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.
Jesus Christ, I quoted the American Heritage Dictionary definition, which can be found on dictionary.com. Was there something suspicious about it that caused you to challenge it?
at this point, i find myself adding more heat than light.
sorry that i vexed you, chula.
i shall slink off.
I assume you meant Edward Everett. Mr. Horton, 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. Roosevelt’s speech “The Liberty of the People” is a hell of a speech. This page has Coolidge and some others. And the first entry on this page 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
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.
Chula wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Remember, in politics the most important thing is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
Chula wrote:
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.