The Hillary Effect Analysis

1411 Words6 Pages
Liberal, feminist, satirical. Only one journalist comes to mind when reading those three descriptions: Maureen Dowd. Beginning her career as a sports journalist, she has worked her way up the totem pole to achieve the status of political columnist for The New York Times. Set apart from her peers by her brutal honesty, highly-acclaimed sarcasm, and clear feminist agenda, she is able to capture her audience’s attention within the first sentences of her various publications, while leaving room for the reader to challenge and question her views. By writing about sexual misconduct on a variety of occasions, she makes clear her feminist stance, as well as her liberal political persona - all of which she portrays with great fervor. Maureen Dowd…show more content…
On numerous occasions, Dowd has used strong diction to express her aversion towards the Clinton family, describing the family as a “monarch” - a corrupt one at that. To exemplify, in “The Hillary Effect,” Dowd points out that the former first lady accepted funds from “the producer [Harvey Weinstein] … a power behind the Clinton throne” - an action that highlights Hillary Clinton’s support from the predator, Weinstein. Dowd chooses to include this information, as it is a extremely ironic. Hillary Clinton is the supposed feminist icon of the nation, yet she's accepting funds from the one and only, Harvey Weinstein. Her choice in using the term “throne” makes the reader question the validity of the political power of the family, but more importantly, the way in which she uses “throne” illustrates her feminist views through satire - views with which her now-shocked audience would be onboard. The banter in the situation is poking fun at the Clintons (with their support from the beast of the century) and their progressive supporters, yet again, helping to develop the respect-lacking, mocking tone of the columnist. To further my point, in the article “Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood’s Oldest Horror Story,” Weinstein’s actions were described as “perversion, grotesque, and maladroit du seigneur long before Hillary blindly accepted money” from the man. This strong diction serves to demonstrate Dowd’s criticizing outlook upon the Clinton family accepting funds from a sexual predator, as well as her outlook on the predator himself - clearly displaying Dowd’s liberal, feminist viewpoint on sexual misconduct. Dowd chooses to include these political examples to employ pathos, evoking a sense of shock in her audience, as a means of getting the audience to help her with her own feminist political agenda; by shedding light on all of the mistreatment of women in government, Dowd is a
Open Document