Hillary Clinton Rhetorical Devices

In order to get readers to agree, writers use rhetorical devices to persuade them and appeal to their ideation. In the columns, “Now or later, the Clintons are toast,” and “What the WikiLeaks emails tell us about Hillary Clinton,” both authors use a variety of rhetorical devices to convince readers to comply with their positions on the issue. The news article, “Emails Related to Clinton Case Found in Anthony Weiner Investigation,” is an unbiased piece which explains the concerns of Hillary Clinton’s email enterprise. Though the columns are opposing in viewpoint about the same topic, they differ in tone, diction, and the usage of different rhetorical techniques. In Wesley Pruden’s column, “Now, or later, the Clintons are toast” (2016), he

Throughout the column, Pruden uses a harsh diction against Donald Trump’s opponents. He also states ignorant and sarcastic remarks. He includes phrases such as “Hillary’s hell week” and criticizes Bernie by mentioning “If Bernie had listened a little closer and paid only a little attention to the issue, and acted accordingly, he would be the Democratic nominee today.” He refers to Trump as “The Donald” which is evident he supports Trump. Pruden repeats the word “email” throughout the column. He does this to antagonize Clinton supporters. Trump loves to use this against her during the campaign. Pruden includes that Bernie Sanders claims to be “tired of hearing about the damned emails.” Pruden compares both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s labels they received while running for the presidency. Donald is known for his “rough vulgarity and his disrespect of

He describes her as “a careful, methodical, tightly-controlled politician,” a “progressive, and a “pragmatist.” Compared to Pruden, McManus uses more of a calmer tone while not implementing such harsh diction. He still finds a way to judge Trump, though. He includes, “Trump and his lieutenants have complained that the news media — sorry, the ‘corrupt news media’,” to show Trump is not supportive of the media. He ends his column with ‘In the increasingly unlikely scenario that Trump wins, the consequence could be worse.” Through his examples, McManus is implying that Clinton is the better candidate running for the presidency. He claims, “Yes, she sounded distinctly chummy in her sessions with investment bankers. She didn’t excoriate the firms that were paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars; she soothingly told them they weren’t the only ones responsible for the financial crash,” and “But she still gave them a warning. “Even if it may not be 100% true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us,” she said in a closed-door speech in 2014. ‘If there’s wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable, and we have to try to deter future bad behavior.’” He repeats the term “yes” as if he is answering the questions that are used against Clinton during the campaign and supporting her through examples of why these