Clinton And Reagan's Speech Analysis

Words: 1689
Pages: 7

It seems that they both handled themselves, as one would expect during a tragedy. They both were dressed appropriately for the occasion. Clinton’s speech was held inside at a formal event and Reagan’s speech was given outside. Given the sensitivity of these events both Clinton and Reagan acted very respectful of those in attendance. They were both dressed in muted colors, which I’m assuming was done to not bring undo attention to them but to keep focused on the event. Had this been a more upbeat presidential event they would have probably worn the traditional red or blue ties at least. Their attire was not the only similarity, they both stayed in one place, reading from a printed script. I can only assume the reason their speeches weren’t memorized, was either there wasn’t time, or it made it more personal to read it. I personally agree with both. Had either one of the taken the time to memorize their speeches I …show more content…
Tree symbolism is deeply rooted in the Christian faith. In Genesis, the tree of life give everlasting life to those who take of it’s fruit; Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. All wood comes from trees: people fish from wooden boats, carpenters, like Jesus, work with wood, and Christ was crucified on a wooden cross. Thus, pointing to a tree as a symbol of life leads the listener, especially in a close-knit Christian area like Oklahoma, to think of God and Jesus and the Christian belief of an afterlife. Clinton never openly expresses all of this, but the meaning is implied based on what the listeners, most likely Christians, believe. His use of the dogwood story allows the listener to make the rise from sadness about the tragedy to hopefulness for the future to acceptance of God’s will to the promise of justice against those who committed this violent act of