How Dead Language -- and the Language of Death -- Spelled Doom For Hillary Clinton's Campaign

"Words matter," as Hillary Clinton so often reminded us; and like all campaigns, hers lived and died by the spoken word. Of the millions of dollars she poured into her own campaign, much of it no doubt went into paying speechwriters.

She has grounds to sue them for incompetence, and as a professional writer I'd testify on her behalf.

At countless points in her campaign -- but especially in those early, tone-setting days -- I winced at the dead words those speechwriters put in her mouth. And as someone for whom the English language is not only a source of constant delight but a daily livelihood, too, I'm convinced those verbal choices helped to doom her campaign. Let's start in the pivotal early debates, when both candidates were seeking to define themselves to America.

Obama's key word is: "Change!"

And Clinton fires back with: "Vetted!"

Wow! "Vetted?" She must've had access to top-level writers, and the catchiest word they came up with was "vetted?" And remember, she didn't just use "vetted" once--she made it a running motif in those crucial early debates. Though "Ready on Day One" and other Clinton phrases were also as dead as vaudeville, let's stick with "vetted" for a minute.

If some sinister, conniving, Obama-loving Professor of Rhetoric had purposely set out to sabotage Clinton's campaign from within, he could not in a million thesaurus-hours have come up with a more devastating stink-bomb of a word.

How bad, exactly, is the word "vetted"--and how exactly is it bad?

Let's count the ways.

1.) It's the dead, stone vocabulary of mid-level management. You might as well ask voters to get deliriously excited about reading a year-old inter-office memo concerning possible savings in the company beverage supply. This "stone vocabulary" problem was consistent throughout her campaign. But also:

2.) It's arcane. I'd venture to say that at least fifty percent of the electorate had, and still has, no real idea what the word "vetted" means, unless it involves bandaging a terrier's paw. Furthermore: they don't care what the hell it means. And why should they? Unless they've spent their entire lives in the Wonderfully Wonk-ish World of Washington, that is -- and, even so, see 1) above, as well as:

3.) It reeks of D.C. In those early days, when Obama was selling "change" on a grassroots level, trying to market Clinton around the word "vetted" was like promising More of the Same, only "adequate." As in: "If elected, I promise to be completely adequate!" It only underlined how deeply engrained in Washington-wonk culture Hillary Clinton was, and is. But that leads to the next problem, namely:

4. ) It wasn't even true. Though Hillary might be forgiven for thinking she'd been fully "vetted" after twenty years of often vicious attacks on her and Bill, in fact she'd received no more (or harder) scrutiny than any other of the candidates. So when outright lies, like the Bosnia one, and pretty-much-outright lies, like the NAFTA-support and Irish-peace-process ones, began to crop up here and there, suddenly we heard no more of that dreaded Vetting Thing--which, while an incredible relief to lovers of the English language, kicked the struts out yet again from underneath the Clinton campaign aircraft.

As for "Ready on Day One!": once again, wow, both for the spectacular badness of the phrase itself and for how out-of-touch it was. With America mired deep in the quicksand of George Bush's presidency, Obama's "Change" was active. Clinton's "Ready" was passive. Why Clinton's strategists didn't see that mistake in advance is hard to understand, though in the case of Mark Penn it might've been that he was distracted by his work on behalf of bloodstained mercenaries.

Which leads to my second point: it wasn't just dead language that doomed Hillary's campaign: it was the language of death, too -- most unforgettably when she threatened the "total obliteration" of Iran.

"Totally obliterate" is the language of flat-out psychosis, of Mussolinis, Saddams, and Cherokee-killers. During the Viet Nam war, when the drooling lunatic General Curtis LeMay threatened to "bomb Viet Nam back to the Stone Age," reasonable human beings of all political stripes recoiled in disgust; but at least his language was in synch with his disease. "Total obliteration" only multiplies the creepiness by striking a bureaucratic tone -- suggesting the well-thought-out, clinical extermination of an entire population. By any honest definition, "total obliteration" only means one thing -- and that thing is called "genocide."

Americans are loathe to elect people who openly threaten genocide. They prefer such things be kept a little more subtle. Clinton's threat reverberated like a doomsday bell around the world, if not with an American media obsessed with flag-pins and pastor-baiting. And if it was intended as a signal of her "testicular fortitude," it flopped on that level, too: dead children don't care about the gender of their killer.

On some deep level, despite media indifference, the American people soaked up Hillary Clinton's words all too well. So the language of death -- along with dead language -- helped to kill her campaign.

Maybe it's poetic justice.

Comments

[woodsywizz]

Without taking anything away from this post, nor decrying its inherent message...­.Gen LeMay DID NOT say "bomb them back to the Stone Age." Check this out. Gen. LeMay was a pre-WWII Airman who was not just a product of that generation, he was an exemplar of American strength in a world where we we WERE NOT YET the alternate superpower to European and Asian expansion. When American airpower was the sole bulwark against Soviet aggression, for a few years the only face of the American stance was its leader of the Strategic Air Command, against which the Soviets DID NOT overrun Central Europe. I do not now, nor have I ever supported genocide. Neither did the honorable Gen. Curtis LeMay.

[newshawk14]

I thought your article was dead on. One of my favorite essays has always been George Orwell's.
"Politics and the English Language".

[BADEN]

Nailed it!

She definitely lost any respect from this woman when she blatantly used the "BOMB IRAN" language.

As a woman, I cannot BELIEVE another woman and mother would even CONTEMPLATE such a despicable act for political gain.

[loax]

She lost because she had no vision other than her own self entilement to the presidency. The waning days of this campaign belie her own words of "Ready On Day One'. Her actions of attempting a scorch and burn and take no prisoner approach to wrestle this nomination is like a person who was not prepared for the final exam. Of course, the overt racism of Bill and Hillary ( Bill in South Carolina, and Hillary's "midlle income, White, Americans"), and their use of the gender card (remember Bill? All the men are picking on the "girl?"" )has lost them more support than they can imagine.

[DennyCrane]

The real problem with "vetted" and "ready on day one" is that both invite you to challenge those claims. When Hillary said she had been vetted, sooner or later someone was going to ask if she really had been and then go digging for more stuff to challenge her on. And they found it. Bosnia sniper fire, being opposed to NAFTA, etc.

[Camel54]

"Americans are loathe to elect..." shouldn't it be "Americans are loath to..." or "Americans loathe..."

Just giving the author a hard time. I really did enjoy the post. I particularly enjoyed the section about "Ready on Day One." It has always amazed me that so many college professors are Democrats and that we are called elitists and such and yet the Republicans have managed to control the narrative, the message, the what-ever-­you-want-t­o-call-it for so long. I think we often miss the point. While we're looking for the proper way to say something, they're using terrible grammar and terrible English to convince people to buy into terrible ideas. We lack a certain carnal quality in our message. I do hope Obama will be able to overcome that with his communication skills.

How about "In Command on Day One!" Too militant? "We can rebuild together." Too post-apocalyptic or $6M man? "Back on Track." or "Let's Put Things Right!"

[WorldGriot]

Add to this the campaign's attack on Obama when, early on, Bill Clinton compared his South Carolina win as a Jesse Jackson fluke and some said it was racist. Obama floated above the fray. But now when some women see sexism in every little gesture, Hilary wallows in the slime.

Leadership is about vision; vision is about story; story is about words. You are so right here; Hilary does not know her story. Barack Does!

Win, lose or draw, this man has done the impossible by making the highly skilled Clintons (who, lets not forget, defeated the highly mobilized "right wing conspiracy" with an impeachment hanging around their necks) seem like hacks and has-beens on the political stage. Anyone who can do that knows how to use words.

[Ariesjill]

I agree....b­ut even deeper, I see the real death speak being her increasingly OBLITERATED normal human center, core values & beliefs...­.and disingenuousness.

This choice of word, ostensibly re Iran, was hardly arbitrary. I think it spoke the rage which continues to mark her, OBLITERATES any residue of authenticity and speaks Hillary's ongoing, terifying crescendo of need to do away completely and via whatever means necessary. no matter how costly....­with all her "enemies".­...most of whom are phantoms in her head.

This. as I see it. works back to the denouement of Godfather Two....whe­rein paranoia OBLITERATES what there is left of Michael Corlene...­.and he is autopilot hell bent on killing Hyman Roth.

Voice of reason Tom Hagen ,asks him "Do you wanna wipe EVERYONE out?"
With icy calm, Michael replies, "Only my ENEMIES."

[57andfemale]

It was the Obama campaign's misfortune the Appalachia voted after the "obliterate Iran" comments -- and remember she repeated them several times. Everywhere else in the country, perceptions about her candidacy changed after that: Obama pulled within four points with women in Indiana. He started to do well with women nationally and did well in OR. Women recoiled in horror over that, trust me. She crossed a line. So when we see these diehard supporters, alleged feminists my age, who are excusing a foreign policy position like that, then there's something deeply delusional about her support.

Unfortunately, Appalachia blurred that. They either liked the statement or just weren't bothered by it. But it was an anathema to Democratic party ideals, as have been so many other statements she's made.

Yes, Hillary aspires to be "adequate" and can't understand why that isn't enough. She would be a disaster as a president, and certainly one-term.

[Lemeritus]

Sparkling analysis. Thank you.

[MissT]

You're right on the money with this observation. The one I like is the contrast between Clinton's "I'll fight for you" compared to Obama's "We are the ones we have been waiting for". To me Clinton represents the paternalism of the past. We, the politicians know what is best and a precursor to fascism. Obama's message is so much more inspirational and inclusive. We are in this together. He is the leader, but he does not have all the answers and he is depending on us to do our part.

[nycdave]

Agreed -- so many Clintonistas on here say that Obama supporters are being naieve in thinking that he'll wave some sort of magic wand and fix things, without understanding that we DON'T expect him to do that. We expect him to ask of us, and motivate Americans to do the hard work of America... unlike Hillary, who implies it's all about her. "Just vote for me, and I'LL take care of everything!"

[SBlackmun]

Splendid, John. It's great being able to read you so often. But I don't think anybody put words into Hillary Clinton's mouth. She "vetted" the words. She picked the speechwriters. She hired Mark Penn. Give her credit for making her own mistakes. Assume she's in charge of her own campaign, and hold her responsible for it. As a feminist, she would prefer that.

[nancytheragingliberal]

I second that splendid, John and I am happy you blog here often. Please keep writing.
The bogus, nasty people she hired, paid big $, and for what? Her decisions were inadequate and the people around her were Bush Administration clones. Her personality fluctuates to the point where one has no idea who she is or what she herself stands for. The people who gave and continue to give money to her are throwing good money, after bad. She spent herself into a hole, did not spend the money correctly, and just plain blew her fans' hard-earned dollars. I do not want her as VP. She will suck the life out of Obama. He will spend most of his time reprimanding her and/or Bill. I prefer Chuck Hagel or Jim Webb for the VP slot.

[Lisette]

Very interesting article!

[Bramptonian]

Mr. Eskow, I've become one of your most ardent fans. Your writing skill is brilliant.­...... and it's true. I'm finally beginning to believe in unpolluted journalism. This piece of literature should be encased in the museum of political journalistic writing. You were born to write and I'm glad you're telling it like it is.
God bless you.
Obama 08

[sky2blue]

And btw

vetted - 3. to appraise, verify, or check for accuracy, authenticity, validity, etc.: An expert vetted the manuscript before publication.

[sky2blue]

The best idea I've seen written by a blogger (I've seen it in comments a few times): Clinton should sue her campaign staff.

Not only does it give her supporters the right group of people to blame for her lost (Like black journalist are the ones who convinced her to cede 11 primaries in a row.), it may potentially take care of that campaign debt. Brilliant!

[jeg]

Contrast that with Sen. Obama's speech from Iowa in January... "... you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do."

That phrasing is superb. Not "we have done", or "I have", but "you"-- It encourages what one of his themes has been, which is investing us, the voters, in his campaign. When he wins, we win, and vice versa.

That one sentence convinced me that Sen. Clinton was in for a major fight for the nomination, as trivial as it seems. The rest of the speech floored me, as somehow I wound up being the only "early" Obama supporter on the planet who hadn't heard his speech at the 2004 convention. The contrast with Sen. Clinton's polished, stilted, Washington phraseology, is extreme.

"Words Matter", indeed.

[Openeyes]

I agree completely. Obama's message is basically, "let me lead, and we will get to someplace better together." Clinton's message is basically "I am something better." One is inclusive, the other exclusive. Any surprise as to which one is working? Obama's message is about being a leader, big on vision, not so big on process. Clinton's message is about being a manager, big on process (I'm experienced!) not so big on vision. Many can manage, few can lead. How many of you have worked for managers with no leadership ability at all? These times demand a leader.

[paragrafH]

Her "management" ran her campaign into the ground. Same kind of record as our CEO president.

[Suzie813]

That is what originally excited me about Obama. I think we need him desperately. With a leader pointing the way, historically the American people have always come through. If sacrifices were called for we made them. We have some hard times ahead and a terrible mess to clean up. We've been rudderless for so long.

[XME]

Very true...eve­n when in interviews, etc., he consistently used the word "we" when speaking of the campaign and race. Clinton is consistent with "I". That says it all in a nutshell.

[alexae]

It goes beyond "vetted." The whole thing has been tone-deaf.
-- It started with the slogans: -- like "America Needs Hillary" and "Help Make History." The implication was "Hey, I don't need a theme: My Self is enough," and that voters were drones whose job was to facilitate HRC. And instead of coming up with a theme, she launched a Scrooge-ish attack on "hope."
-- There was the lame campaign-song competition ... esp when they put "Suddenly I See" on the shortlist. (In a campaign context, its lyrics are just *weird*. Didn't anyone, uh, vet the thing?)
-- They didn't get that in 2008, you can't just make words go away: We can go right to the replay, and also can predict spin (much less ID it).
-- We got a timewarp revival of '70s feminist-speak, and HRC (who used to be sort of post-gender) emphasized gender ad nauseam. The pits: "I'm your girl!" - corny, *not* feminist, and not becoming to a mature high-office seeker.
-- HRCers bombed the Net with clonish/emotive posts, girl-crush stuff ("She is the brightest, smartest ..." ) and Obama-smears, w/scant apparent knowledge of politics, history, or HRC's platform. The tone was snarky-teen, not adult-voter.
Bill was right when he called the campaign political malpractice. From Day 1, it seemed run by clueless old guys, people using it as therapy, paid work-from-home posters, and kids who never voted before.