Framing Political Speeches: A Few Lessons from Senator Clinton’s Speech

by Sophia Barkat

Election season is back. As the Democrats and Republicans gear up their troops it is useful for voters to try a new exercise: how to frame political speeches. According to George Lakoff, author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives (2004) Conservatives –in perhaps both political parties--have been spending millions on think tanks and speech writers to have the perfectly framed speeches. “Framing” is essentially the art of taking facts and spinning them in such a way as to present one’s agenda. At many a Conservative educational institution like in Princeton University’s Public Policy program, courses are actually offered in the art of “framing.” Perhaps that is why Condoleeza Rice is so good at avoiding questions at Senate Committee Hearings.

That’s not to say that the Democrats are behind. It would be hard to find a speech by most Democratic Party politicians that is not framed to address the left-wing voters. In fact, today’s lesson on framing a speech was possible because of a recent Senate Committee Hearing at which Sen. Clinton offered a well-framed speech at the Senate Armed Forced Committee Hearing on Jan. 23, 2007: (http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=267862&&). Notice her use of language in the speech. Sen. Clinton says:

 “We are in a dire situation, using your adjective, in part because the Congress was supine [or genderless] under the Republican majority…”

She is reminding the voters that she is macho and not against war. After all, she did vote for the Iraq War.

 “And you are being asked to square the circle, to find a military solution to a political crisis.”

She is defending her vote on Iraq and saying she disagrees with Bush’s plan of action in after capturing Iraq.

 “…the Iraqi government that they cannot rely on the blood and treasure of America any longer.”

She wants her vote on the war to seem like the right choice. Obviously, the failure must be that of the Iraqi government!

“In the absence of the kind of political full-court press that we put on in Bosnia-- when I landed in Tuzla, I was briefed by Russians, French, Germans, and Americans. We had an international force, we had an international commitment, we had brought people to the point where they understood that success there was essential to their national security.”

She is reminding the voter that while she was First Lady the U.S. could win wars.

“But one thing I am particularly concerned about is the failure of security for the troops. The incident in Karbala over the weekend is scary. It raises questions that we don’t have answers to. So let me, beyond my statement of joining in the comments of Senator Collins and rejecting those of our other friends on the panel who think that statements of disapproval are somehow going to undermine our effort, when I think they will send the clearest message. We know this policy is going forward. We know the troops are moving. We know that we are likely to not stop this escalation. But we are going to do everything we can to send a message to our government and the Iraqi government that they had better change, because the enemy we are confronting is adaptable. It is intelligent. It learns. It got a hold of our military uniforms, went through those gates after clearing all those police checkpoints, killed five of our soldiers in a meeting talking about security in Iraq. So I don’t believe we are playing with a team on the other side that understands the stakes as we describe them.”

Finally, she seems to be saying war is good, the U.S. troops are brave and that the Bush Administration is doing little to protect the troops. As if anyone can protect the troops from landmines!

Now, lets condense Clinton’s speech into how she would like to hear it reported by a newspaper, and then see how a pro-Republican newspaper might want to frame her speech.

 Democratic View:

At the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on January 23^rd, 2007, Senator Clinton appealed to the sensibility of General David Petraeus not to be the Bush Administration’s scapegoat for the Iraq War. Senator Clinton commended General Petraeus for his leadership in the Bosnia War and reminded him that similar leadership was needed in Iraq. The solution should be political, not military, she stated, pointing to the failure of the Iraqi government and the Bush Administration alike for failing to create stable democratic institutions in Iraq. She also commended U.S. troops for doing their best in Iraq despite the lack of proper military equipment.

Republican View:

At the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on January 23^rd, 2007, Senator Clinton offered staunch criticism of President Bush’s efforts to increase troops in Iraq. Even though she voted for the War it seems Senator Clinton sees U.S. efforts in Iraq as a total failure. She also criticized U.S. efforts at nation-building in Iraq, an effort in which American troops are heavily invested.

Why leave it to Sen. Clinton’s speech? Try the recent State of the Union Speech to see if you can find where George W. Bush’s speech writers have been “framing” his speech

Political
Social
Economics
Religious
Science