As of 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday night, Barack Obama had won over 66% of the vote in Colorado. this is in no way surprising to me because it in some ways represents the consensus here at DU. Throughout the entire school year I have seen so many groups supporting and representing at first the democrats here on campus and recently it has become support for Barack Obama. There are signs everywhere around campus with pictures of Barack saying “I want you to caucus!” as well as people going around talking about him and why they support him. On the flip side, I have not seen one support group on campus for Hillary Clinton. I find this interesting because I do know that there is a large population of latinos here in Colorado and I thought that this would play a bigger role and give Hillary more support. The reason that I thought this was because I have been hearing a lot lately that Hillary has the latino vote because that is one of the demographics that she has been focusing on in her campaign. To go along with that idea, there has been a lot of talk about the stereotype that latinos do not get along with African Americans. I read this in a couple of places online while researching the debates.
Another reason that Barack’s victory here did not surprise me was because I saw both of the candidate’s campaigns here at DU. At Barack’s campaign there were nearly twenty thousand people there to support him and the lines were extremely long. However, at Clinton’s campaign there were only about three to four thousand people there. Judging by this statistic and making DU the sample for all of Colorado democrats, one would not be surprised by Obama’s victory.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
speeches
On Wednesday, January 30th Barack Obama came to speak at the University of Denver. His speech was very exciting and rallied almost 20,000 supporters together to be there for the democrats. In his speech he used a very effective appeal to pathos to rile up the fans and supports. Then, on the same evening William Jefferson Clinton came to Magness Arena to speak on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Mr. Clinton did not draw as large of a crowd as Obama, but definitely did give a very informative and logical speech about Hillary’s views. His appeal to ethos and logos was also effective. The real question at hand is whose style works better. In the case of these two speeches, Bill Clinton’s appeal to ethos and logos is what was most effective in creating support for Hillary’s campaign.
In Obama’s speech, he had amazing charisma. When he would speak, it was like his audience was able to completely connect with him. He was extremely able to build bridges between himself and the audience. For example, when he began to talk about his run for presidency and how he was going to not only change the United States, but change the world as well. When he would say these things, he would say it in a way that made the listener feel extremely optimistic and hopeful. He is a very believable candidate as well as seemingly trustworthy. Also, he had a way of bringing out the enthusiasm in people. He was incredibly good at evoking the emotions of the audience. The downfall of his stump speech was the fact that he never went into great detail about any one subject. He talked about every major issue, but never went into great detail of his policies on the issues.
Bill Clinton’s speech was not as full of enthusiasm and energy as Obama’s, however, he gave much more credibility to Hillary. His speech was filled with information pertaining to Hillary’s experience and past accomplishments. He talked about how Hillary has been making change since Bill was a governor in Arkansas almost twenty years ago. His constant references to his wife’s persona and credibility gave it a very authentic feel. When Bill spoke about Mrs. Clinton’s policies and why they would be good and effective, he gave good arguments and claims to support them. His use of ethos and logos enormously helped his case in defending Hillary’s campaign.
Whose style is better? Ultimately, that is up to the listener. In my case, I believe that Bill Clinton’s appeal to ethos and logos was much better. I feel this way because I appreciated the more logical reasoning and explanation of Hillary’s policies as well as the more in depth look at her beliefs. However, if I were to poll the entire audience that went to both speeches, I think that Obama would have more support just because he was able to draw more attention and create more energy than Clinton.
In Obama’s speech, he had amazing charisma. When he would speak, it was like his audience was able to completely connect with him. He was extremely able to build bridges between himself and the audience. For example, when he began to talk about his run for presidency and how he was going to not only change the United States, but change the world as well. When he would say these things, he would say it in a way that made the listener feel extremely optimistic and hopeful. He is a very believable candidate as well as seemingly trustworthy. Also, he had a way of bringing out the enthusiasm in people. He was incredibly good at evoking the emotions of the audience. The downfall of his stump speech was the fact that he never went into great detail about any one subject. He talked about every major issue, but never went into great detail of his policies on the issues.
Bill Clinton’s speech was not as full of enthusiasm and energy as Obama’s, however, he gave much more credibility to Hillary. His speech was filled with information pertaining to Hillary’s experience and past accomplishments. He talked about how Hillary has been making change since Bill was a governor in Arkansas almost twenty years ago. His constant references to his wife’s persona and credibility gave it a very authentic feel. When Bill spoke about Mrs. Clinton’s policies and why they would be good and effective, he gave good arguments and claims to support them. His use of ethos and logos enormously helped his case in defending Hillary’s campaign.
Whose style is better? Ultimately, that is up to the listener. In my case, I believe that Bill Clinton’s appeal to ethos and logos was much better. I feel this way because I appreciated the more logical reasoning and explanation of Hillary’s policies as well as the more in depth look at her beliefs. However, if I were to poll the entire audience that went to both speeches, I think that Obama would have more support just because he was able to draw more attention and create more energy than Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
