Version 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXM4E23Efvk&t=1s

Section A: Directed response

Question 1 Read the following text, which is an extract from a speech given in 1994 by Hillary R. Clinton at the United Nations Fourth
World Conference on Women. At the time, as the wife of President Bill Clinton, she was First Lady of the United States of America. You
are a blogger for your university student website and you attended Hillary R. Clinton’s speech.
(a) Write a blog post for your fellow students, giving your personal account of the event. Use 150–200 words. [10]
(b) Compare your blog post with the original speech, analysing form, structure and language. [15]

36 min.

In her formal speech, Clinton insists that women are equal with men and that women, if given the right opportunities, can help develop
their families, and, in turn, the world. She urges detractors from conferences like this to pay careful attention to the diverse voices and
achievements of women, as every woman can make a substantial contribution.

first section
I would like to thank the Secretary General of the United Nations for inviting me to be part of the United Nations Fourth World
Conference on Women. This is truly a celebration – a celebration of the contributions women make in every aspect of life: in the home,
on the job, in their communities, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers, citizens and leaders.

It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day in every country.

We come together in fields and in factories. In village markets and supermarkets. In living rooms and boardrooms.

Whether it is while playing with our children in the park or washing clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we
come together and talk about our aspirations and concerns. And time and again, our talk turns to our children and our families.

However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find
common ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and girls all over the world – and in so doing, bring new
strength and stability to families as well.

By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to
education, health care, jobs, and credit, the chance to enjoy basic legal and human rights and participate fully in the political life of their
countries.

Second section?

There are some who question the reason for this conference. Let them listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and
workplaces.

plural command

There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to economic and political progress around the globe. Let them
look at the women gathered here and at Huairou the homemakers, nurses, teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and women who run their own
businesses.

It is conferences like this that compel governments and peoples everywhere to listen, look and face the world’s most pressing problems.

Wasn’t it after the women’s conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic
violence?

Third section?

Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum, where government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are
working on ways to address the health problems of women and girls.

Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local – and
highly successful – programs that give hard-working women access to credit so they can improve their own lives and the lives of their
families.

epistrophe
What we are learning around the world is that, if women are healthy and educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from
violence, their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as full and equal partners in society, their families will
flourish. And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish. That is why every woman, every man, every child, every
family, and every nation on our planet has a stake in the discussion that takes place here. DEIXIS

***
LAST SECTION.

Let this conference be our – and the world’s – call to action.

And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is
loved and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and stable future.

Thank you very much.

Actual blogs on other speeches by Clinton

THE SPEECH OF A LIFETIME

Posted by Kyle E. Moore on Aug 27, 2008 in Uncategorized | 0 comments

As I and about every other armchair political analyst out there pointed out yesterday, the expectations for Hillary
Clinton’s speech were astronomical, the standards she had to meet were stratospheric, and she would need wings to
accomplish the lofty and often mutually exclusive tasks set before her.

Thankfully, Mrs. Clinton apparently already knows how to fly.

While nowhere near as over-used as “under the bus”, I’ve heard the phrase, “best speech of his/her career” an awful lot
over the past year and a half. I think that is itself significant, and I kind of want everyone to ponder that for a moment.
This is a realization that partisans from both the Obama and Clinton camps may have been unwilling to come to in the
past, but when you stop and think about it, these two pushed each other to their very limits, and then they kept on
pushing, and as we look at what animosity still might be left between the two camps, and the path forward, there is one
thing that is clear.

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would be the politicians they are today without the grueling battle they waged
against one another. Just as I don’t think Obama wouldn’t be capable of defending himself without Clinton giving him
harsh lessons on how to do so, I don’t think Hillary could have delivered last night’s speech a year ago.

This is a good thing. These are the top two stars on the same team making each other better, faster, stronger, and
wiser. And that’s something else that can’t be emphasized enough; same team.

As we noted last night during our liveblogging, Hillary was preceded by one hell of an introduction. Set to Lenny Kravitz,
this was a rock and roll slideshow that highlighted her strength, and the strength of women in general. Everyone wants
an introduction like that at some point in their lives, and Mrs. Clinton deserved it.

When she finally took the stage, she didn’t deliver the best speech of her career, she delivered the speech of a lifetime,
plain and simple. She was full throated in her support for Obama–unequivocal advocacy that can’t be spun any other
way. She was ruthless against McCain (something I’m going to talk more about in my next post, she was at once wonky
and yet uplifting, and in the crescendo of her speech it simply wasn’t possible to not get chills.

Yes. I want to make sure you read that clearly. I, one of the most avid Obama supporters, and a sufferer of CDS for over
a year, got chills watching Hillary Clinton’s speech last night. So I guess you could call me cured.

But while the speech was just about perfect from beginning to end, it was the beginning and the end that were perhaps
the most important.

For the beginning, while Clinton didn’t put it in quite so blunt of terms, the not so subtle subtext of her speech was
simply this; Look, I didn’t spend thirty-five years of my life working my ass off so that a bunch of PUMAs could deliver
another Republican presidency.

I want to be clear; from this moment on, there can no longer be any serious discussion about the entire bitter-ender
movement. Look, the bitter enders, the no dealers, the pumas, they have always been the equivalent of the Ron Paul
rEVOLution. The only true difference is that unlike Ron Pauls cultish supporters (that’s to say that his supporters who
were cult-like, not to imply that all of them were), the bitter-enders supported a candidate that actually had a chance at
winning, and participated in a long and drawn out primary. In other words, they make a better story for the media that is
looking for a story exactly like the one they provide.

But last night changed things. The PUMAs can no longer make any valid claim that they are Clinton supporters, if ever
they did have a valid stake as such. At this point it should be widely recognized that these people are engaging in a
fantasy based obsession, one in which every action that Clinton performs is not weighed and judged on the merit of itself,
but instead twisted and contorted to fit their deluded image of her which itself is twisted and contorted to fit their
needs.

They are overcome with hate, irrational hate, and they are using an idealized caricature of Hillary Clinton as a vehicle
and justification of that hate. You see this in comments all over the puma-sphere, comments like, “They’re forcing her
to say these things,” or, “We’re standing up for her because Clinton’s too much of a class act to not support Obama.”

It’s too bad, really, because I think the real Hillary Clinton is better than this strange deity that these people worship.

Now, I have to apologize, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to get derailed on a riff against pumas, but this is essentially the last
time I’m planning on talking about them, and I want to make it clear how clear Hillary Clinton made her stance on them
in the opening of her speech last night. Last night was the harsh but necessary break up, the stone cold truth, and she
spoke it well.

Mrs. Clinton’s speech last night was about Democratic unity, and on that note, not only could she have not opened up
better, but she could not have closed better either. This was the part that gave me goose bumps, and the transcript
doesn’t do it justice. Even the clip that I am about to show won’t do it justice as it doesn’t capture how completely and
totally the audience EXPLODED at this point in her speech, but, well, just watch:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0g0hLP4-EE

This was a powerful moment, a deeply moving and touching moment for whom equality and civil rights is not merely a key
issue but a core value. But I think the brilliance stems from the selection of Harriet Tubman to quote for a very specific
reason; this was an African American woman who worked both to free slaves and fought for women’s suffrage.

In this closer to Clinton’s speech she tied together what had been so hurtfully torn apart during the Democratic primary;
the fight for equality for women, and the fight for equality for African Americans.

One of the things that was to me the saddest aspects of the past year and a half, and this Democratic primary contest,
was this feeling just underneath the surface that you had to choose. We had to make a choice that we were going to be
either for equality for women, or for equality for African Americans-the two were mutually exclusive, you couldn’t be for
one without being against the other. One had to win out over the other because there was only one first place spot.

It was somehow forgotten that equality is equality, it doesn’t matter if it’s for women, or African Americans, or Muslim
Americans, or homosexuals. We somehow forgot that equality for all is the answer.

And that was the power of Mrs. Clinton’s speech last night. She drew them back together where they belong. She talked
about the freeing of black slaves on the night that Lily Ledbetter got up and talked about how she was unable to sue for
equal pay that she deserved. Clinton brought up marching on in at the sight of torches in the forest in the same
convention where all Democrats adopted the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling as a badge of honor.
Leading up to her speech, she was preceded by Democrat after Democrat that was not afraid to throw the punches.
Janet Napolatino chided him, “Because I can say to you tonight, positively, that John McCain is right. He doesn’t
understand the economy as well as he should. And he doesn’t understand how the policies he has supported and wants to
perpetuate have so terribly misfired,” and Brian Schweizer mocked, “Even if you drilled in all of John McCain’s back
yards, even the ones he doesn’t know about.”

Hillary Clinton took the stage after speaker after speaker pounded away at McCain, eager to prove they were itching for a
fight, eager to prove that this convention would not be a repeat of the 2004 convention (even if some just don’t want to
see it), and Clinton came with what should be the most worrisome message for the Republicans–we’re all on the same
team now.

Speculation ran wild about whether Hillary Clinton would give Barack Obama her full-throated support in her Democratic
convention speech last night. Barack Obama himself reportedly previewed the speech and approved it, but even he must
have wondered whether she’d stick to the script, or stick it to him. In the end, though, Hillary did the expected — she proved
herself a party stalwart and threw her support behind Obama in a well-written, enthusiastic speech.

Republicans, of course, will not like the speech itself, as it’s filled with the policy proposals that turned the Democratic
primaries into a populist panderfest. However, it fit into the themes of the evening — more on that in a minute — and it had
explicit mentions of support for Obama in the beginning, middle, and end. Hillary did not stint on specific support:

I — I am so honored to be here tonight. No, I — I’m here tonight as a proud mother, as a proud Democrat — as a proud
senator from New York — a proud American — and a proud supporter of Barack Obama.

My friends, it is time to take back the country we love. And whether you voted for me or you voted for Barack, the time is now
to unite as a single party with a single purpose. …

Barack Obama is my candidate, and he must be our president. …

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he’ll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and
meet the global challenges of our time.

Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before, with President Clinton and the Democrats. And if we do our
part, we’ll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats.
Hillary did not follow the Reagan 1976 template, where Reagan talked about the movement and the nation and not about
Gerald Ford, nor the similar Kennedy 1980 template. She asked for unity and support for the party nominee, with perhaps
minimal praise; she doesn’t say in the speech why Obama would make a good president, but just that Democrats need to
unite in support of him.

Will it be effective? Time will tell, but I believe this speech will go at least a significant way towards convincing her
supporters to remain in the tent. It may take a few days for that to become apparent, but I’d expect a slow drift of Hillary
dead-enders to return to Barack Obama. This reaction from a Clinton delegate may not be unique:

In the end, this woman will not vote for John McCain. She might stay home, but that’s doubtful, given her level of political
involvement. But this problem has never really been about delegates to the convention; rather, it’s been about the 18 million
Hillary voters who found themselves angered by the results of the primary. I’d expect most of them to follow her lead, but
figure about 15-20% who will either vote McCain or stay home in the end.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/07/29/hillary-clintons-speech-for-once-a-politician-lets-language-work/

WHOOPS!
Post Partisan
Opinion: Hillary Clinton’s speech: For once, a politician lets language work
Watch Hillary Clinton's full speech at the Democratic convention July 28 as she accepts her party's nomination for the presidential
election. (Video: The Washington Post; Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Opinion by Barton Swaim

July 29, 2016

Over the last half-century, I would guess — maybe since Adlai Stevenson — American political oratory has degenerated into a
consultant-driven pseudo-science. The task is to “hit” certain “themes” for a variety of constituencies, or to attack one’s
opponent for such-and-such without sounding as though you believe the other thing.

Generally left out of process is any appreciation for language itself and what it can do. The typical American political speech
— and this is true at very high levels of government — relies almost exclusively on standard phrasing, trite metaphors and
bad jokes.

I can really only think of one major counterexample, and the mere mention of him in this context will drive some readers to
stop reading. It’s still true that George W. Bush, famously prone to idiotic malapropisms and unintentionally hilarious
infelicities, was responsible for at least two phrases that have stayed with us: “soft bigotry of low expectations” and “axis of
evil.”

Both phrases captured precisely the thought the president wanted to express in the addresses in which they appeared (his
acceptance speech at the 2000 Republican convention and his speech to a joint session of Congress in October 2001,
respectively). Both elicited the kinds of debates that, for good or ill, Bush and his aides wanted Americans to have — the first
about education policy, the second about state sponsorship of terrorism.

The great majority of American politicians, by contrast — very much including Barack Obama — don’t try very hard at all to
use language to their advantage. They use their personal magnetism, their warmth, their ability to “connect”; they use sincere
whispering or impassioned shouting. But they don’t, typically, use language itself. Name a recent political speech (excluding
ones generated by the current race) in which you heard a line that has stayed with you.

There are a few, but only a few.

As I listened to Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech, though, I thought I heard attempts to use language itself to stir and
provoke. Perhaps that’s because, like Bush, she isn’t a gifted orator. Her manner is wooden, her enunciation angular, and
everything she says sounds (to my ear anyway) about a half-tone sharp. I wonder, then, if she has rightly concluded that she
must rely on the words themselves.

True, the first part of the speech included some pretty hokey instances of wordplay. “We heard from the man from Hope, Bill
Clinton. And we heard from the man of Hope, Barack Obama.” (Not just hokey but overdone, that one. I am not comfortable
at all with giving the current president, or any politician, the messianic title “man of hope.”) And this, about the American
revolution: “Some wanted to stick with the King. Some wanted to stick it to the king.” Well, okay.

Then, though, there were lines that had a snap to them, lines that roll off the tongue and might — might — stick in the
memory. Her priority as president will be to bring opportunity, “especially in places that for too long have been left out and
left behind, from our inner cities to our small towns, from Indian Country to Coal Country.”
It’s not Churchill, but one appreciates the attempt to find distinctive phrasing.

Then there was this: “It’s wrong to take tax breaks with one hand and give out pink slips with the other.”

That is a terrific line. It may help that, as a conservative who opposes corporate welfare in all its wretched forms, I happen to
agree with the sentiment behind it, but the image definitely works.

Less philosophically sound, for me at least, was the quip criticizing Donald Trump for allowing his companies to outsource
manufacturing jobs: “Donald Trump says he wants to make America great again. Well, he could start by actually making
things in America again.” Still, the line took some thought. I can almost see Clinton’s speechwriter, whoever he or she is,
staring blankly at a laptop screen for hours and then suddenly thinking, Yes: make America great, make things in America.

The speech’s best line, to my mind, was similarly about Trump. (He does tend to draw out the best in writers, somehow.) “A
man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.” The line reads beautifully: All but the last two
words are monosyllables, and that staccato phrase “bait with a tweet” has a terrific snap to it.

Best of all: The line’s content is both true and terrifying.

In a sense, all this gives me pain to write. On political grounds I dislike Hillary Clinton very much, and have disliked her for
25 years. Even in this admittedly well-wrought speech, there were false moments, as one would have expected: “The truth is,”
she intoned at one point, “through all these years of public service, the ‘service’ part has always come easier to me than the
‘public’ part.” Right.

It was an excellent speech, all the same. Perhaps I find that easier to admit since I find her Republican adversary (though for
different reasons) equally loathsome. In any case, in Clinton’s acceptance speech we heard something rare in American
politics — a politician letting language do its job.