Gender Identity and Performance

Drawing from social identity theory^{Footnote 13} and self-categorization theory,^{Footnote 14} much research has been dedicated to understanding how social identities are manifest in a given context and how they influence perceptions of political actors and events. A well-established body of research in political psychology demonstrates that social identities including gender, race, religion, and partisanship fuel group-based attachments, and consequently shape perceptions, attitudes, and judgments of the political world.^{Footnote 15} However, the availability or salience of a particular social identity largely depends on the context or situation. In the context of an election, for example, partisanship is a highly salient identity that influences the way partisan voters perceive and evaluate candidates. Gender identities are ubiquitous yet they intersect with race, ethnicity, class status, and more in the larger scheme of identity politics. For this reason, important research has begun to address the broader dynamics of intersectionality.^{Footnote 16} Still, the salience of gender is key to understanding the explicit and implicit assumptions made about who a female politician is and how she should behave. When women are a minority within a group such as in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, their identity as women is more salient. Accordingly, as women reach positions of higher power and authority, their gender is increasingly salient. A female chief executive or commander-in-chief defies normal expectations, which heightens the salience of her gender and thereby increases the likelihood that attitudes toward gender will affect how she is perceived and evaluated by others. This is also true for members of other minority groups who have long been marginalized in politics. Attitudes towards race, for example, factor significantly into public evaluations of Barack Obama.^{Footnote 17} The salience of one’s identity is thus consequential.

Gender is also a performative act and is made more or less salient based on one’s performance. As Judith Butler explains, “we act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.”^{Footnote 18} Accordingly, gender is a set of actions learned through cultural socialization, narratives, language, and other performative acts, which conform to or reject societal expectations of gender.^{Footnote 19} For a female politician, this performance factors into her strategic self-presentation. It is tied to the societal expectations and electoral constraints she perceives as well as the institutional norms of behavior that shape interaction and impact her ability to achieve her goals. In terms of their gendered self-presentation, then, female politicians have two primary audiences—their public constituencies (who they represent) and their (primarily male) colleagues in government with whom they must cooperate to be successful in setting forth their policy agendas and priorities. Therefore, it is important to consider how perceptions of gender and leadership as well as institutional norms of behavior affect the strategic self-presentation of women in politics.

Perceptions of Gender and Political Leadership in Electoral Contexts

Although female candidates raise as much money and are as successful as male candidates, women do not run for public office at nearly the same rate as men.^{Footnote 20} Certain structural barriers, including professional networks that disproportionately recruit male candidates, reduce the likelihood that women will run for public office.^{Footnote 21} Perhaps even more importantly, however, are the social and psychological barriers that also limit women’s ambition to run for office. Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox find that women are less likely than men to express interest in running for public office, to consider themselves “qualified” to run, and to perceive a fair climate in which to run.^{Footnote 22} The factors that discourage women from pursuing a career in politics also pose obstacles that politically ambitious women must overcome.

Voters have organized cognitive representations, or prototypes, of an ideal political leader and their associated character traits.^{Footnote 23} These prototypes are often incompatible with ideas about women and their associated traits. Masculine norms of behavior—such as assertiveness—coincide with expectations of leaders, whereas feminine norms of behavior—such as agreeableness—conflict with expectations of leaders.^{Footnote 24} Kathleen Hall Jamieson describes the Catch-22s that female leaders confront as “double binds.”^{Footnote 25} Women who enter politics and other leadership positions are faced with the dilemma to prove themselves as both feminine and competent as if the two were mutually exclusive. Women are challenged by competing expectations often played out in the media: if she is not “tough” (like a man), she is not competent enough to lead; if she is “tough” (like a man), she is a “bitch” and disliked for violating expectations of women as warm, sympathetic, and friendly.^{Footnote 26} Such stereotypes rely on conceptual structures that define normal expectations.^{Footnote 27} Although “iron lady” was made famous in reference to Margaret Thatcher, the label has been attached to a number of female leaders who do not conform to idealized feminine stereotypes, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel (“iron frau”). This label implies that traits that are valued in leaders— strength, determination, and authority—are uncommon or anomalous in women. Perceptions of leadership are thus highly consequential for female leaders, particularly for those elected into office.

Still, there is no unified consensus on the mechanisms that determine how a candidate’s gender will influence perceptions among the electorate. Female politicians (especially experienced politicians such as Clinton) who aspire toward public office and leadership positions are undoubtedly aware of these competing expectations and recognize the need to navigate double binds. Therefore, they may attempt to present themselves in a way that minimizes the salience of their gender. This idea is supported in prior work on the communication strategies of women running for public office. In debates and candidate ads, female candidates are more likely to identify with stereotypically masculine character traits than their male opponents.^{Footnote 28} Female candidates who emphasize masculine traits are also more likely to win their races.^{Footnote 29} However, there is also evidence that female candidates are more successful when they can capitalize on gender stereotypes favorable toward women and women’s issues.^{Footnote 30} Several studies find voters attribute ideology and partisanship based on a politician’s gender, viewing men as more conservative and women as more liberal.^{Footnote 31} Other studies find that voters stereotypically associate female candidates with traditional gender traits and abilities and believe they are more competent when dealing with issues related to social welfare, but less competent on issues of crime, defense, and the economy, in which men are assumed to be more competent.^{Footnote 32} In contrast, in a recent study by Deborah Brooks, survey respondents rated male and female candidates similarly on traits such as competence, empathy, and the ability to handle an international crisis.^{Footnote 33} In the same study, inexperienced female candidates were rated as stronger, more honest, and more compassionate than inexperienced male candidates.^{Footnote 34} Although the implications of these studies are mixed, they nevertheless indicate that gender factors significantly into public perceptions of politicians and candidates for office and is thus an important consideration for women’s self-presentation. The work by Brooks, among others, reflects a growing trend toward data-driven approaches to the double bind that, in time, may paint a clearer picture of the obstacles female politicians face. Therefore, in addition to looking toward voters (and self-report measures) to understand how gendered power dynamics manifest in the self-presentation of women in politics, it is also important to consider the institutional, procedural, and implicit pressures that shape interactions within the political arena.

Masculine Norms of Interaction in Institutional Settings

The self-presentation of women in politics is also affected by the institutional procedures, interpersonal interactions, and norms of communication that govern political institutions. In The Silent Sex, Christopher Karpowitz and Tali Mendelberg examine how women’s behavior is impacted by procedural rules as well as the ratio of men to women within deliberative groups.^{Footnote 35} They find that women have greater influence when collective decisions are bound by unanimous consent, but less influence when decisions are bound by majority rule—the dominant procedure for democratic decision-making.^{Footnote 36} They also find that when women are minority members, they speak less often, have less influence on the group outcome, and align their speech patterns with the men in the group even when they care about the topic of conversation and have preferences distinct from men (e.g., generosity towards the poor).^{Footnote 37} The finding that women speak less often, however, is disputed elsewhere.^{Footnote 38} Together, these findings suggest that norms of interaction and institutional procedures are both consequential for women’s self-presentation. Karpowitz and Mendelberg suggest that elite women, who usually work in highly masculine environments, may be predisposed or socialized in ways that make them more “inclined toward the views and interaction styles that characterize the male central tendency.”^{Footnote 39} However, they also point to evidence from interviews with female politicians who “believe they cannot get far with the feminine style.”^{Footnote 40} This latter view is supported by research that suggests when women adhere to feminine styles of conduct and communication, their views are considered subordinate and are often challenged by men in the group.^{Footnote 41} In a revealing anecdote, Deborah Cameron describes how Margaret Thatcher prepared herself for the United Kingdom’s top post by undergoing a “linguistic makeover,” which required her to lower the pitch of her voice, flatten her accent, and slow her delivery.^{Footnote 42} To be successful in these institutions, then, women must negotiate their authority among their male colleagues, which tends to result in their conformity to a dominant, masculine style of communication.^{Footnote 43}

Communication in government institutions is often biased toward a masculine style of interaction, which can be seen in assertive, adversarial, hierarchical, and rule-dominated legislative bodies like the U.S. Congress and British Parliament. Regardless of gender, communication styles within these institutions reflect a masculine style.^{Footnote 44} As minority members, women are perceived (and often perceive themselves) to be “interlopers” and as such, they adjust their behavior according to the norms of the group.^{Footnote 45} For example, female members of the British Parliament are just as likely as their male colleagues to engage in a competitive and self-assertive style of speaking and even more likely to adhere to the official rules of the chamber.^{Footnote 46} As interlopers to the political arena, “their linguistic behaviour reflects their understanding that to be judged as ‘good community’ members they must put special effort into displaying their adherence to behavioural norms that carry particular symbolic weight.”^{Footnote 47} This suggests that institutional norms of behavior and interaction embody and thus reward masculine styles of communication. Instead of defying entrenched norms of behavior, women appear to internalize their social environments, consciously and unconsciously conforming their interaction to align with the established, masculine status quo. Such pressures illustrate the “circuitous routes” women must navigate when pursuing power, influence, and leadership in the political arena.

Do Women Have to Talk Like Men to Be Considered Viable Leaders?

Altogether, research into the self-presentation of female politicians suggests that expectations of leadership as well as institutional arrangements have significant consequences for the communication strategies women adopt. These factors can be summarized briefly. First, gender is a performance and particular notions of how women are “supposed to act” encourage particular types of performances. At the same time, however, particular notions of how leaders are supposed to act encourage different, and sometimes conflicting performances. Simply put, the prototypical political leader looks, acts, and talks like a man and a woman simply does not fit into this prototype. Additionally, norms of behavior and interpersonal interactions within political institutions embody and reward a masculine style of interaction. Women are not only viewed as having less authority, their authority is diminished further when they do not conform to the masculine styles of interaction that permeate political institutions. As interlopers to the political arena, the self-presentation of female politicians thus tends to be more calculated than that of their male colleagues, who, by the virtue of their gender, embody the dominant prototype of a political leader. Rarely do women act “like women” to achieve power and influence in politics. How do these implicit barriers manifest in the gendered self-presentation of politically ambitious women? How do women position themselves for success in male-dominated professions? Do they have to talk like men to be considered viable, competent political leaders? I now consider these questions in the case of Hillary Clinton. Specifically, I explore whether Clinton talked more “like a man” as her involvement and power in the political arena expanded.

Feminine and Masculine Linguistic Styles

Language is a key site where gender is routinely performed, and it thus provides a valuable lens for understanding the self-presentational strategies that female politicians use to achieve power and influence in a male-dominated profession. One approach to studying language—content analysis—has been used extensively in political science to identify, for example, the integrative complexity of statements by members of the British House of Commons,^{Footnote 63} the issues legislators emphasize when communicating with constituents,^{Footnote 64} the policy positions of political parties over time,^{Footnote 65} and the differences in communication strategies in mixed-gender political debates.^{Footnote 66} Despite substantial variation in the conceptualization and measurement of variables, such research typically ignores or altogether removes common style or “function” words (e.g., I, you, the, it, and, from) because—at least on the surface—these words contain little lexical or semantic meaning. However, research in social psychology and linguistics demonstrate that function words do contain value.

Function words—articles, prepositions, pronouns, and auxiliary verbs—shape and connect the content of our thoughts into meaningful forms of communication.^{Footnote 67} While function words are the most commonly written and spoken words in the English language, they have little semantic meaning by themselves and are often implicit in speech and not always consciously evaluated when speaking.^{Footnote 68} Linguistic style thus refers to the way an individual communicates and how she conveys meaningful content to others.^{Footnote 69} Linguistic style can provide insight into a number of psychological and social processes. In prior research, linguistic style has been linked to personality traits, levels of depression, relationship quality, status and social hierarchy, gender, and more.^{Footnote 70} By analyzing function words, researchers can gain insight into the implicit, micro processes by which individuals weave disparate thoughts into meaningful narratives that organize and shape experience. Therefore, rather than ignoring or removing function words, my analysis focuses heavily on Clinton’s use of function words and investigates her style of speaking.

Work by James Pennebaker and colleagues find that language encodes gender in very subtle ways. Reliable and consistent gender differences in linguistic style have been found in studies analyzing tens of thousands of speech samples from both men and women.^{Footnote 71} In general and on average, women tend to use pronouns (especially first-person singular pronouns), verbs and auxiliary verbs, social, emotional, cognitive, and tentative words more frequently than men.^{Footnote 72} In general and on average, men tend to use nouns, big words (words greater than six letters), articles, prepositions, anger, and swear words more frequently than women.^{Footnote 73} Utilizing this insight, I constructed two indices and refer to them as “feminine linguistic style” and “masculine linguistic style,” respectively. Table 1 describes the linguistic markers that comprise these contrasting styles.

Table 1 Differences in linguistic style between men and women

This appears, at least on the surface, to conceptualize feminine and masculine styles quite differently than previous studies in the politics and gender literature.^{Footnote 74} In much of this research, the coding schemes for “feminine style” include factors such as using a personal tone, addressing viewers as peers, identifying with the experiences of others, inviting viewer participation, discussing family relationships, inviting the audience to trust their experiences/perceptions in making political judgments, and using personal experiences/anecdotes.^{Footnote 75} In contrast, coding schemes for “masculine style” often include factors such as using statistics, emphasizing one’s own accomplishments, and referencing expert authorities or sources.^{Footnote 76}

By analyzing function words, which are often discarded or ignored in coding schemes, my approach picks up on less overt, more implicit expressions of gender than is typical of many studies in the politics and gender literature. This study also differs in that codes are well defined. In general, a pronoun is a pronoun regardless of the data source one analyzes. Another notable difference is the inclusion of emotion into feminine and masculine linguistic styles. Emotion has important implications for gendered self-presentation—as recently as 2010, thirty percent of Americans believed that men were better suited emotionally for politics than women.^{Footnote 77} Consider Clinton’s “emotional response” during a campaign event the day before the New Hampshire primary, when momentarily, her voice waivered and it appeared that she might cry. In an article titled, “Can Hillary Clinton Cry Herself Back to the White House?,” published the day after the primary, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times likens Clinton to “the heroine of a Lifetime movie, a woman in peril who manages to triumph.”^{Footnote 78} Such depictions serve to reinforce the stereotype that tears and visible emotions are feminine traits and signs of weakness, which can be consequential especially for female leaders. On the other hand, anger is an acceptable emotional expression by men, as it conforms to the expectation that male leaders are aggressive.

My approach also shares some similarity with prior studies. As referenced earlier, common coding schemes in the politics and gender literature suggest that female politicians rely more on personal and social references. Talking about oneself in a personal way and talking to and about other people implies the use of pronouns and social references, both of which are included in the feminine linguistic style. References to external objects like statistics, expert reports, and policy issues tend to rely on the use of articles (object references), prepositions (spatial and temporal hierarchies), and big words, which are similarly included in the masculine linguistic style. Hence, the variables examined in this study (derived from empirical observations by Pennebaker among others) are not as different from prior studies as they may appear.

As a case study, several critical factors are not taken into account, including how partisanship or the interaction between party and gender^{Footnote 79} might affect Clinton’s linguistic style. Similarly, it is not clear from this study how age, race, ethnicity, education, and socioeconomic background impact the linguistic styles of political leaders. Future research is needed to examine these factors and to explore the linguistic styles of both male and female politicians more systematically. In addition, Clinton has experienced a unique trajectory into politics and, arguably, her career is not a “typical” case. It is, however, an exceptionally important one. Clinton has been a well-known figure in U.S. politics for nearly 25 years, throughout which she has taken on a variety of gendered roles. Very few, if any, women in U.S. politics have come close to reaching the level of prominence that Clinton has achieved and sustained. Her example is a rare and worthy one for studying the strategies female politicians use to navigate a path toward leadership and for building on the limited body of existing research on this topic. Although Clinton’s case cannot be generalized to understand broader trends, my approach offers a promising direction for research into gendered communication styles.

Methods and Data

I investigate Clinton’s linguistic style using an original corpus^{Footnote 80} of 567 interview and debate transcripts from 1992–2013. All interview transcripts with Hillary Clinton available on the Clinton Presidential Library’s website were included in this analysis and constitute the majority of data analyzed from 1992–1999.^{Footnote 81} All interview transcripts (including newspaper, magazine, broadcast, and cable TV) and debate transcripts featuring Clinton between 1992–2013 available through archived databases and on the Department of State’s website were also included.^{Footnote 82} This corpus thus represents a comprehensive collection of interview and debate transcripts featuring Clinton between 1992–2013. I then analyzed the feminine and masculine linguistic markers within these texts using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), a text analysis program.^{Footnote 83} LIWC has been used to examine the linguistic patterns of political texts in a number of studies. One, for example, found that candidates running for president and vice president in 2004 used high rates of articles, prepositions, positive emotions, and big words,^{Footnote 84} markers that are more consistent with a masculine linguistic style. Another study found a low rate of pronouns, social, swear, and emotion words and a high rate of articles and big words in congressional speeches regardless of gender, indicating that a formal, masculine linguistic style is indeed pervasive in the chambers of the U.S. Congress.^{Footnote 85} Finally, for each transcript I calculated a feminine to masculine ratio by taking the sum of feminine linguistic markers and dividing by the sum of masculine linguistic markers described earlier in table 1.^{Footnote 86}

Supportive Wife and First Lady (1992–1999)

Clinton’s role on the Health Reform Task Force was increasingly criticized for stepping too far outside the traditional boundaries of the first lady’s “appropriate” sphere of influence on policy matters.^{Footnote 89} Following the failure of health reform, Clinton tried to “soften” her image to better fulfill her role as first lady and to lessen her perceived liability to the Clinton administration.^{Footnote 90} Table 3 indicates that on average Clinton’s linguistic style was more feminine during her time as first lady than at any other point in her public career. Her use of tentative words (e.g., almost, probably, kind of, sort of) was particularly high during this time. While this finding suggests that Clinton was relatively uncertain or insecure when discussing topics with journalists, tentative language is also common with individuals who have not fully processed and formed a reliable narrative about an event or topic.^{Footnote 91} In reviewing transcripts with a high rate of tentative words, I found both factors—uncertainty and lack of a consistent narrative—were at play. She often used tentative words as a buffer against potential criticism or to express cautious certainty when making factual assertions or statements that implicated her husband’s administration.

Clinton for Senate (2000)

The most dramatic and sustained shift in Clinton’s language was in her transition from first lady to Senate candidate. Table 3 reports that the feminine/masculine ratio declines from 2.42 during her time as first lady to 2.10 during her Senate race in 2000 when Clinton campaigned for herself for the first time. Compared to her tenure as first lady, Clinton’s use of feminine linguistic markers declined during her run for Senate. Simultaneously, Clinton’s use of masculine linguistic markers, particularly big words, articles, and prepositions, sharply increased. This explains the sizable drop in the feminine/masculine ratio seen in figure 1 around the year 2000. Table 3 also indicates that Clinton used an unusually high rate of positive emotion words and a correspondingly low rate of negative emotion words during this time. Indeed, this positive self-presentation is apparent when reading these transcripts. Clinton was enthusiastic about the possibility of serving in the Senate and bringing positive changes to New York. This may have been a strategy she used to combat perceptions of her as a carpetbagger and “fire-breathing dragon” among New Yorkers.^{Footnote 92}

During a campaign, it is reasonable to expect a candidate to discuss him or herself more frequently than usual since the purpose of a campaign is to educate voters about their ideology, experience, and policy goals. Indeed, table 3 shows an increase in Clinton’s use of first-person singular pronouns during her 2000 and 2008 campaigns, which indicates that Clinton talked in a personal way about her beliefs, experiences, and plans. Interestingly, pronouns are not only a marker of gender but also of social status. Contrary to a widely held assumption, lower status individuals are more likely to use first-person singular pronouns especially when talking “up” to higher status individuals, who are more likely to talk “down” to “you,” or for the generalized, all-assuming “we,” which politicians are famous for.^{Footnote 93} After entering the Senate, Clinton spoke for herself and for those she represented, a signal of both masculinity and high status.

Navigating Male-Dominated Institutions as Senator (2001–2006) and Secretary of State (2009–2013)

As senator and secretary of state, Clinton navigated institutions largely dominated by men. Figure 1 illustrates that Clinton’s linguistic style was most masculine during the years she served in the Senate and Department of State. The feminine/masculine ratio declined to 1.91 percent as secretary of state, its lowest point within the timeframe covered in this study. Table 3 shows her use of first-person plural pronouns like “we” increased from 2.3 percent in 2000 to 3.1 percent during her time in the Senate and further increased to 3.4 percent during her time as secretary of state. In these roles, she possessed authority as a representative from New York and later, as leader of the Department of State. Her expanded scope of representation cannot be disentangled from her ascent into increasingly powerful roles, which complicates the analysis of Clinton’s gendered self-presentation. Both factors likely contributed to her marked increase in first-person plural pronouns. However, we can be reassured that her language was increasingly masculine by considering her use of other masculine linguistic markers during this time. Seen in table 3, as senator and secretary of state, Clinton’s use of big words also increased markedly when compared to the years she spent as first lady and as a candidate. Moreover, Clinton used more articles and fewer pronouns during her time in the Senate and State Department. Articles and pronouns tend to be interchangeable in syntactic structure,^{Footnote 94} which suggests that she increasingly replaced pronouns with articles. She also increasingly expressed anger while in these roles. Together, these findings suggest that Clinton’s linguistic style was more masculine during the years she served in these institutions.

As senator and secretary of state, Clinton’s self-presentation was constrained by the masculine norms of behavior and interaction within these institutions. Her self-presentation was not only directed toward her public constituencies, but also toward her primarily male colleagues. This latter point is particularly important for Clinton because in both roles she presented herself as a leader on traditionally masculine issues such as foreign affairs, international trade, and national security. Given that the Senate and State Department are male-dominated institutions, Clinton may have conformed to the masculine norms of communication within these institutions to establish credibility among her colleagues as well as to negotiate her authority and position herself as a leader. Changes in her linguistic style do not simply reflect changes in the content she was communicating, but in the way she communicated, and in the subtle social signals she expressed. Bear in mind, this study only analyzes transcripts from natural language sources—interviews and debates—not speeches or other formal addresses. Therefore, her language became more masculine even in conversations outside the formal boundaries and constraints of the institutions she served. These findings thus suggest that she internalized the masculine norms of communication she practiced within these roles.

Clinton for President (2007–2008)

Clinton launched her first presidential campaign in January 2007 and was considered the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination during much of that year. She maintained a relatively “gender neutral” strategy, “though occasionally with some subtly gendered flourishes.”^{Footnote 95} Still, Clinton’s campaign advisors disagreed on Clinton’s self-presentation particularly when it came to her gender strategy.^{Footnote 96} As seen in table 3, Clinton used a lower rate of positive emotion and a higher rate of both negative emotion and anger-related words in her presidential campaign than she did during her Senate campaign in 2000. This may reflect her emphasis on proving herself as qualified and competent on issues of national security, a strategy she often used to differentiate herself from Obama. She also used a higher rate of verbs and auxiliary verbs in 2007–2008. A high rate of verbs indicates that Clinton adopted a more dynamic style of speaking, focusing on how topics and events change, while a high rate of auxiliary verbs (e.g., is, do, was) indicates that Clinton used a more passive style of speaking.^{Footnote 97} It is also important to note that Clinton’s language in 2007–2008 was comparable to that found in her campaign for Senate in 2000. Seen in table 3, the combined feminine/masculine ratio in 2007–2008 was the same for her 2000 Senate campaign—2.10. Yet figure 1 displays an intriguing spike in the ratio at the end of 2007 into the start of 2008, which indicates an abrupt change toward a more feminine linguistic style. To better understand Clinton’s linguistic style over the course of the campaign, figure 2 displays the feminine/masculine ratio for Clinton’s interviews and debates in 2007 and 2008.

Figure 2 Ratio of feminine to masculine styles for all interviews and debates in 2007–2008

Figure 2 reveals that for most of 2007, Clinton’s language in debates and interviews was more masculine than at other points in her campaign. Her debate performances in particular indicate an overwhelmingly masculine strategy. In late 2007, however, Clinton’s language became more feminine in interviews. Interestingly, around the same time Clinton’s advisors expressed concern about Clinton’s favorability with voters. Consequently, from late 2007 into January 2008 Clinton momentarily deviated from her dominant, masculine strategy and presented herself as a warmer, more feminine candidate to voters.^{Footnote 98} Figure 2 supports this analysis. This momentary shift in strategy marks an interesting point of disruption in her otherwise steady self-presentation up to that point in time.

After Super Tuesday, February 5, Obama had accumulated a sizable advantage over Clinton, and the Clinton campaign responded with an aggressive messaging campaign attacking Obama, what Lawrence and Rose describe as a “testosterone blitzkrieg.”^{Footnote 99} This masculinized messaging proved successful in Texas and Ohio, which encouraged Clinton to maintain this strategy in subsequent state contests.^{Footnote 100} Figure 2 does not reflect this strategy, however. Figure 2 shows Clinton’s language became more feminine starting in late 2007, but it does not indicate a noticeable shift toward a more masculine style after January 2008. As figure 2 illustrates, Clinton’s linguistic style was scattered and fluctuated much more dramatically from one interview to the next throughout the 2008 campaign period, which ended once Clinton conceded the race to Obama in June. This volatility in Clinton’s linguistic style may reflect a candidate—and campaign—in crisis without a clear strategy on her self-presentation as a female candidate for president. It is also possible that internal disagreements and confusion over Clinton’s gendered self-presentation seeped into her linguistic behavior.