Obama: 'Eloquent But Empty'

McCain Rips 'Eloquent But Empty' Obama


"I will work hard to make sure Americans aren't deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change,"

Comment: The irony is that his empty words are not original!:

WSJ: An American Unoriginal

But isn't it a bit heavy-handed to accuse Obama of plagiarism? This is a serious charge in academia and journalism, professions in which words are the final product. By contrast, language is a mere instrument for politicians. They hire speechwriters to put words in their mouths, something that would also be frowned upon in academia and journalism. Are voters really going to be dissuaded from backing Obama because as a politician he failed to adhere to the ethical standards that would have applied if he were a professor or a reporter? Not likely.

Wolfson's comment is a striking example of the Clinton campaign's clumsy aggression. Obama's use of Patrick's rhetoric actually does bolster Mrs. Clinton's argument against him, but in a more subtle way. How ridiculous is it that Obama is borrowing someone else's empty rhetoric in order to defend his own?

And empty it is. Although the other two examples are arguable either way, "We hold these truths . . ." and "I have a dream" were anything but "just words." They were words that held enormous meaning because of the historical context in which they were, respectively, written and uttered. Can the same be said of Obamanalities like "Yes, we can," or "Change we can believe in"?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic