viz.

Wow. What a conversation. I just wanted to speak to the persuasion/manipulation debacle here and note that this was the focus of my introductory rhetoric class because the boundary is slippery between the two. I have to say that I totally disagree with Tim in that the rhetoric of the speech (and most of his speeches) exemplifies basic rhetorical principles of persuasion, not manipulation, but only because it rightly aims to convince you of something (i.e. to join the campaign) and that this persuasive intent is at heart manipulative - I want to CHANGE you or your mind when I talk about change - and so the effective ends are to gain control over and MOVE you.

At the heart of his statements is the creation of an in-group and an out-group, fundamental to establishing ethos in its benevolence and pathos in its indication of values. For this the very reasons Tim signals the piece as suspicious just make it an amazing piece of rhetoric for me. The process of identification (both personal and communal) that accompanies the act of assent (Yes) and participation (WE can) is part and parcel of Obama's rhetorical success. Of course the attendant feelings of alienation created by OMISSION is the other half of that (I particularly appreciated Tim's mention of the history that does NOT make the speech). No one else in this campaign has so successfully elided the difference between I and We, whether it be I (Obama) or I (Tim, Jillian, etc.). Even more than this video (which I agree is problematic if for no other reason that "yes we can" depends on an idea of celebrity that is exclusive instead of inclusive) his "We are the ones we've been waiting for refrain" affected (and thus manipulated) my thoughts about the election.