EL200: Current event -- Elections

Clinton shuffles campaign team, by Caren Bohan

&

Clinton replaces campaign manager, by Katharine Seelye

(for this assignment)

First of all, I noticed a difference right away just by the titles. Shuffling the team sounds much less threatening to Clinton's campaign than replacing the manager does.

The introductory paragraphs for both articles are straightforward and introduce the topic right away. They are similar in the sense that both writers immediately mention Obama's success compared to "the biggest shake-up" of Clinton's campaign to date, according to Seelye. Bohan takes a slightly less intimidating approach by saying that Clinton is struggling "to blunt Barack Obama's growing momentum."

Bohan continues to say that the staff switching done by Clinton isn't a sign of trouble, according to Clinton's aids. Seelye's article goes a little deeper, saying the reason for the swap was to send signals that the campaign is holding strong.

Bohan's article spends 5-6 paragraphs discussing Clinton's decision to replace her manager and longtime aide, while Seelye's only really gives news about Clinton's decision in the introductory paragraph, then goes on to praise Obama for the remainder. I also just realized that the Clinton switching her campaign team around is called a shake-up not once, but twice, by Seelye. This gives a very negative connotation to Clinton's decision, which I'm sure she made in attempt to better her campaign as a whole, not disrupt it.

Bohan's article (also calls the switch a shake-up) includes an important quote from a political science professor at the University of Virginia backing the point that switching members so late in the campaign "can't be a good sign." I'd would have liked more proof such as this in Seelye's article. Instead she includes good news about Obama's campaign for paragraph after paragraph, including quotes from him refuting Clinton as the next possible president. Bohan at least gives a glimmer of hope to the Clinton campaign by adding another quote from the professor saying, "it's not over."

Overall, I found Bohan's article much more informative and less bias than Seelye's who, I think it's safe to say, is an Obama supporter.

Don't get me wrong, Seelye wrote a quality article; however, I think the title should reference Obama, not Clinton, considering the bulk of the article is about Obama's latest success. Her article is more controversial as well. She mentions Clinton's secret meeting with John Edwards as well as Bill Clinton losing an Academy Award to Obama. This provides more interest than Bohan's straightforward article, an more information about the campaigns in general, but I feel Bohan stayed on topic better than Seelye.