# Spinmeisters/Clinton-eloquent!?!?!?!? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 27, 2002, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014 "2002-11-27T01:29:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UncleBill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/d26b3c/32.png) [@UncleBill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBill)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/21 "2002-11-30T05:00:58Z")
Clinton used capitalization. I am no fan of the man, but he is an amazingly empathetic speaker, making the audience really believe he is with them, and that he really truly cares. He is a master of that. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/22 "2002-11-30T05:21:11Z")
Jesus Christ, I quoted the American Heritage Dictionary definition, which can be found on [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com). Was there something suspicious about it that caused you to challenge it? ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/23 "2002-11-30T07:42:49Z")
at this point, i find myself adding more heat than light. sorry that i vexed you, chula. i shall slink off. ---
**Author:** ![JDM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/90db22/32.png) [@JDM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JDM)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/24 "2002-11-30T08:40:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by handsomeharry \* > \*\* 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. \*\* I assume you meant [Edward Everett.](http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/ever_b21.htm) Mr. [Horton,](http://voices.fuzzy.com/actor.idc?actor_id=5003) exceedingly funny as he was, was in a different category of expression from political oratory. If you want to compare Clinton with Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and Taft, you can go to [this page.](http://www.edisonnj.org/menlopark/vintage/elections.asp) Roosevelt’s speech “The Liberty of the People” is a hell of a speech. [This page](http://www.edisonnj.org/menlopark/vintage/nationsforum.asp) has Coolidge and some others. And the first entry on [this page](http://www.edisonnj.org/menlopark/vintage/diamonddisc.asp) is a short talk by Edison which I found very moving, and also very interesting in its view of the future world (quite different from what I would have expected from Edison). JDM ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/25 "2002-11-30T08:54:41Z")
I have heard President Clinton when he was eloquent. Most of the time he was better than average but not eloquent. Anyone who remembers Kennedy’s speeches well would agree, I think, that there is no comparison. If you weren’t around when Kennedy was in office, you really missed something sterling. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/26 "2002-11-30T09:20:48Z")
Chula wrote: > [@](#): > > Eloquent means characterized by persuasive discourse. > Clinton’s discourse is persuasive. > Therefore, Clinton is eloquent. Your argument is unsound because your second assertion is false. At the _very_ least, he lost his persuasiveness sometime before the 2002 mid-term elections. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/27 "2002-11-30T18:37:06Z")
You can have your own opinion on that, **Lib**. The OP asserts that anyone who says that Clinton is eloquent is lying. Can you concede that reasonable people could hold a different opinion? More to the point of this thread is: Eloquent means characterized by persuasive discourse. Many people believe that Clinton’s discourse is persuasive. Therefore, many people believe that Clinton is eloquent. One of the problems with **harry** ’s argument is that he insisted on a definition of “eloquent” that we have no reason to believe was intended by those who used the word. ---
**Author:** ![FallenAngel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@FallenAngel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FallenAngel)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/28 "2002-11-30T19:50:03Z")
You know, I’ve studied rhetoric and political discourse on a hobbyist basis my entire adult life. I always thought Clinton was a thoroughly mediocre speaker. His rhythms were not those of a standard American English speaker. His gestures were very wooden (although nothing compared to Gore) and much of his material was ho-hum at best, particularly after the departure of George Steph. What amazed me was that Clnton (whom I loathe for the record) was able to persuade people with his stilted sincerity. “I feel your pain” was a horribly cruel joke, but it worked well enough that it got him elected twice. He was not a good speaker, but he was a very talented emotional projector, as such, I would say he was not eloquent; he was simply effective. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/29 "2002-11-30T19:56:31Z")
Remember, in politics the most important thing is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/30 "2002-11-30T20:53:43Z")
Chula wrote: > [@](#): > > Eloquent means characterized by persuasive discourse. > Many people believe that Clinton’s discourse is persuasive. > Therefore, many people believe that Clinton is eloquent. Please don’t hate me for this, and I do realize what you meant to say, but if you will reword it something like this… Persuasive discourse characterizes eloquence. Many people believe that Clinton’s discourse is persuasive. Therefore, many people believe that Clinton is eloquent. …you will have an argument that is both valid and sound. In the quoted text, you have an Affirmation of the Consequent, which is a logical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/31 "2002-11-30T21:16:21Z")
Uh, it’s been 11 years since I took a logic class, so I don’t remember what an “affirmation of the consequent” is. Actually, I don’t think I ever learned it because names of logical fallacies weren’t on the test. I don’t see how rewording the first sentence changes the meaning. Perhaps there is some confusion because the quotation marks are missing? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/32 "2002-12-01T07:22:12Z")
Chula, here’s an example: Red shoes are shoes people like. Bill Clinton has shoes that people like. Therefore, Bill Clinton has red shoes. You can see the logical fallacy in this example. Just replace “red shoes” with eloquent, and “shoes people like” with persuasive. Lib’s reworded example would be: Red shoes are shoes people like. Bill Clinton has red shoes. Therefore, people like Bill Clinton’s shoes. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/33 "2002-12-01T07:37:48Z")
Blatantly continuing the hijack… Thanks, **Lemur** , I see what you’re talking about. I’m not totally convinced though. I did not say “Eloquence is characterized by persuasive discourse.” I said “‘Eloquent’ _means_ ‘characterized by persuasive discourse.’” (Like I said, I realize that including the quotation marks would make that clearer.) In other words, the word “eloquent” is interchangeable with “characterized by persuasive discourse.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/34 "2002-12-01T13:34:19Z")
Maybe this will help. The rule is based on these: **Affirming the Consequent** _invalid_ A [symbol]Þ[/symbol] B B Therefore, A **Modus Ponens** _valid_ A [symbol]Þ[/symbol] B A Therefore, B So, a syllogism of this form is invalid: A [symbol]Þ[/symbol] B C [symbol]Þ[/symbol] B Therefore, C [symbol]Þ[/symbol] A Example _invalid_: All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore, Socrates was a cat. But, a syllogism of this form is valid: A [symbol]Þ[/symbol] B C [symbol]Þ[/symbol] A Therefore, C [symbol]Þ[/symbol] B Example _valid_: All cats die. Socrates is a cat. Therefore, Socrates will die. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/35 "2002-12-01T13:48:59Z")
Hmm… I guess I should point out that the tense doesn’t matter. You could also say: All cats die. Socrates was a cat. Therefore, Socrates is dead. ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2002, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014/36 "2002-12-01T23:02:06Z")
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I understand all that. What I’m saying is that “means” means something different than “is.” (Admittedly, that depends on what your definition of… oh never mind.) It signifies both “all A are B” and “all B are A” where “A” has one definition and “all B are A” where “A” has multiple definitions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spinmeisters-clinton-eloquent/139014.md?page=1)