Rhetorical Analysis Of President Bill Clinton
On August 17th, 1998 President William Jefferson Clinton addressed the nation on the topic of the investigation into his relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. At a glance, the speech he gave via national television seems to be a sort of apology. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes very clear that at no point during the speech does the President actually apologize. His true intent, masked within layer upon layer of carefully constructed language, is actually to lead the listener’s attention away from the topic of his inappropriate conduct and the serious charge of perjury he was facing. While I find President Clinton’s argument to be staggeringly well crafted with regard to persuasiveness to the inattentive audience, it is severely
…show more content…
In the closing paragraph, William Clinton asks the audience to “turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse and to return our attention to all of the challenges and all the promise of the next American century” (par. 9). In this closing argument we find that dysphemism is again used in his reference to the case against him as a “spectacle” a word with strong negative connotations. He also asks the audience to return their attention to all of the challenges etc. This is another example of red herring because he requests that the audience focus on the fanciful and impossible tasks he presents rather than giving reasons why they should move on. As a last stab at Mr. Clinton’s rhetoric, I’ll simply add that centuries are devoid of nationality by definition, and I’ll kindly thank him, as well as the editor, to remember that. As I have made painfully clear throughout the course of this analysis, there is nothing that could be considered remotely close to evidence provided for Clinton’s claims that America should move on that and that it is not a matter of importance for the Commander in Chief to commit perjury. The only means of support for these claims comes in the form of irrelevant, presumptuous, ambiguous, or misleading statements which I can only conclude are meant to confuse or trick the audience into agreement. Given that this is the case, I must say that anyone who was convinced by this speech was simply dazzled by that pretty top
In the closing paragraph, William Clinton asks the audience to “turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse and to return our attention to all of the challenges and all the promise of the next American century” (par. 9). In this closing argument we find that dysphemism is again used in his reference to the case against him as a “spectacle” a word with strong negative connotations. He also asks the audience to return their attention to all of the challenges etc. This is another example of red herring because he requests that the audience focus on the fanciful and impossible tasks he presents rather than giving reasons why they should move on. As a last stab at Mr. Clinton’s rhetoric, I’ll simply add that centuries are devoid of nationality by definition, and I’ll kindly thank him, as well as the editor, to remember that. As I have made painfully clear throughout the course of this analysis, there is nothing that could be considered remotely close to evidence provided for Clinton’s claims that America should move on that and that it is not a matter of importance for the Commander in Chief to commit perjury. The only means of support for these claims comes in the form of irrelevant, presumptuous, ambiguous, or misleading statements which I can only conclude are meant to confuse or trick the audience into agreement. Given that this is the case, I must say that anyone who was convinced by this speech was simply dazzled by that pretty top