This past Monday, I had the pleasure of hearing Barrack Obama speak at the Monona Terrace - he was eloquent, handled himself well, and delivered a well-prepared argument to the people present: he gave a speech. It was extremely well laid out in terms of its infrastructure; transitions between thoughts were relatively seamless, he present an idea and proceeded to provide supporting evidence, and he opened and closed with similar messages - "help me with this campaign by volunteering and voting, and I'll be sure to help you!"
All of this of course, whilst delivered by Barrack Obama, was not (speculation, but the statics of this statement have been proven time and time again) of his own writing. He was exceptionally charismatic and really involved the audience. He touched on the points specific to his particular audience - by mentioning/tailoring his speech to those living in Wisconsin and the students. But knowing that the probability of the fact that he probably did not write his own material for the speech he is currently giving me made me extremely skeptical. I was essentially analyzing his argument the entire time he was speaking. Thus, I paid particular attention to his rhetoric (which the Ghost writer did an amazing job in incorporating and addressing the main points of weakness in his argument and "debasing/qualifying" them).
It was very interesting seeing my reaction to the speech that was at the time, being delivered to me. I was wondering if others went to the speech and whether they reacted in a similar fashion..?
2 comments:
That's an interesting thought. That's a good way to think about it. It's funny that now you think about that now, whether the speaker really means what they say or is it just all a ghostwriter?
I, too, feel like now, when I hear any politician speak, will think of the ghostwriter. It does take some effort on the speaker's part, too. He/she has to sound convincing without using his or her own words, which I'm sure takes some practice.
Post a Comment