Vida Orouji - Department of Languages and Linguistics, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
Farzad Salahshoor - Department of English Language and Literature, Shahid Madani University of Azerbaijan, Tabriz, Iran

This study was a critical discourse analysis (henceforth CDA) of the three presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016. The analysis revealed more than anything both candidates’ sticking to the cliché strategy of representing self as the good and the other as the bad guy. This was most evident in their cyclic accusation of the other for using sexist and racist language, two very sensitive issues in the eyes of American public. To react to these accusations both employed apology making strategy to yield a more positive self-image and paving the ground for counter attacking the other on the same ground. The critical discourse analysis of these presidential debates showed that representation of self as good and the other as bad one can be found in even the discourses of would-be presidents who normally try to justify their image in the eyes of the people which sometimes end in bad representation of their rivals.

Critical Discourse Analysis, Racist discourse, Sexist Discourse, Presidential Elections