Spinmeisters/Clinton-eloquent!?!?!?!?

The BBQ Pit
1

This is neither a troll nor a rant for or against Clinton. i don’t give a hang about Democrat-Republican politics, so PLEASE don’t wail on about how he saved civilization from evil, neither, please, how he is satan’s messenger. But…

I recall hearing on cbs news years ago about how “the president ‘eloquently’ denied” some charges. Quite regularly thru his administration i kept hearing that word. leap forward in time. Last night, i read on a favorite site of mine some tripe indicating that clinton was somewhere along the lines of a william jennings bryan or daniel webster. Let’s be real…he may be emphatic or some other adjective, but to call the former president eloquent is clearly a lie. Of course, his acolytes/publicists/spinmeisters would use it, but, all of the media? My question is, how do the spinmeisters foist this off onto the stations to make them say that? Surely dan rather and the rest of them know what eloquent means. are they so lazy that they just repeat the news releases from the political parties spinmeisters? It doesn’t make sense.

again, i don’t care either way about politics, but hearing this abuse of such a lofty word makes my gorge rise. (whatever a gorge is)

2

Huh. You lost me.

Whether someone is eloquent is a matter of opinion. I seem to recall that there was something of a consensus that he was (his long speech at the Democratic convention notwithstanding).

Clearly, this thread is not going to remain in General Questions. Are you seeking opinions or should I Pit this?

3

manhatten:well, i couldn’t quite figure out where to put it…i was wondering, basically, how spinmeisters put a particular word into play, and clinton was my example. at any rate, take your pleasure with the question. thanks

4

OK, that’s pretty close to a factual question – you’d have done better (much, much better) without the invective.

William Safire lives for this stuff (how does a word applied to a particular person or situation catch on in the media), but I suspect it will defy a factual answer.

I’ll shoot it over to IMHO and give those guys a go at it.

5

thanks for the safire lead, manhattan. i think that that’s what i’m looking for. sorry about previous invective, but, had you seen the context of the quote, i’m sure that you would say that i deported myself in a most restrained and benevolent manner.

6

My questions for you harry:
So who exactly are these “spinmeisters”? And how are they able to manipulate the entire “media” into describing Clinton as “eloquent”?

Also: Do you also think that Bush has these same types of “spinmeisters” that goad the media into sometimes implying that Bush is “intelligent”?

Even if you don’t care about Clinton’s politics, he is a very capitivating speaker…and the word “eloquent” seems to do a good job describing that.

You claim that your question has nothing to do with your political opinion of Clinton…but it’s hard not to read that into it. I have a feeling this will end up in the Pit eventually…

7

In case you’re not clear on this, “eloquent” means:

It’s pretty clear that most people agree that at least the first definition applies to Clinton’s speeches. This opinion is so widely held that it’s ridiculous to believe that “spinmeisters” are forcing people to say it.

8

Kennedy was the last eloquent President in my opinion. Clinton was well spoken, and looks like a genius between the Bushes, but that comparison is an unfair advantage to Clinton. As much as I am favorable toward him and his politics, I would not go so far as to say he was eloquent. Nor would I say Reagan was eloquent, he had a gift for gab and a quick phrase.

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” – that is eloquent

9

You don’t think he’s persuasive?

10

now, now! i said that he wasn’t eloquent, not that he was bad. i do not make judgements on questions of character neither capability in one’s profession. being persuasive has nothing to do with being eloquent. and none of chula’s definitions will fit with clinton. he got a lot done, but it was not because his speech was characterized…blah,blah…and second preference (cites, please) of definition was closer to a lamp post that clinton. don’t get your underwear in a bunch. i quite like the old boy. i love my girlfriend, but she isn’t eloquent, and anyone who says that she is is a liar. relax…i didn’t hurt clinton’s resume! he’ll still have a job even if you DO agree that he isn’t eloquent.

11

Take it to the Pit.

12

Clearly you have some serious reading comprehension problems. I’ll walk you through it.

Eloquent means characterized by persuasive discourse.
Clinton’s discourse is persuasive.
Therefore, Clinton is eloquent.

After that quote, your English broke down even more. There seems to be a demand for a cite and an insult, but I can’t make out what you’re trying to say. It’s more than a little ironic that you’re making judgments about eloquence, when you don’t even have a solid command of English.

13

chula-i shall meet you in the pit…if you dare!

14

You idiot - where do you think you are?

15

chula,that was pretty rude, i think. reading comprehension problems? it was really below you to say that i don’t even have a solic command of english. (gasp, i didn’t capitalize english…clinton MUST be eloquent-teehee!)

i did not start a thread to wrangle about definitions. had you read it and addressed yourself accordingly, this would not be in the pit, where we now see it.

16

I mean, if I guy is like, you know, eloquent, that means he can kinda say stuff better so that the stuff he says sorta sounds better, and then you’ll listen more and maybe believe it, right? Dude?

17

there we have it!

18

It was your posts that got this sent to the Pit, not mine.

Are you as stupid as you seem or are you drunk?

19

tee-hee!

20

at any rate, let us be calm. so, grim tho i find it to admit, chula was correct in that it was i who forced the thread to the pit.
next…mr frink-clinton IS a captivating speaker…he is a downright stumblebum, public speak-wise, which is captivating! no disrespect, tho. i like him and he is/was the most shrewd a politician probably of the last century. i respect him more than most president’s in that he got what he wanted. a friend of mine, a hard nosed republican met him and now has nothing but good to say about the president. but he is not eloquent. he talked like a 12 year-old reading a script. he was a 40-50 yr old reading a script. and it sounded like it. His delivery was too wooden. Now, all of this was when he had a “speech” proper. When he was doing a gabfest, he did fairly well, just as anyone would.

it is an extremely small point to say whether clinton was or was not eloquent. too many people think that to say that he was less than perfect is an attack on him. worse, they take it personally and start all kind of rude attacks and bluster with irrelevant points. live your own lives, people! are you so shallow that you must deify a man who has been out of office for years, whose policy has been out of force for equally as long and who doesn’t care if YOU are eloquent or not? it is not clinton that is under attack. it is the english language.

Merriam Webster online: 1- marked by forceful and fluent expression <an eloquent preacher>
2 : vividly or movingly expressive or revealing <an eloquent monument>

Ask Oxford.com : eloquent articulate, expressive, fluent, forceful, glib, moving, persuasive, plausible, powerful, unfaltering.

Encarta
:1. speaking or spoken beautifully and forcefully: said or saying something in a forceful, expressive, and persuasive way

  1. expressing emotion clearly: expressing a feeling or thought clearly, memorably, or movingly
    we can see by these than clinton met some of criteria, but it was less than 50% of any given definition. now, the problem isn’t the persuasive aspect of what he did. a baseball bat can persuade far more than even edward everett horton or william jennings bryan, but i would hesitate to call a louisville slugger ‘eloquent’.
    being ‘forceful’ is not eloquent. there are jillions of bad actors who are forceful and not eloquent.

chula, fork over a cite for your quote. it seemed rather fishy to me that you didn’t give a reference, but i gave you the benefit of the doubt. now, i am calling you.