His Eloquence, The Would-Be President

In the past several weeks, as the democratic race for the nomination comes to its dramatic conclusion, a consistent theme voiced by supporters of each of the two candidates has increasingly revolved around a "war of words." The argument, on both sides, is that the other candidate is the one whose words cannot be trusted. In this war, the consensus appears to be that Barack Obama is the clear winner, the poet, the "man of words." This is alternately cited as either his greatest strength or his biggest weakness.

While His Eloquence is undisputed, his authorship has been. Ignoring the doubters of His Eloquence, just yesterday Alec MacGillis in the Washington Post declared that Obama's most "powerful weapon has been the oldest [of weapons] - words." Adding to His Eloquence's aura, Arianna Huffington definitively stated that it was, in fact, Hillary, and not Barack, who should be compared to Bush in her use of words.

Here are some examples of what MacGillis and Huffington would no doubt agree are the "powerful weapons" of eloquent words:

[The greatest generation] "was a generation of Americans who stormed beaches, liberated concentration camps and delivered us from evil. Some never came home.

Those who put their medals in drawers went to work and built, on a heroic scale, highways and universities, suburbs and factories, great cities and grand alliances — the strong foundations of an American Century.

Now the question comes to the sons and daughters of this achievement: What is asked of us?

This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation. Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, likes times of crisis, are tests of American character.

Prosperity can be a tool in our hands, used to build and better our country. Or it can be a drug in our system -- dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty.

Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment....We will seize this moment of American promise.

We will confront the hard issues — threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security — before the challenges of our time become crises for our children...

This nation is daring and decent and ready for change...

But this administration, during eight years of increasing need, did nothing. They had their moment. They have not led. I will.

Our generation has a chance to reclaim some essential values, to show we have grown up before we grow old...

But when the moment for leadership came, this administration did not teach our children, it disillusioned them....

We must teach our children the values that defeat violence. I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life, the life of the elderly and the sick, and the life of the young...

A hundred years from now, this must not be remembered as an age rich in possessions and poor in ideals...

Should I become President, I will work to call upon the best of the nation. A leader's responsibility is to understand that the great armies of compassion, which exist all across America, must be rallied to make sure no one gets left behind.

It is the role of a leader to share wisdom, to share experience with people who are looking for someone to lead.

I understand the awesome responsibility of this job. I understand the serious undertaking of answering to the calls of mothers and fathers who I see all the time around America, who come to my rallies and hold a picture of their child and look me in the eye and say, 'Never let us down again.' I hear those calls.

This country is ready for change. It's ready for bipartisan leadership. It's ready for a leader who will bring this great country together. This country wants a leader who understands how to lead, how to bring folks together.

I stand squarely with the people. There's a big difference in philosophy in this campaign. I'm running against a candidate of Washington, by Washington and for Washington. Mine is a campaign that stands squarely on the side of the people and the families and the workers of America.

It's time for a leader to bring Republicans and Democrats together. After eight years of partisan bickering and name-calling, it's time for new leadership to bring Republicans and Democrats together, to be able to say that a promise made is a promise kept, to reject old-style politics that tries to frighten folks, to reject the old business of trying to tear someone down while the issues still remain.

Now is the time for new leadership that understands we must trust younger people...

Now is the time, now is the time, for Republicans and Democrats to end the politics of fear...

On principle, those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help. The world needs America's strength and leadership.

Thus spoke His Eloquence. However, in the words cited above, His Eloquence is not, as one would suspect, Barack Obama. His Eloquence was a candidate running for President in 2000. His Eloquence was George W. Bush, speaking at the Republican National Convention.

His Eloquence won. And the world lost.

Comments

[BrooklynLager]

Funny; in your last essay you feigned grave disappointment at Obama - here, several contests and a few dozen delegates later, you're mocking him as His Eloquence. By the way, nice try, but anyone reading would have gotten as far as "culture of life" and known that it was Bush.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know if there's a name for this rhetorical device? Take a speech that the writer thinks sounds like the person she's trying to vilify, and then at the end say something like "and that man was Hitler".

[westview]

Once again, Obama has speechwriters, teleprompters, and years of practice learning delivery from watching charismatic preachers in charismatic churches that encourage members to get up and deliver their own versions of the message. He is not giving us his own words, or his own beliefs.
The brief glimpses of the real unscripted Obama I have seen have shown a litany of bad choices. When he is not on guard he is bad tempered, without humor, and thin skinned. He has a poor capacity for accepting criticism. His campaign reflects this. He never acknowledges when he makes mistakes, he just points out others do it too. He always backs down when challenged and does not seem to have his own true center core of political belief. He borrows others. Now with the help of moveon.org he is buying the office of president achieving the purchase Ross Perot failed to get.

[JimR]

Nice attempt, but the analogy doesn't quite work.

Bush obviously had a speechwriter. Obama has a speechwriter, too. But, when asked to discuss a complex issue in their own words, listen to how Bush sounds compared to how Obama sounds.

There's no comparison, and you know that.

[Plowboy]

Here's an idea that sdhould please all his opponents: they should make a rule that all candidates speak only the language used in the elementary school he attended until age ten. Hillary could speak English which is the only one she ever learned. In the paqst two races Bush would have been OK. He can still speak English almost as well as a first, or even a third grader, sometimes.

And Barack would have to speak Indonesian. Even so, I think we would get as much from hearing him as we have been getting from the highly eloquent Dubya -- and more truth!
As for his current opponents, I'll leave the decision to you.

[KSH]

I knew it was Dubyah - with the "compassionate" statement. Nice try but no reward.

[PLUMPLUM]

Write those words, add much more vocabulary and real use(a simple word) of the English language, context, intonation, pronunciation and proper grammar then you may yet achieve 'the one and only Barack'. You should also include in the lexicon where those came from, the words 'and - with a d' and 'of - with an f' so the person of whom you speak, may begin to utilize them. 'Nuclear' is a lost cause so don't even go there!

I long for the day when I will hear the music of 'Hail to the Chief' and a tall Statesman will walk out through those doors to give a real speech. Instead of watching the TV, I am now in the habit of finding some other occupation when the doors open and the cowboy bobble-head walks out with his chest seeming to have been infused with extra air, goes up to the podium and attempts to drive the fear of hell into us.

[jhamm1]

Nice try, but I already deduced the actual voice behind "His Eloquence" by the time I read the "greatest generation" remark in addition to that bit about "armies of compassion" leaving "no one behind", which obviously implies intentions with which to embark upon a militaristic crusade.

And if parallels to eloquence is your only basis for slamming Barack Obama, consider the following.

On the day prior to the invasion of Iraqi, one particular candidate became fed up with a "nosy" group of individuals who second guessed the decision to go to war and thus the candidate in question began shouting down the esteemed voices of opposition with a rather invasive justification, in that, "I WILL NOT PUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S SECURITY AT RISK!!!!!" Mind you, the voice in question was not in fact your alternate characterization of His Eloquence, but the voice of Her Not-So-Eloquent, Hillary Clinton

Oh, and here's another one.

In 1968, the United States was entranced by one who justified his candidacy on the basis of his experience, and indeed, the candidate in question was among the most experienced in our nation's history. Swooned by the supposed wisdon of His Experience,we promptly elected him to office, and paid the price accordingly.

Take a hint, Welsh. It's a tough call all around.

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton's affinity for slandering opponents, attempting to shout down those who disagree with her positions, militaristic stances, and unwillingness to compromise on God-knows how many issues confirms the patterns of Hillary Clinton as far more akin to GWB than Obama's will ever be.

[GetAGrip]

You think that's a great speech??
It's just a series of bullet points!

Listen to Obama, and see how multiple arguments are brought together into one marvellous and shining unifed whole that is logically complete and emotionally resonant. That's the power of good rhetoric.

And by the way, to compare George W Bush's presidency to Barack Obama's future one by comparing their speech making abilities is so utterly foolish that it borders on stupidity.

[qwr]

OK, I see:

Obama was eloquent.
GWB was, despite how we feel today, eloquent.

Therefore, Obama=GWB, and if we elect Obama, we lose.

What profound argumentation.

[SCharb]

Which is worse? Obama's "Bush-like" appeal, or Hillary's Bush-lite policies/campaign strategy?

[Puzzle]

If you are implying that George Bush is as articulate as Senator Obama, you must have missed all 20 of the Democratic debates.

[AxelDC]

This piece is so last week. Clinton is a serial plagiarist, stealing from her husband, John Edwards and Barack Obama, on many, many occassions.

Obama is not just about speeches. He is also a solid debater. After Clinton begged him for more debates, he schooled her last night. She should be more careful in what she asks for.

It doesn't matter. She is losing Texas, Ohio is becoming slippery and Pennsylvania is fading fast. She will be giving her concession speech on March 5th.

[FogCityJohn]

Ms. Welsh,

Just checked your bio again, and you still don't list your involvement with the Clinton campaign. But readers of this blog should know that you're not exactly a neutral observer. It appears that you and your husband have maxed out in donations to the Clinton campaign. In addition, you're a member of some kind of political committee supporting Hillary Clinton. You'd be a lot more believable if you weren't so friggin' dishonest about being a shill from Senator Clinton's campaign.

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't you see if you can't get a job with Taylor Marsh? Then you can both pretend that you're not Hillary supporters as you bash Barack Obama.

[katiemira]

Almost every article on the HuffPo is a shill piece for Obama. Good lord, someone has the guts to point out he isn't the messiah and all of you mouthbreathing Obama-crazed zombies go ballistic.

[Zanti]

Cliches piled atop cliches--how does that qualify as eloquence? Just asking.

[Phoenix]

Actually, I suspected Hillary Clinton at first, simply on the basis that the author of this post is obviously a shill. About a third of the way through, I knew it was George W. Bush. Maybe I remember that speech, or maybe it's just 8 long years of familiarity with his snarky "I" mentality couched in faux hominess. I did not suspect it was Obama.