What Obama Means to Us
Hi friends! This is Melissa, Kelcey, and Jisas! We are so excited about sharing our ideas on Barack Obama’s “More Perfect Union” speech.
We think Obama’s speech was very skillfully crafted. Not only did we watch him deliver his speech, but we analyzed the content and found it very elegant and logically sound. While delivering the speech, Obama was very poised and confident, taking on a very solemn and sober tone to match the weightiness of the issue. He steadily used more gestures as he moved toward the climax of the speech, increasing the intensity. We feel he uses ornate language and historical allusions, but not overly pompous language that ordinary citizens would not understand. Thus, he is able to appeal to so many Americans. Obama opens his speech by quoting the preamble of the US Constitution and a unifying “WE the people.” This theme of unity filters through his phrases and ties his speech together. He also evokes Lincoln’s familiar words “four score and seven years ago” by saying “two hundred and twenty one years ago” which establishes his ethos by creating a link between himself and the ideals of our beloved forefathers. Kairos is also evident in his speech: Obama asserts the need for change is “at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’” Obama utilized ethos, logos, and pathos. He uses pathos in sharing his personal American story in the beginning and Ashley Baia’s emotional story in the conclusion of his speech. He uses logos by saying, “I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country.” His personal story about his multicultural background and how “in no other country on Earth is my story even possible” is also logos.
I’m Kelcey, and currently I’m researching the effectiveness of impartiality in conflict resolution. I’m focusing my research on George Mitchell: President Obama’s newly elected Special Envoy to the Middle East. Mitchell is known for having a very impartial yet efficient ambassadorial perspective of international affairs, and I attempt to research him in efforts to change my personal bias that dynamic diplomacy is closely correlated with persuasion instead of impartial mediation. During our group discussion, I’ve realized that I need to look at Mitchell’s words while analyzing them for historical allusions, the Administration’s perspective, and possibly how this new governmental message of hope could be present in his mediation efforts in Israel and Palestine.
I’m Melissa, a pre-law sophomore who likes to read and play tennis I plan to explore the changes in feminist rhetoric over time, more specifically from the first wave of feminism to the second. I will compare the rhetorical strategies of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a frontrunner of the early feminist movement who was key in the movement to help women gain suffrage, and Gloria Steinem, a renowned feminist who founded Ms. Magazine during the second wave of feminism. (Ms. Magazine is one of the most popular feminist magazines in the country.) From this rhetorical analysis of Obama’s speech, I have learned the effectiveness of heaving a theme and deliberately repeating certain ideas and words. Obama emphasizes the idea of unity, the need for it today and the efforts made in the past, throughout his speech. I hope I discover in my research whether Stanton or Steinem use this effective rhetorical strategy as well to make their speeches strong.
My name is Jisas. I am a sophomore and I come from Kenya. My research topic for Cross Cultural Rhetoric will be on the flow of illegal arms into war torn region of Africa. Specifically I will be looking at the role of rhetoric in either in justifying illegal arms trade, mainly by those countries where arms deals originate from or the abdication of responsibility of ending this vile by interest bodies like the U.N. Obama’s rhetorical strategy of appealing to the humanity of the American people by evoking the Golden Rule might be beneficial in my research. I will attempt to craft suggestions on how to curb the flow of illegal arms into war torn regions of Africa by appealing to the humanity of those involved in these deals.
Comments
Hey Melissa,
Your topic seems very interesting and I like how you're trying to tie it in with President Obama's speech techniques.
Because I don't have much knowledge about the Feminist movement, your topic fascinates me greatly. It would be great, however, if you could state the reason why you are trying to compare the speech techniques. Also, how the differences or similarities of the speech technique changed the outcome.
It may be hard comparing with Obama though--gender differences, status differences, time difference, etc. So I think it would also be best for you to narrow your topic specifically to one feature.
But Yay, keep me posted!
jia you jia you :)
Posted by: Beauram Hur | February 11, 2009 10:44 AM
I like Kelcey's idea of researching in order to get rid of personal bias on the topic. I think this could help in keeping the non-bias stance in your paper.
The research seems very good, and that it will help a lot in your project. I also like the last sentence about how the new governmental message of hope could be present in Mitchell's efforts. It is good that you're analyzing the various parts of his speech, such as the historical allusions, and his administrations views and stances.
Posted by: Kyle Barrett | February 11, 2009 10:49 AM
Thanks Kyle,
Researching this topic has definitely showed me that there is more than one way to negotiate. I've found that both the Palestinian and the Israeli leaders are very pleased that Michell is approaching the crisis with a neutral basis, but they still have many fears that his impartiality won't be enough to stop the conflict. Personally, I do not think that an end to the conflict is the only way of measuring Mitchell's success; his diplomatic efforts could change the way that American foreign policy is seen in the world sphere - he could essentially help change the reputation of America. If other countries understand that America wants to HELP, not coerce; if nations feel that leaders want to MEDIATE, not force them into arenas that they are opposed to, they will be more willing and open-minded to listen to advice. I have completed my research more optimistic than when I started and have learned many lessons along the way that could prove very important to me later on in life.
Sometimes, it's necessary to put bias aside, throw out any ego, suck it up and get the job done. By remaining neutral, you can gain credibility from both sides of an argument, therefore facilitating a better means to finding agreement.
Posted by: Kelcey Morton | February 28, 2009 05:36 PM
Hey Beauram!
Thanks for your feedback! I'm actually not incorporating Obama's speech in my research topic. I was just doing rhetorical analysis exercises to warm up for my research paper! =)
I'm learning that one of the most important things in writing my paper is conveying the significance, or answering the "so what?" question. So you have an idea of what my paper is about, let me share with you my thesis. It has shaped up to be: "Elizabeth Cady Stanton uses the basic philosophical theme of individualism in her speeches promoting feminism which, coupled with the powerful rhetorical strategies, appeals to the common core of her audience’s humanity, thereby uniting her listeners both in her immediate present and decades later. On the contrary, Steinem utilizes broad generalizations containing logical fallacies that weaken the power of her rhetoric."
I have my research paper presentation on Wednesday and I'm learning that writing a paper and preparing for a presentation are very different! I'm going to be using PowerPoint because I've discovered (and my classmates have suggested as well) that I present more effectively with slides.
Posted by: Melissa Hsiao | March 2, 2009 07:24 PM
has anyone noticed that since the presidential election of 2008 there hasn't been much passed in congress? it's like the country voted against bush and for obama, but there hasn't been much movement since then. there's a lot of talk about health care and climate change policy, but obama is right: there's a real deadlock in washington d.c. you have to wonder what that means and where the USA is headed.
on the other hand, obama is still seen by many as a world leader and someone who has been able to show by example what strong leadership can mean. others feel that he has been a success outside of the united states but not so much at home.
does anyone have any thoughts about this?
Posted by: lace wigs | September 22, 2009 05:43 PM