the dog on a lease.” But the few that Hillary could have (and most likely was) part of; dictate Lakoff’s views of morality should be brought down on her. She was, by Lakoff’s ideals, morally weak in staying with her husband. “To remain good in the face of evil, one must be morally strong...” (Lakoff). She is not able “good” with her husband and therefore must be morally weak. By Lakoff’s perspective we would be electing a morally weak President. According again to Lakoff’s theories, “A morally weak person is likely to fall, to give in to evil, to perform immoral acts, and thus to become part of the forces of evil.” (Lakoff) Would you honestly want that? And other acts such as missing files from Vince Foster’s office, Chinagate, and the Madison Guarantee swindle, in which she would have taken part in, are all immoral. And for these actions she must, again according to Lakoff, pay for. She is in “moral debt” with all of America. So why not make her pay by simply not voting for her. This would be the simplest way in which to “get even” with the wrongs she has opposed upon the American people, which is what this ad is trying to convince you to do.
This ad, being biased, has obviously left out anything good that has come out of Hillary’s or the Clinton in general, political career. One such item is the budget. Under Bill Clinton our budget was in surplus, while during Bush’s administration we have had a deficit. This of course is not to say that any other candidate could not fix this but this is a sway towards another Clinton administration in order to fix the deficit. On the other side of things this ad has also not taken into account any of Hillary’s senatorial career. Completely disregarding any wrong (immoral) or right (moral) choices Hillary had made during this time. This ad may be merely dismissed. When the common Clinton supporter/Democrat is asked, after seeing the video and being briefed on the information included, whether this ad has changed his view, his response was, “No. It’s just political rhetoric. Nothing was proven to me.” (Anonymous). So in conclusion, a voter should not rely solely on this single ad (or any other ad singularly) to make his final decision. But this one does make us ponder.
Works Cited
Anonymous. Personal interview. 06 Apr. 2008.
Broaddrick, Juanita. "Do You Remember?" 15 Oct. 2000
"Clinton Pardons: Cast of Characters." BBC 22 Feb. 2001. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Froomkin, Dan. "Untangling Whitewater." Washington Post 2000. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Johnston, David. "Missing White House File is Sought." New York Times 19 Dec. 1993. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Lakoff, George. "Metaphor, Morality, and Politics." 1995. University of California At Berkley. 6 Apr. 2008 .
Tryphorgetin. Dir. Bruce Chapman. You Tube. 06 Mar. 2008
United States. Department of Justice. Pardon Grants January 2001. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Woodward, Bob, and Brian Duffy. "Chinese Embassy Role in Contributions Probed."
Washington Post 13 Feb. 1997. 03 Mar. 2008 .
It’s not clear whether this is a republican or democratic video, but it does seem to be an anti-Hillary video. The video mocks Hillary Clinton supporters by basically saying, you’d have to forget about an entire political career, with all its mistakes, in order to support her. It brings up several situations in which Hillary seems to make the wrong decision. There are many situations discussed in this political ad, attacking something different about Hillary, and each conforming to one of Lakoff’s metaphors. These situations include: Hillary destroying the reputation of the women Bill sexually harassed, the missing files from Vince Fosters office, Chinagate, Madison Guarantee swindle, money for pardons, and finally Hillary standing by Bill after he raped a Juanita Broaddrick. Obviously a lot of the aforementioned situations of moral disregard should actually be placed on the shoulders of Bill. But being as both were “in the White House” at the time Bill was in office, the blame, in the eyes of the public, either equally lies on both of them, or the one that’s in the public’s eye at the time (i.e. Hillary now).
To give a better background for the ad, I’ll explain some of the situations that are mentioned in the ad. I will start with the accusation of the missing files from Vince Foster’s office. This refers to,
…whether a file relating to a failed Arkansas savings-and-loan owner and his investment firm was taken from the White House office of Vincent W. Foster Jr. after he committed suicide in July... (Johnston).
It was said Foster kept a file on James McDougal, the before mentioned savings-and-loan business owner. The news article goes on to basically cover that there is no proof such a file exists and the federal investigators involved will not release their source of information.
These files, if ever existing, would have been crucial (bringing us to our next situation) to the investigation of the Madison Guarantee swindle, also known as “Whitewater.” Whitewater,
…all started with a little real estate deal 20 years ago. In 1978, the-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, joined a partnership with James and Susan McDougal to buy 220 acres of riverfront land from the Whitewater Development Corp. (Froomkin).
The major accusations, which were investigated, were if the Clintons (and McDougals) embezzled money for themselves. They were charged with fraud and conspiracy. (Kind of makes you think twice whether to trust them with the national budget or not huh?)
Another major issue was Bill Clinton’s pardons during his last hours in office, which totaled one-hundred forty-one. Now one may ask how this is related to Hillary (since she is the one under question here). Well, “Hugh Rodham, Hillary Clinton’s younger brother and a Miami Lawyer, accepted nearly $400,000 from Braswell and the Vignali family to act on their behalf.” (‘Clinton Pardons’). Almon Glenn Braswell and Carlos Vignali were two of the one-hundred forty to be pardoned by Bill himself. This brings into question whether Hillary, being Rodham’s older sister, helped her brother by convincing Bill to pardon them. When this payment became public, however, Rodham returned the money at the insistence of the Clintons. Another notable name, which brings us back to Whitewater, is “McDougal, Susan H.” (United States).
As long as we’re on the subject of illegal funds, let’s talk about Chinagate. Some analysts believe a good sum of Bill Clinton’s campaign money was supplied by the representatives of the People’s Republic of China for future hope of future favors (we see this throughout Bill’s terms). Clinton’s favors towards china come as a surprise because, “[Bill] Clinton had criticized Bush [Sr.] for… giving China most-favored-nation trade status…” (Woodward).
If all these attacks on the Clintons’ politics are not substantial evidence to their unethical lives, maybe we should delve into their personal lives. No, I do not mean Monika Lewinsky. That scandal was too overplayed, and in my opinion, was just some girl who wanted sexual relations with the president and then to get paid (i.e. court suits). I speak of Juanita Broaddrick. If you have not heard of her, she accused Bill of rape and assault sometime in April, 1978. Once again we are seeing Hillary taking the fall for Bill right? Wrong. In a letter to Hillary, Juanita wrote,
…you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying ‘we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill’. At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight year. You said, ‘Everything you do for Bill’. You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering. (Broaddrick).
She believes this was in reference to her keeping her mouth shut about the rape.
Given that some of these situations were brought upon solely by her husband, it shows her inability to “keep the dog on a lease.” But the few that Hillary could have (and most likely was) part of; dictate Lakoff’s views of morality should be brought down on her. She was, by Lakoff’s ideals, morally weak in staying with her husband. “To remain good in the face of evil, one must be morally strong...” (Lakoff). She is not able “good” with her husband and therefore must be morally weak. By Lakoff’s perspective we would be electing a morally weak President. According again to Lakoff’s theories, “A morally weak person is likely to fall, to give in to evil, to perform immoral acts, and thus to become part of the forces of evil.” (Lakoff) Would you honestly want that? And other acts such as missing files from Vince Foster’s office, Chinagate, and the Madison Guarantee swindle, in which she would have taken part in, are all immoral. And for these actions she must, again according to Lakoff, pay for. She is in “moral debt” with all of America. So why not make her pay by simply not voting for her. This would be the simplest way in which to “get even” with the wrongs she has opposed upon the American people, which is what this ad is trying to convince you to do.
This ad, being biased, has obviously left out anything good that has come out of Hillary’s or the Clinton in general, political career. One such item is the budget. Under Bill Clinton our budget was in surplus, while during Bush’s administration we have had a deficit. This of course is not to say that any other candidate could not fix this but this is a sway towards another Clinton administration in order to fix the deficit. On the other side of things this ad has also not taken into account any of Hillary’s senatorial career. Completely disregarding any wrong (immoral) or right (moral) choices Hillary had made during this time. This ad may be merely dismissed. When the common Clinton supporter/Democrat is asked, after seeing the video and being briefed on the information included, whether this ad has changed his view, his response was, “No. It’s just political rhetoric. Nothing was proven to me.” (Anonymous). So in conclusion, a voter should not rely solely on this single ad (or any other ad singularly) to make his final decision. But this one does make us ponder.
Works Cited
Anonymous. Personal interview. 06 Apr. 2008.
Broaddrick, Juanita. "Do You Remember?" 15 Oct. 2000
"Clinton Pardons: Cast of Characters." BBC 22 Feb. 2001. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Froomkin, Dan. "Untangling Whitewater." Washington Post 2000. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Johnston, David. "Missing White House File is Sought." New York Times 19 Dec. 1993. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Lakoff, George. "Metaphor, Morality, and Politics." 1995. University of California At Berkley. 6 Apr. 2008 .
Tryphorgetin. Dir. Bruce Chapman. You Tube. 06 Mar. 2008
United States. Department of Justice. Pardon Grants January 2001. 26 Mar. 2008 .
Woodward, Bob, and Brian Duffy. "Chinese Embassy Role in Contributions Probed."
Washington Post 13 Feb. 1997. 03 Mar. 2008 .
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hilary Franceschini on -
I thought this was really interesting because most of the examples that were discussed, I knew nothing about. I also thought it was interesting how you used examples of morality in Lakoff’s Strict Father model instead of using behavioral or family metaphors. I did not get to see the video, but gathering from what you mentioned, I think it was a good wake-up call to make people think about the things Hillary has done in the past in the national spotlight, instead of just listening to what she says that she’s done (apparently she can’t remember if she got barraged by bullets or not on her trip to the Middle East). But, as you say in the end, we must see the video as what it is: biased- whether it is right or wrong, inclusive or exclusive of important information. We just need to see the information presented as just that- information.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt on -
Yeah, a lot of the topics discussed were simply Bill's fault and had nothing to do with Hillary directly so we can't exactly hold that against her. But I had just recently heard about the controversy about Hillary landing in the Middle East and being barraged by bullets... but not really. I'm and avid fan of "Real Time" with Bill Mahr. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Mila on -
Matt, you did a great job with describing your video. I think this is a different type of video and i am sure you did some research in order to use the conceptual metaphors. I liked your unique insight about all these negative issues and the past of Hillary Clinton. She claims about her long years of experience being a plus factor in this campaign, but what kind of an experience? I guess reading your paper, the voter will think before giving his/her voice for her. You did a good job in the limits section, because she does have a number of achivements throughout her political and the "first lady" career.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt on
-
I always laugh when a politician uses "past experience" as credit for them. It never really is because there are so few of them who aren't corrupt, "past experiene" is usually involved with some scandal. But of course not every politician is fully corrupt. As I said before, and you agreed with me, Hillary did have some rather good achievments during her political career.
-
Permalink Reply by Zaira on
-
I love the way you went into details to describe your video. The first time I watched this video I knew about little of these horrible events that went on in Hillary's past, so your essay made me want to do some further reading into all of these things that Clinton decided to look over, to make herself look like an understanding wife willing to forgive her husbands ever mistake. It's amazing how a comedy video can get more viewers than the actuals debate, but in most cases; since they are to crush one of the candidates. The give a lot of unknow facts and inform the reader of many things that we were unaware of. All of this leading into the conlusion that Clinton is not as prepared to deal with big things as she thinks she is. Great job on your paper!
-
Permalink Reply by Teresa Sorola on -
The video you chose was quite different than the other videos. I understand that a lot of the video is basically bashing Hilary Clinton for actions she chose during her husbands presidency. That does show an insight to her character. I admittedly was a bit skeptical of the allegations and decided to check one of the sources, just to get some more of the story. I think that what Hilary Franceschini said was right. We do need to hear about this. I does deserve to be presented to the public and then it is up to the public to make up their minds. Very interesting. The Broaddrick letter was heavy reading. I feel so bad for that lady. Good job on the paper.
-
Permalink Reply by Matt on
-
See I was also skeptical when it came to the Broaddrick letter. If more time in my day was provided I would have researched it more. See if it ever went to court or just another woman trying to get money (there are alot of them). But yes if it is true it is very sad and that alone should let us see hillary's character to know she is not fit to be a moral leader. Of course there is nothing proven here so we must each make our own decissions on election day.
About
Badge
© 2010 Created by Lennie Irvin on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
