I tend to believe in the power of words. I choose mine as carefully as I can. John Eskow has written a wonderful analysis of the language used by the Clinton campaign, and their role in its failure.
From Huffington Post.
"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.
There have been many, many times during this primary season where my wife and I actually gasped when we heard the words coming out of this Democrat's mouth. Quite often our arms have involuntarily sprung into the air and landed on the top of our heads in disbelief.
I guess we were not alone.
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.
The article starts with an extensive examination of the inane insistence on thumping the word "vetted" into our brains. I will be honest; I had no idea what she was talking about when she first started trying to meme me with that one. Now I know that she was comparing humans to other animals, and making sure we looked all the potential presidential gift horses in the mouth.
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.
Like a huge portion of our glorious nation, I have been getting my Wonk on with increasing regularity. Unfortunately, the deeper I get into the world that the Clinton campaign has vainly attempt to spin me toward, the more maddening their imcompetence has become. Yesterday she had the gall to press the pathetic pardon of the rule-breakers in Florida and Michigan (I voted for Barack Obama in Miami.) by comparing the situation to the civil rights movement. There is a word for that. Desperation. It is being incarnated without any hint of dignity.
The most aggregious language sin of the campaign, to me, was the word "obliterate". I want to vote for a candidate that promises hope for a vibrant future full of life for our beautiful planet. That word promises the exact opposite. John Eskow makes the case.
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."
It is a wonderful article, exposing the bad words that doomed Hillary Clinton's campaign. I often see writing as a sort of immaterial jewelry making, sliding gems onto a string. John Eskow has created an albatross special that will hang around her neck for a very long time.