Bill Clinton Argumentative Analysis

It is possible as well that some critics believe Clinton’s voice represents her lack of capability to be president because her pitch is closer to that of a child’s than a man’s voice typically is. The correlations found in West and Zimmerman’s research on the nature of interruptions in conversations between men and women and parents and children reveals a potential explanation as to why women in politics may be received with less conviction. West and Zimmerman concluded that men interrupt women similarly to how adults interrupt children. According to their findings, women are more likely to be ignored or restricted by the men they are speaking with and men interrupt when they deem what a woman is saying is problematic (West and Zimmerman).
As Denise Graveline summarized, female politicians can be “competent or likable, but not both.” Graveline also looked at other female politicians who faced the same double bind as Clinton is currently facing. She recognized that Geraldine Ferraro, the first female vice presidential candidate “lacked the credibility of a male candidate [and thus] adopted a stronger, more masculine style that may have suited her less” (Chozick). In many ways this is exactly what Clinton strives to reconcile by adjusting the way she speaks in order to appease her audience.When Clinton tries to speak as she is expected to as a woman, she doesn’t fit with society's idea of a powerful candidate. Simultaneously, when she employs features frequently attributed to men’s rhetoric she marks her speech as even more abnormal and her authenticity is questioned (Gunn). Traditionally, a man’s worth is determined by his accomplishments in his professional life, while a woman’s worth is based on intrinsic qualities with which she was born (Eckert and McConnell Ginet). Under this belief, it makes some sense that some people would struggle to value Clinton’s worth as a politician as she is a woman and also a politician. This idea also suggests why critics focus on Clinton’s manners of speaking more than those of any male politicians; language is an intrinsic quality, and
Tucker Carlson from MSNBC questioned on air, “could you actually live in this country for eight years having to listen to her voice?” (Gunn, 199). The fact that someone on a news station would even joke that the sound of someone’s voice is reason enough to not want him or her as president is appalling. Other individuals have commented on Clinton’s verbal skills in a condescending way as if they are giving her advice. Lawrence O’Donnell, another MSNBC anchor, commented, after hearing Clinton discuss job creation and gender equality, that “one of the trickier things to teach people about public speaking is that the microphone works, you don’t have to actually yell,” (Satlin). The implication that a well-educated politician who had decades of experience in public speaking wouldn’t know how a microphone works is blatantly offensive. This statement also implies that Clinton is in some form incapable of being a president due to the way she speaks or how she sounds to her audience. The fact of the matter, once again, is that male politicians would not face this type of criticism of their capacity to lead a country based on the caliber of their