While reading "Barack Obama's Address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention" in WP, I found myself quickly losing interest. The two viewpoints from David A. Frank and Mark Lawrence McPhail were obviously distinguished throughout the essay. However, they also have some similarities in their opinions. An example of this is the rhetoric of consilience that is prevalent in Obama's address to the DNC. From McPhail's interpretation of Obama's speech, this rhetoric of consilience attempts to draw a 'community' together that share a common bond. Throughout the essay, McPhail is constantly comparing Obama's speech to that of Reverend Al Sharpton's speech of 2004. With this comparison in mind, McPhail is not pleased with Obama's deliverance of this topic of racial traumas and believes it lacks a crucial factor: hope. After this introduction of the two critics of Barack Obama, we find that the remainder of the essay is divided into four parts. First, Frank goes more deeply into detail about Obama's Rhetoric of Consilience. Second, Obama's DNC speech is compared and contrasted with that of Al Sharpton. The majority of the essay is then dedicated to Obama's Menexenuasian message where the topic of consilience can be found once again, as well as comparisons with Martin Luther King, Jr. and additional differences with Sharpton. The Menexenuasian message focuses on the approval of the white society and the attributes it offers to the country. The essay finally concludes full circle with addressing some of the flaws noted in Obama's DNC speech while also putting the 'responsibility' on America to confront the racial topics that are prevalent in society today.
After reading William Gross' interpretation of Obama's 2004 Democratic National Convention speech in CCM, I have to admit that I was able to follow it and stay focused. Right at the beginning of his essay, Gross establishes Obama's credibility, ethos, as a Senator with the necessary level of experience to take on presidential responsibilities. Secondly, Gross notes the rhetorical strategy of pathos that Obama uses to emotionally connect his audience. Obama gives listeners hope for the future and demonstrates his patriotism to our country. Pathos is also obvious when Obama addresses groups of individuals that have suffered as a result of the serious issues America has been facing. He then switches gears and begins to mention John Kerry. He establishes the ethos of John Kerry and his experience in Vietnam and consequently, his ability to lead the nation. To conclude his speech, Obama reveals topics such as unity and hope to draw Americans into his image for the future.
Frank and McPhail's essay regarding Barack Obama's 2004 DNC speech was full of comparisons and intelligent rhetorical devices that were useful in discovering the layers of his speech that are not obvious. We are forced to think about the aspects of his speech and the possible faults it contains and improvements that may be advantageous. On the other hand, Gross' essay was able to connect with freshman students like us. He emphasized the important topics of Obama's speech and the common rhetorical devices that appealed to his audience while connecting them to the various topics.
1 comment:
Cheers! You helped me see a few things I'd missed in both essays. I wonder what you would say if the question was: which of these essays creates a 'reality' that doesn't exist without the essay? In other words, does one of these create another Obama speech in the same way the media can sometimes create debates or speeches that are somehow different that the one you watched on TV? Thanks for making me think
Post a Comment