A generation ago, globalization shrank the world. Nations linked by trade and technology began to erase old boundaries. But now barriers are rising again, driven by waves of migration, spillover from wars and the growing threat of terrorism. （一世代前にグローバリゼーションによって世界は小さくなり、貿易と技術で繋がった国同士は古い国境を取り払い始めた。しかし今では国境は再び高くなっている。移民の波や紛争の余波、テロリズムへの強まる脅威が原動力となって）
3分あたりから（スピーチ全文） Please do, however, allow me to deliver one very personal message. One very personal message. It is something that I always keep in mind while I am writing fiction. I have never gone so far as to write it on a piece of paper and paste it to the wall: Rather, it is carved into the wall of my mind, and it goes something like this:
"Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg."
Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg.
ノーベル賞を取れないにしろ、このようなメッセージを発してくれるだけでも十分です。
I have only one thing I hope to convey to you today. We are all human beings, individuals transcending nationality and race and religion, fragile eggs faced with a solid wall called The System. To all appearances, we have no hope of winning. The wall is too high, too strong - and too cold. If we have any hope of victory at all, it will have to come from our believing in the utter uniqueness and irreplaceability of our own and others' souls and from the warmth we gain by joining souls together.
Take a moment to think about this. Each of us possesses a tangible, living soul. The System has no such thing. We must not allow The System to exploit us. We must not allow The System to take on a life of its own. The System did not make us: We made The System.
"It's an honor to wrestle Yoshida," Maroulis said. "For someone to win three gold medals and come back and risk that and accept that challenge to win a fourth — that's another four years of work, dedication, of giving your life to the sport."
“We’ve been talking about beating Yoshida for the past two years,” said Valentin Kalika, Maroulis’s personal coach. “All of her training was to beat Yoshida.”
As a competitor, Maroulis straddles a crooked line between doubt and confidence. Two weeks ago, she daydreamed about booking a flight to Iceland, afraid she would be “the biggest failure at the Olympics,” worried she wouldn’t even make weight. Thursday morning, she confided in teammate Elena Pirozhkova, who would lose a bronze medal match, that she still couldn’t believe she had become a wrestler, surrounded by the toughest women in the world.
She navigated the divide with joy. Through studying Yoshida, Maroulis viewed her less as an enemy than an ideal. She admired her work ethic, fortitude and humility too much to hate her. Before she pinned Mattsson in the semifinals, Maroulis peered ahead to consider what an honor it would be to wrestle Yoshida.
Maroulisが主語なのでMaroulis viewed her less as an enemy than an ideal.とあればherのことは吉田を指すのでしょう。ですから次の文She admired her work ethic, fortitude and humility too much to hate her.も主語以外の代名詞herは吉田を指していますね。
“We’ve got to make sure we’re not giving her [too much] respect,” Kalika said. The Japanese section of the crowd waved flags and chanted, “Yo-shi-da! Yo-shi-da!” She had won three golds. Maroulis was at her first Olympics. “I didn’t want to look at Goliath and get scared,” Maroulis said.
（オックスフォード） Goliath a person or thing that is very large or powerful a Goliath of a man a Goliath of the computer industry From Goliath, a giant in the Bible who is killed by the boy David with a stone.
David and Goliath used to describe a situation in which a small or weak person or organization tries to defeat another much larger or stronger opponent The game looks like it will be a David and Goliath contest.
I will not be voting for Donald Trump for president. This is not a decision I make lightly, for I am a lifelong Republican. But Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.
My conclusion about Mr. Trump’s unsuitability for office is based on his disregard for the precept of treating others with respect, an idea that should transcend politics. Instead, he opts to mock the vulnerable and inflame prejudices by attacking ethnic and religious minorities. Three incidents in particular have led me to the inescapable conclusion that Mr. Trump lacks the temperament, self-discipline and judgment required to be president.
The first was his mocking of a reporter with disabilities, a shocking display that did not receive the scrutiny it deserved. （後略）
The second was Mr. Trump’s repeated insistence that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal judge born and raised in Indiana, could not rule fairly in a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage. （後略）
Third was Donald Trump’s criticism of the grieving parents of Army Capt. Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq. （後略）
オーソドックスなフォーマットは大事ではありますが、もちろんそうでないケースもあります。今回のような難しい決断では最初に理由を述べて最後の最後にメッセージを主張することだってあります。Richard Hanna下院議員はI will vote for Mrs. Clintonという大事な部分を最後の最後のパラグラフに持ってきています。
Our country is desperate for a functioning two-party system. A system that understands that compromise is the sweet spot of peace in a pluralistic society that values tolerance and inclusiveness. Not these endless attempts to run the table in two- and four-year cycles that produce few results and parties that seem to regard gridlock as an accomplishment.
While I disagree with her on many issues, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton. I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing. I trust she can lead. All Republicans may not like the direction, but they can live to win or lose another day with a real candidate. Our response to the public's anger and the need to rebuild requires complex solutions, experience, knowledge and balance. Not bumper sticker slogans that pander to our disappointment, fear and hate.
Diversity Although Trump voters tend to be the most skeptical about immigration, they are also the least likely to actually encounter an immigrant in their neighborhood.
Rothwell finds that people who live in places with many Hispanic residents or places close to the Mexican border, tend not to favor Trump — relative to otherwise similar Americans and to otherwise similar white Republicans.
Among those who are similar in terms of income, education and other factors, those who view Trump favorably are more likely to be found in white enclaves — racially isolated Zip codes where the amount of diversity is lower than in surrounding areas.
These places have not been effected much by immigration, and Rothwell believes that is no coincidence. He argues that when people have more personal experience of people from other countries, they develop friendlier attitudes toward immigrants.
Research from Pew suggests that there is a relationship between the character of people’s neighborhoods and their views on immigrants. A study from 2006 found that native-born Americans living in Zip codes with lots of immigrants tended to hold immigrants in higher esteem. For instance, they were about twice as likely to say that immigrants “strengthen the US with their hard work and talents.”
Few political careers and presidencies have been more defined by speeches than Barack Obama’s. His 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention vaulted him into the country’s consciousness. His 2008 speech on race saved his faltering presidential campaign. As president, Obama’s biggest and most consequential moments — his unfulfilled outreach to the Muslim world in Cairo, his Nobel Peace Prize address on the grim necessity of war in Oslo and his eulogy for nine slain parishioners in Charleston, S.C. — often have been speeches. Obama’s best oratory is beautifully written, meticulously crafted and theatrically delivered. It is a record of our fears, flaws, shortcomings and accomplishments. “I don’t know of any president who has put that kind of work into his speeches,” says Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian. “He organizes his thinking by putting pencil to pad.” In a few days, Obama will deliver one of his last big speeches as president. In a bit of clever stagecraft, he is scheduled to speak at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on the 12th anniversary of his electric 2004 convention speech. The moment raises a question that cuts to the heart of Obama’s presidential legacy and our polarized politics: Which Obama address will still sound wise and inspiring when our bitter, partisan disputes have faded from memory?
2004 Convention Speech ‘There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.’
The speech, though, has its flaws. Its middle sections are bloated by Democratic boilerplate and a tribute to John Kerry, then the Democratic Party’s lackluster presidential nominee. And the speech already reads as somewhat wistful. “It’s an evocation of what could be but is sadly and tragically a myth,” says Jeff Shesol, a speechwriter in the Clinton White House. “Obama’s whole presidency is a rebuttal of that speech.” Indeed, Obama backed away from some of its most optimistic notes in his last State of the Union address. “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better,” he says.
2008 race speech ‘The anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.’
2015 Charleston eulogy ‘As a nation, out of this terrible tragedy, God has visited grace upon us, for he has allowed us to see where we’ve been blind.’
2015 Selma speech ‘It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the true meaning of America.’
Obama’s speech last year commemorating the 50th anniversary of the brutal beating of marchers in Selma, Ala., performed a similar feat. At Selma, Obama consecrated ground, placing the events on the Edmund Pettus Bridge on par with those in Concord, Lexington, Appomattox and Gettysburg. Like Lincoln, Obama rewrote American history, putting rebels, protest leaders, misfits, artists and immigrants at the center of the story. “Look at our history,” he implored. “We are Sojourner Truth and Fannie Lou Hamer, women who could do as much as men and then some.” His litany of American heroes included the “Lost Boys of Sudan,” “the hopeful strivers who cross the Rio Grande,” “the slaves who built the White House” and “the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York.” America’s founders and the “fresh-faced GIs” of World War II merited only passing mentions. For the first time, they were relegated to the periphery. Obama’s 2004 convention speech was more of a surprise. The stakes were much higher when he delivered his 2008 race speech. His Charleston eulogy packed more pathos. But the Selma speech, written over the course of five drafts, was the most ambitious and radical speech of his presidency.
Aides say the Selma speech is also Obama’s favorite address, because it most clearly expresses his view of American exceptionalism — a topic he first explored 12 years ago in his convention speech.
But Selma’s true genius lies in its ability to speak to America’s future. The Census Bureau projects that the U.S. population will become “majority minority” in 2044. The shift has fueled anxiety among whites and has probably given a boost to Republican nominee Donald Trump’s “make America great again” campaign for the White House. It has spawned some of the backlash against Obama’s presidency, along with questions about his legitimacy to serve, his love of country and his faith. Someday, though, this demographic shift will be seen as an inevitable part of the American story. Selma is the first, great presidential address to speak to that America and a speech only our first black president could give.
前回紹介した保守が読んでいる記事だとヒラリーは悪徳政治家のように描かれています。一般の人にとってヒラリーは有能な人物だと思っていても彼女が果たしてどんな人間かよくわからないというのが本音なのかもしれません。だからこそ今週のTIMEはIn Search of Hillaryというタイトルで特集記事を組んだのでしょう。PBS Newshourでは、ヒラリーは人間性をもっと見せればいいのにとMark Shieldsはアドバイスしていました。一方のDavid Brooksは弱さを見せないようにするのでは否定的な見解でしたが。。。
8分20秒あたりから JUDY WOODRUFF: What about that, Mark? What does she need to do? MARK SHIELDS: I think she has got to be optimistic. I think she has to be — she has to reveal herself. I mean… JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you mean? She’s been around for a long time. MARK SHIELDS: I mean, there are people who know Hillary Clinton who tell wonderful stories about her, how likable she is, how funny she is; 99 percent of American people don’t — have never seen that side of her. Whether it’s her guarded privacy or whatever else, I mean, there has got to be some sense that this is a human being that I can identify. Let me argue with David, dissent with him on Ted Cruz. If Donald Trump does lose, and especially if he loses the way that David describes, being revealed as this bizarre personality, Ted Cruz is not going to be what Republicans are looking for in 2020. Dan Coats, retiring senator from Indiana, a mild-mannered man, a former United States ambassador to Germany, former congressman, a respected member of the Senate, said of Ted Cruz after this week in Cleveland he’s the most self-centered, narcissistic, pathological liar I have ever seen. And he said, you can quote me on that. Now, this is the kind of feeling that his colleagues have. People are going to be asking anybody at 2020 after this kind of election that David and I both expect it to be, what kind of person is this? Is this somebody we can be comfortable, somebody we can be confident in, somebody who is not neurotic or worse? JUDY WOODRUFF: You’re talking about Ted Cruz at this point. (CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: And Donald Trump. JUDY WOODRUFF: Donald Trump agrees with him. MARK SHIELDS: That’s right. Right. JUDY WOODRUFF: David Brooks, what about Mark’s point about Hillary Clinton needs to show more of who she really is, something personal about herself? What about that? DAVID BROOKS: It is true there is a contrast between the candidates. It is absolutely true the people who work for Hillary Clinton speak of her in glowing terms and say she’s loyal, she’s thoughtful, she thinks about them, she remembers birthdays. When something bad has happened, she’s there for them. These are not stories you hear about Donald Trump. Nobody is saying, I wish — the Trump I know is so personal and warm. Nobody says that. Even if his own daughter, when she talks — Ivanka, when she talks about her dad, it’s because she got to go see him on a work site. It’s not because he is ever at home. But, with Hillary, there is apparently this warm side that she has never let us see, but that intimates really do talk about. But to reveal that would mean breaking through the wall of distrust that she’s encased herself in for the last 25 years. And I’m not sure she’s — she’s never shown a personal willingness to do that, because it makes her vulnerable. And her emotional invulnerability has at once made her survive, but has hurt her politically and her likability ratings. So, I really don’t expect her to do that.
While Donald Trump claims to be our voice, Hillary Clinton forever struggles to find hers. Her speech Thursday at the Democratic National Convention will afford her yet another chance to argue her case, to explain why she’s the best person for the presidency. For Clinton, whom we’ve known so well and so long, that’s a challenge. Familiarity affords obvious strengths, but so far in this campaign, it often has posed a hindrance, with the proportion of Americans viewing Clinton unfavorably creeping up as the race has worn on. The candidate who discovered her own voice in a small New Hampshire port town eight years ago now faces an electorate that has trouble trusting what she says. “I have work to do on this point,” she admitted recently.
“Living History” spans Clinton’s life from childhood through her election as the junior senator from New York in 2000. “Hard Choices” chronicles her experiences as President Obama’s secretary of state. “Hard Choices” is about her ability, “Living History” is about her humanity. Clinton may be tempted to stress the former, to premise her election on expertise and predictability, especially when her Republican rival sells only fear and division. Yet in reading her memoirs, that is the less-compelling version of the candidate. “Living History” is riskier, more vulnerable, more real, especially read now, in an era when most campaigns have grown less so. Competence and experience have always been Clinton’s calling card, but they’ve not sufficed. For the remainder of this campaign, her task, her hardest choice, will be to reveal the humanity behind the capability, the person inside the politician.
なぜ今回出馬するのか、その理由を彼女の信条に見出して締めています。
Why? Unquenched political ambition is the easy, obvious answer, a chance to deploy all that experience and ability on her own, at last. But a line recurs in these two memoirs, a Methodist lesson from Clinton’s Midwestern, mid-century upbringing: “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can.”
Clinton has tweeted these words and posted them on Facebook recently, and I won’t be surprised if she invokes them again in her convention speech claiming the Democratic nomination. If you support Clinton, the sentiment is inspiring; if not, the notion of Clinton doing all she can by all means possible may terrify. But the final clause — “as long as you ever can” — is telling. It embodies the Clinton of her memoirs: familiar, enduring, scarred, but eager and available, if we’d only choose her. Even her Secret Service code name, “Evergreen,” is apt, the perfect label for a candidate whose principal qualification for the presidency is her eternal readiness for it.
