Clint Eastwood vs. George Bush

All of the speeches we have watched so far in class have many strengths and weaknesses, and it was difficult for me to pick which speech was the best or worst. After going through my notes, I decided that the Clint Eastwood speech was the worst speech we viewed, and George Bush was the best speech we have viewed.

Although Clint Eastwood’s speech had very good symbolism, I do not think the chair was appropriate for the national stage. Because the speech was broadcast across the country, the Republicans were targeting all eligible voters at their convention. The speech was presented at the Republican National Convention, and therefore, because of the seriousness of the matter, I do no think the chair was effective. Clint Eastwood, naturally because of his career, came to platform with a bunch ethical appeal. Viewers knew who he was, and that helped in his presentation. I just believe that when you are trying to persuade people to choose the President of the United States, an ad-lib, absent minded, unprepared speech is not the answer.

On the other hand, the speech after 9/11 by George Bush was great. The targeted audience was all American citizens. The speech was presented in the Oval office, with a very tight camera angle on the President. This context helped with presenting the speech in a very serious, yet intimate setting. Although this speech could have been more effective had he made a more personal connection with the victims sharing some names, or something like that, the President did a very good job of being assertive, yet relaxed. His words, but most importantly his tone of voice and demeanor, provided much needed comfort and a sense of protection to the American people. Viewers of this speech left with a sense of unity that they felt had been stripped only hours earlier. Although there were hardly any logos, the mix of ethos and pathos provided the perfect platform for his speech.