Back in 2016 took place one of the United States most outstanding presidential elections as the democrat Hillary Clinton fought the republican Donald Trump for the spot as USA’s next president. On top of the previous sensation the predecessor Barack Obama had accomplished by being the first ever elected Afro-American president in US history it was almost in the cards that a female politician such as Hillary Clinton would take over, and become the first female president in US history. This was not the case though, as Hillary Clinton shocked and disappointed could sit by while watching her opponent Donald Trump being elected and inaugurated as president. Less than a year later Hillary Clinton published a book called “What Happened”. This was also the centre of discussion when she visited Jane Pauley at the news show “CBS Sunday Morning” September 10th 2017 to debate the former mentioned state of affairs.
By speaking their colloquial language and simultaneously make use of a specific set of words both parts in this interview manage to grant their respective intentions for this interview. First of all Jane Pauley wishes to set a friendly environment and therefore she starts by asking Hillary Clinton how she is. This sets a casual atmosphere and makes it seem like less a professional conversation. As the interviewer Jane Pauley wishes to capture her audience she makes use of hyperbole by using powerful words and phrases that gives food for thought. This is phrases such as “false information” and “memorable verbal gaffes” that in this case forces Hillary Clinton into explanations of her use of words back when she was running for president. This also makes sure that the conversation proceeds in ways that are interesting to the audience. While Jane Pauley is doing this due to a professional interest Hillary Clinton makes use of descriptive language with a personal interest of making herself seem human and it also have the effect of making the audience empathise with her situation. This is words such as “loss of feeling and direction and sadness”. Although both parts have their respective intentions the joint intention seems to have Hillary Clinton speak on her behalves on the election.
Both parts apply rhetorical devices such as allusion and direct references to keep the interview on track and keep a certain style. Since it is an interview, you cannot expect a starlit composition but Jane Pauley constantly keeps some sort of red thread all the way through the interview. This is done mainly by the use of direct references and allusions of which this interview is full to the gills. Just to name a few Jane Pauley starts out by mentioning the book Hillary Clinton has published to set the scene and preview what topics the interview is going to concern. From this point and on Jane Pauley will ask a question containing some sort of direct reference or allusion, afterwards have Hillary Clinton elaborate once or twice and then Jane Pauley will ask a new question that follows up on the previous one in an effort to retain a chronicle order. Later on in the interview Jane Pauley makes use of antithesis. This is the case especially when Donald Trumps campaign is the centerpiece. In this part of the interview both Jane Pauley and Hillary Clinton points out what went right in Trumps campaign and what worked less charming in Clintons campaign.
As well as Hillary Clinton aspire to win a few points by making herself seem both vulnerable and at the same time quite the opposite – strong-willed – by using the form of appeal pathos, she handles other topics with a logical point of view and Jane Pauley contributes to the logos appeal-form. Of course Hillary Clinton is not overly ecstatic about her fail to win the presidential election and when the centre of attention is her personal matter she focuses mainly on the subsequential effects that came along the defeat in the race. At first her exact words are “It still is very painful. It hurts a lot”. Later on she implies how this will probably scar her for live. “I’ll have to live with that for the rest of my life”. This is her making use of the form of appeal named pathos. Whether or not it is intentional it has the effect of making the audience feel some sort of petty and empathise with her. Although, this is a sign of vulnerability it is first and foremost a courageous move to make as thorough an analysis of her own mistakes as she is doing in this interview. Second to this is the numerous times she appears strong-willed and being able to and having the inclination to stand up against such things as misogyny and then downright saying it was one of the reasons she didn’t win. That can be categorized as bold. The form of appeal logos emerges when Hillary Clinton has to explain certain mysterious things such as the fact that she has to attend Donald Trump’s inaugural address, because she is a former first lady. Had that not been the case she would probably not have been there. As mentioned before she also argues that the reason some voters didn’t want to vote for her was because society is not acclimatized with the idea of a female president because of gender stereotypes. In this case she once again, by using logic argues why she wasn’t elected.
It is an interview and therefore Jane Pauley as the interviewer is bound to have professional intentions so that the interview will have a lot of viewers. In her effort to obtain these intentions she uses a more vivid language, keeps the conversation on track by constantly referring to episodes that happen in chronicle order and even though it is brief and subtle she makes her guest feel comfortable so her guest appears adequate for the interview. Hillary Clinton in the other hand only does this out of a personal interest to make her book sell and make things clear that she wouldn’t be able to in any other way.
