Writing Analysis Connotation vs Denotation

1
Writing AnalysisConnotation vs Denotation
When I use a word, it means just what I choose
it to mean neither more nor less. (Humpty
Dumpty)

• Corey Cameron
• 27 April 2007

2
Some Definitionsaccording to Merriam-Webster

• DENOTATION
• 1 an act or process of denoting2 MEANING
  especially a direct specific meaning as
  distinct from an implied or associated idea3 a
  a denoting term NAME b SIGN, INDICATION
  ltvisible denotations of divine wrathgt4 the
  totality of things to which a term is applicable
  especially in logic
• CONNOTATION
• 1 a the suggesting of a meaning by a word
  apart from the thing it explicitly names or
  describes b something suggested by a word or
  thing IMPLICATION ltthe connotations of comfort
  that surrounded that old chairgt2 the
  signification of something ltthat abuse of logic
  which consists in moving counters about as if
  they were known entities with a fixed connotation
  -- W. R. Ingegt3 an essential property or group
  of properties of a thing named by a term in logic
  

3
Since I didnt like Merriam-Websters
CONNOTATION the associations and values
attached to the word, which can be personal
and/or public (Shead)
DENOTATION the referential relationship
between the sign itself and the reality it points
to (Shead)
Ex ORANGE
or
the fruit the color
favorite fruit
political
the definitional, literal, obvious
or commonsense meaning of a sign (Chandler)
the socio-cultural and personal associations
of the sign related to interpreter (Chandler)
4
Chandler on SIGNS -a 'signifier' is the form
which the sign takes and the 'signified is the
concept it represents.
Connotation would be the second order of
signification uses the denotative signifier as
its sign and attaches an additional
signified Denotation would be the first order of
signification a sign consisting of a signifier
and a signified
5
You should say what you mean, the March Hare
went on. I do, Alice hastily replied at least
at least, I mean what I say thats the same
thing, you know. Not the same thing a bit!
said the Hatter.
The meanings (whether we mean dictionary
definitions or our intentions when speaking
certain words) of many words have changed
throughout time. Semantic change is important
when examining writing often times dictionaries
are out of date, they have not quite caught up to
current usage of a word (as we saw in Melissa and
Katies presentation). While current uses of a
word may not influence the dictionary definition
(exception OED) it has a great influence on the
connotation of words in todays society.
6
Osgoods Semantic Differential

• -measured the dimension of meaning we call
  CONNOTATION
• - concerned with semantics
• -plotted differences between individuals
  connotations for words

Subjects were given a word, for example 'car'
and presented with a variety of adjectives to
describe it. The adjectives were presented at
either end of a seven-point scale, ranging from,
say, 'good' to 'bad' or from 'fast' to 'slow'. In
this way, he was able to draw up a 'map' of
people's connotations for a given word.
http//www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/in
troductory/semdif.html
7
Osgoods Semantic Differential continued
Osgoods map of peoples connotations for the
word polite showing 10 scales used by Osgood.
The map shows the average responses of 2 groups
of 20 subjects.
http//www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/in
troductory/semdif.html
8
My assignment was to analyze a popular piece of
writingdoes a Tim McGraw song count??
When someone calls you a ho you dont expect to
see a gardening tool the next time you look in
the mirror
Back When Chorus Back when a hoe was a
hoeCoke was a cokeAnd crack's what you were
doingWhen you were cracking jokesBack when a
screw was a screwThe wind was all that blewAnd
when you said I'm down with thatWell it meant
you had the fluI miss back whenI miss back
whenI miss back when I'm readin' Street
Slang For DummiesCause they put pop in my
countryI want more for my moneyThe way it was
back then
I, just like Tim, once thought coke was something
that you drank, either in the red can or the
silver can that indicated the diet variety
I buy screws at the hardware store but I guess
they can be purchased other places these days
9
Sunday, May. 08, 2005 Hillary in 2008? No Way! By
Joe Klein
I was having a fascinating conversation with a
Middle East expert about the intricacies of
Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed
the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this,"
he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my
life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the
doctor's office "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone
"knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid
the question, I say it's too earlyand it is. But
you want to know too, right? So here it is. I
like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic
sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous
belly laugh. She is smart and solid she inspires
tremendous loyalty among those who work for her.
She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as
her husband, but she easily masters difficult
issuesher newfound grasp of military matters has
impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed
Services Committeeand she is not even vaguely
the left-wing harridan portrayed by the
Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton
presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a
disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a
circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness
that infested public life in the 1990s. Already
there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According
to the New York Observer last week, these sites
aren't getting much trafficyet. But they will. I
remember several conversations with Senator
Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10
years ago, and she was clearly painednonplussed
by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred,
directed against her. That experience would be a
walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she
ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range
haters on the right, the last thing we need is a
campaign that would polarize the nation even
more. Indeed, we could use the exact oppositea
candidate who would inspire America's centrist
majority to rise up against the extreme special
interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's
supporters will say she is that candidate. And it
is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run
as a moderate than almost any other Democrat. Her
repositioning on social issues has been
overratedshe will have to do more than merely
"respect" those who oppose abortion she will
have to propose creative compromises. But
Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and
has learned her lessons on domestic-policy
overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich
says, "Hillary has become one of the very few
people who know what to do about health care."
Still, she has some very real political
limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate
that prizes aw-shucks informality she isn't a
particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially
in front of large audiences. Any woman running
for President will face a toughness conundrum
she will constantly have to prove her strength
and be careful about showing her emotions. She
won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's
public sogginess. It will take a brilliant
politician to create a credible feminine
presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton
hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to
break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there
is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A
few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of
Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip
hounds went berserk. Prominent Democratsfriends
of the Clintonswere wringing their hands. "Do we
really want to go through all that again?" one
asked me. I don't knowshould the sins of the
husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any
evidence, the former President should be
considered guilty until proved really guilty. But
there is another problem What role would the big
guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe
that a man with such a huge personality would
have a less active role in her Administration
than she had in his? "You mean she can't run
just because her husband was President?" a
Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most
incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and
no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll
into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like
head of steam in January 2008, and then the
folksyes, even the Democratic basewould give
her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary
presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton
line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've
already had that co-presidencyfor its full,
constitutional eight years. What's more, I
suspect there would be innate and appropriate
populist resistance to this slouch toward
monarchial democracy. There is something
fundamentally un-Americanand very Europeanabout
the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office
every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of
retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton
was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for
you too, Jeb.)
10
She is smart and solid she inspires tremendous
loyalty among those who work for her. She is not
quite as creative a policy thinker as her
husband, but she easily masters difficult
issuesher newfound grasp of military matters has
impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed
Services Committeeand she is not even vaguely
the left-wing harridan portrayed by the
Precambrian right.
I was having a fascinating conversation with a
Middle East expert about the intricacies of
Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed
the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this,"
he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my
life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the
doctor's office "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone
"knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid
the question, I say it's too earlyand it is. But
you want to know too, right? So here it is. I
like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic
sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous
belly laugh. She is smart and solid she inspires
tremendous loyalty among those who work for her.
She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as
her husband, but she easily masters difficult
issuesher newfound grasp of military matters has
impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed
Services Committeeand she is not even vaguely
the left-wing harridan portrayed by the
Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton
presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a
disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a
circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness
that infested public life in the 1990s. Already
there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According
to the New York Observer last week, these sites
aren't getting much trafficyet. But they will. I
remember several conversations with Senator
Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10
years ago, and she was clearly painednonplussed
by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred,
directed against her. That experience would be a
walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she
ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range
haters on the right, the last thing we need is a
campaign that would polarize the nation even
more. Indeed, we could use the exact oppositea
candidate who would inspire America's centrist
majority to rise up against the extreme special
interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's
supporters will say she is that candidate. And it
is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run
as a moderate than almost any other Democrat. Her
repositioning on social issues has been
overratedshe will have to do more than merely
"respect" those who oppose abortion she will
have to propose creative compromises. But
Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and
has learned her lessons on domestic-policy
overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich
says, "Hillary has become one of the very few
people who know what to do about health care."
Still, she has some very real political
limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate
that prizes aw-shucks informality she isn't a
particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially
in front of large audiences. Any woman running
for President will face a toughness conundrum
she will constantly have to prove her strength
and be careful about showing her emotions. She
won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's
public sogginess. It will take a brilliant
politician to create a credible feminine
presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton
hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to
break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there
is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A
few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of
Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip
hounds went berserk. Prominent Democratsfriends
of the Clintonswere wringing their hands. "Do we
really want to go through all that again?" one
asked me. I don't knowshould the sins of the
husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any
evidence, the former President should be
considered guilty until proved really guilty. But
there is another problem What role would the big
guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe
that a man with such a huge personality would
have a less active role in her Administration
than she had in his? "You mean she can't run
just because her husband was President?" a
Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most
incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and
no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll
into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like
head of steam in January 2008, and then the
folksyes, even the Democratic basewould give
her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary
presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton
line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've
already had that co-presidencyfor its full,
constitutional eight years. What's more, I
suspect there would be innate and appropriate
populist resistance to this slouch toward
monarchial democracy. There is something
fundamentally un-Americanand very Europeanabout
the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office
every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of
retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton
was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for
you too, Jeb.)
Precambrian- MW of, relating to, or being the
earliest era of geological history or the
corresponding system of rocks that is
characterized especially by the appearance of
single-celled organisms and is equivalent to the
Archean and Proterozoic eons -- see GEOLOGIC TIME
table OED A. adj. Of, relating to, or
designating the earliest division of geological
time, from the formation of the earth, believed
to have been about 4,600 million years ago, to
the beginning of the Cambrian period and the
Phanerozoic eon, about 542 million years ago  B.
n. With the. The Precambrian division of
geological time the system of rocks dating from
this gtgtWhat do you think of? (So easy a
caveman can do it)
11
I also think that a Clinton presidential
candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many
levels. It would doubtless be a circus, a
revisitation of the carnival ugliness that
infested public life in the 1990s.
I was having a fascinating conversation with a
Middle East expert about the intricacies of
Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed
the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this,"
he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my
life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the
doctor's office "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone
"knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid
the question, I say it's too earlyand it is. But
you want to know too, right? So here it is. I
like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic
sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous
belly laugh. She is smart and solid she inspires
tremendous loyalty among those who work for her.
She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as
her husband, but she easily masters difficult
issuesher newfound grasp of military matters has
impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed
Services Committeeand she is not even vaguely
the left-wing harridan portrayed by the
Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton
presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a
disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a
circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness
that infested public life in the 1990s. Already
there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According
to the New York Observer last week, these sites
aren't getting much trafficyet. But they will. I
remember several conversations with Senator
Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10
years ago, and she was clearly painednonplussed
by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred,
directed against her. That experience would be a
walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she
ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range
haters on the right, the last thing we need is a
campaign that would polarize the nation even
more. Indeed, we could use the exact oppositea
candidate who would inspire America's centrist
majority to rise up against the extreme special
interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's
supporters will say she is that candidate. And it
is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run
as a moderate than almost any other Democrat. Her
repositioning on social issues has been
overratedshe will have to do more than merely
"respect" those who oppose abortion she will
have to propose creative compromises. But
Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and
has learned her lessons on domestic-policy
overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich
says, "Hillary has become one of the very few
people who know what to do about health care."
Still, she has some very real political
limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate
that prizes aw-shucks informality she isn't a
particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially
in front of large audiences. Any woman running
for President will face a toughness conundrum
she will constantly have to prove her strength
and be careful about showing her emotions. She
won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's
public sogginess. It will take a brilliant
politician to create a credible feminine
presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton
hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to
break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there
is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A
few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of
Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip
hounds went berserk. Prominent Democratsfriends
of the Clintonswere wringing their hands. "Do we
really want to go through all that again?" one
asked me. I don't knowshould the sins of the
husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any
evidence, the former President should be
considered guilty until proved really guilty. But
there is another problem What role would the big
guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe
that a man with such a huge personality would
have a less active role in her Administration
than she had in his? "You mean she can't run
just because her husband was President?" a
Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most
incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and
no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll
into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like
head of steam in January 2008, and then the
folksyes, even the Democratic basewould give
her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary
presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton
line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've
already had that co-presidencyfor its full,
constitutional eight years. What's more, I
suspect there would be innate and appropriate
populist resistance to this slouch toward
monarchial democracy. There is something
fundamentally un-Americanand very Europeanabout
the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office
every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of
retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton
was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for
you too, Jeb.)
Circus- MW1 a a large arena enclosed by tiers
of seats on three or all four sides and used
especially for sports or spectacles (as athletic
contests, exhibitions of horsemanship, or in
ancient times chariot racing) b a public
spectacle OED  1. a. Roman Antiq. A large
building, generally oblong or oval, surrounded
with rising tiers of seats, for the exhibition of
public spectacles, horse or chariot races, and
the like. c. A disturbance or uproar a lively or
noisy display. colloq. (orig. U.S.)
12
But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign
policy and has learned her lessons on
domestic-policy overreach.
Hawk- MW1 any of numerous diurnal birds of
prey belonging to a suborder (Falcones of the
order Falconiformes) and including all the
smaller members of this group especially
ACCIPITER2 a small board or metal sheet with a
handle on the underside used to hold mortar3
one who takes a militant attitude and advocates
immediate vigorous action especially a
supporter of a war or warlike policy -- compare
DOVE OED1. a. Any diurnal bird of prey used in
falconry any bird of the family Falconidæ. In
Nat. Hist., restricted to a bird of the subfamily
Accipitrinæ, with rounded and comparatively short
wings, which chases its prey near the ground
distinguished from a falcon or bird of the
subfamily Falconinæ, which has long pointed wings
and lofty flight 3. fig. Applied to a person, in
various senses derived from the nature of the
bird of prey e.g. one who preys on others, a
rapacious person, a sharper or cheat one who is
keen and grasping an officer of the law who
pounces on criminals (as in vagabonds' phrase,
ware the hawk see WARE). Also in Politics, a
person who advocates a hard-line or warlike
policy, opp. to a dove (cf. DOVE n. 2f). Also
attrib. or as quasi-adj.
I was having a fascinating conversation with a
Middle East expert about the intricacies of
Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed
the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this,"
he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my
life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the
doctor's office "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone
"knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid
the question, I say it's too earlyand it is. But
you want to know too, right? So here it is. I
like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic
sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous
belly laugh. She is smart and solid she inspires
tremendous loyalty among those who work for her.
She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as
her husband, but she easily masters difficult
issuesher newfound grasp of military matters has
impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed
Services Committeeand she is not even vaguely
the left-wing harridan portrayed by the
Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton
presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a
disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a
circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness
that infested public life in the 1990s. Already
there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According
to the New York Observer last week, these sites
aren't getting much trafficyet. But they will. I
remember several conversations with Senator
Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10
years ago, and she was clearly painednonplussed
by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred,
directed against her. That experience would be a
walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she
ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range
haters on the right, the last thing we need is a
campaign that would polarize the nation even
more. Indeed, we could use the exact oppositea
candidate who would inspire America's centrist
majority to rise up against the extreme special
interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's
supporters will say she is that candidate. And it
is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run
as a moderate than almost any other Democrat. Her
repositioning on social issues has been
overratedshe will have to do more than merely
"respect" those who oppose abortion she will
have to propose creative compromises. But
Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and
has learned her lessons on domestic-policy
overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich
says, "Hillary has become one of the very few
people who know what to do about health care."
Still, she has some very real political
limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate
that prizes aw-shucks informality she isn't a
particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially
in front of large audiences. Any woman running
for President will face a toughness conundrum
she will constantly have to prove her strength
and be careful about showing her emotions. She
won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's
public sogginess. It will take a brilliant
politician to create a credible feminine
presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton
hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to
break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there
is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A
few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of
Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip
hounds went berserk. Prominent Democratsfriends
of the Clintonswere wringing their hands. "Do we
really want to go through all that again?" one
asked me. I don't knowshould the sins of the
husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any
evidence, the former President should be
considered guilty until proved really guilty. But
there is another problem What role would the big
guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe
that a man with such a huge personality would
have a less active role in her Administration
than she had in his? "You mean she can't run
just because her husband was President?" a
Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most
incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and
no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll
into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like
head of steam in January 2008, and then the
folksyes, even the Democratic basewould give
her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary
presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton
line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've
already had that co-presidencyfor its full,
constitutional eight years. What's more, I
suspect there would be innate and appropriate
populist resistance to this slouch toward
monarchial democracy. There is something
fundamentally un-Americanand very Europeanabout
the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office
every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of
retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton
was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for
you too, Jeb.)
13
She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill
Clinton's public sogginess.
I was having a fascinating conversation with a
Middle East expert about the intricacies of
Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed
the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this,"
he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my
life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the
doctor's office "What about Hillary?"
(Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone
"knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid
the question, I say it's too earlyand it is. But
you want to know too, right? So here it is. I
like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic
sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous
belly laugh. She is smart and solid she inspires
tremendous loyalty among those who work for her.
She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as
her husband, but she easily masters difficult
issuesher newfound grasp of military matters has
impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed
Services Committeeand she is not even vaguely
the left-wing harridan portrayed by the
Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton
presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a
disaster on many levels. It would doubtless be a
circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness
that infested public life in the 1990s. Already
there are blogs, websites and fund-raising
campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According
to the New York Observer last week, these sites
aren't getting much trafficyet. But they will. I
remember several conversations with Senator
Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10
years ago, and she was clearly painednonplussed
by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred,
directed against her. That experience would be a
walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she
ran for President. And while I'd love to see
someone confront, and defeat, the free-range
haters on the right, the last thing we need is a
campaign that would polarize the nation even
more. Indeed, we could use the exact oppositea
candidate who would inspire America's centrist
majority to rise up against the extreme special
interests in both parties. Senator Clinton's
supporters will say she is that candidate. And it
is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run
as a moderate than almost any other Democrat. Her
repositioning on social issues has been
overratedshe will have to do more than merely
"respect" those who oppose abortion she will
have to propose creative compromises. But
Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and
has learned her lessons on domestic-policy
overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich
says, "Hillary has become one of the very few
people who know what to do about health care."
Still, she has some very real political
limitations. She has a clenched, wary public
presence, which won't work well in an electorate
that prizes aw-shucks informality she isn't a
particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially
in front of large audiences. Any woman running
for President will face a toughness conundrum
she will constantly have to prove her strength
and be careful about showing her emotions. She
won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's
public sogginess. It will take a brilliant
politician to create a credible feminine
presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton
hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to
break the ultimate glass ceiling. And then there
is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A
few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of
Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an
attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip
hounds went berserk. Prominent Democratsfriends
of the Clintonswere wringing their hands. "Do we
really want to go through all that again?" one
asked me. I don't knowshould the sins of the
husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any
evidence, the former President should be
considered guilty until proved really guilty. But
there is another problem What role would the big
guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration?
Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe
that a man with such a huge personality would
have a less active role in her Administration
than she had in his? "You mean she can't run
just because her husband was President?" a
Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most
incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and
no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll
into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like
head of steam in January 2008, and then the
folksyes, even the Democratic basewould give
her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary
presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton
line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've
already had that co-presidencyfor its full,
constitutional eight years. What's more, I
suspect there would be innate and appropriate
populist resistance to this slouch toward
monarchial democracy. There is something
fundamentally un-Americanand very Europeanabout
the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office
every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of
retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton
was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good
Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for
you too, Jeb.)
Soggy- MW 1 saturated or heavy with water or
moisture as a WATERLOGGED, SOAKED lta soggy
lawngt b heavy or doughy because of imperfect
cooking ltsoggy breadgt2 heavily dull
SPIRITLESS ltsoggy prosegt OED1. Of land Soaked
with water or moisture boggy, swampy, marshy. 2.
a. Saturated with wet soppy, soaked. b.
Resulting from, caused by, moistness or wetness.
3. Of bread Sodden, heavy. 4. a. Of persons
Dull, spiritless.
14
Sources

• Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics for Beginners.
  (http//www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem06.h
  tml.)
• Semantic Differential. (http//www.cultsock.ndir
  ect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/introductory/semdif.html)
• Klein, Joe. Hillary in 2008? No Way! Time.
  5/8/2005. (http//www.time.com/time/columnist/klei
  n/article/0,9565,1059000,00.html)
• Oxford English Dictionary Online. (BC Libraries)
• Merriam-Webster Online (http//www.m-w.com/)
• Osgood and Semantic Differential.
  (http//www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/spri
  ng_02/adv382J/kcw2287/Measurement20Theory/semanti
  c.html)
• Shead, Jackie. The meaning of meaning Jackie
  Shead considers the public and personal domains
  of meaning. The English Review. 16.4, p.13.