Mackenzie Clark

English 111 BL
Matthew Weinkam
December 10, 2009
Rhetorical Analysis Final Revision

On September 28, 2009, the Press Secretary of the White House announced President

Barack Obama’s trip to Copenhagen, Denmark in order to lobby for the 2016 Olympic Games in

Chicago, IL. Regardless of the nation’s mixed emotions about the sudden trip, Obama followed

through with the trip and made a presentation to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in

Copenhagen on October 2, 2009. The nation’s emotions, compiled of those of the average

person and a political critic, wrote about their reactions to Obama’s trip in many popular

newspapers throughout the country. While both liberals and conservatives shared their opinions,

it was overly clear that Obama’s supporters were compiled of mostly Democrats. But regardless

of the critic’s political views, most articles were full of emotional and logical statements.

David Greising, the Chicago Tribune writer, published his opinion article, “President

Barack Obama should stay out of the Olympics fray,” on September 18, 2009. Throughout his

article, his central claim was that Obama should not travel to Copenhagen simply because it was

not his job and he did not have the necessary influence to persuade the IOC to choose Chicago

for the 2016 Olympic Games. His article, compiled of many strong pathos, or emotional

arguments, were mixed throughout the article in order to alter the audience’s opinion on the

situation. At the moment, the United States is struggling with world peace, the economy, global

warming and even diseases that, during the presidential elections, Obama promised to fix. With

that said, Greising saw no reason why Obama was not focusing on these exceedingly imperative

issues because “there is no earthly reason why a president of the United States should take time

off from the world's most consequential agenda to pitch for the chance to host what is, at its core,

a 17-day swim and track meet” (Greising). Greising’s own opposition to Obama’s ignorance of
1
the world’s most substantial agenda was a strong attempt at trying to sway the reader’s opinion

through pathos.

But while encouraging an enormous athletic event is not his job, it is his responsibility to

travel to other countries and meet world leaders just like him. Before his trip, President Obama

believed his world class image would give Chicago the edge, but in reality, “unless the entire

Olympics movement is just a sham, his appearance at the final presentation should make no

difference at all” (Greising). The writer, noting that Obama thinks he has more influence than he

really does, used a strong emotional argument that attempted to tell the reader that the nation’s

president is really an egotistical, minor man that does not know when to stay out of certain

situations. In reality, if Obama did have the power to persuade the IOC just by showing up and

giving a speech, then the Chicago 2016 promotion group would have probably never existed. As

a result, if the only thing America had to do to bring the Olympics to Chicago was to send

Obama to Copenhagen, then “that diminishes the work that Chicago 2016 and others have done

to get to this point” (Greising). With this, the reader could quite possibly start feeling

disappointed that his president thinks he is better than the citizens of his own nation and can just

overlook any hard work they do.

I like the organization of the above paragraph because the two quotes/uses of rhetoric

are about the same thing so they make for a well-structured paragraph.

While Greising has strong opinions that could easily change one’s beliefs on the overseas

trip, he also presents a strong logical statement that may still influence the reader. People say

Tony Blair is supposedly the reason London won the bid for the 2012 Olympics, but “does that

mean Jacques Chirac lost it for Paris?” (Greising). Greising’s question regarding other world

2
leader’s effects on the location of the Olympics works as a strong logo that tries to persuade

readers that it is uncalled for to jump to thinking that Obama can make the IOC favor Chicago.

Overall, Greising’s use of his strong, logical question works to set down a good argument in

terms of Obama’s influence on the IOC in Copenhagen.

However, not all individuals have the same opinion about Obama’s trip as David

Greising. David Broder, a national politics columnist for The Washington Post, wrote “Obama

right to lobby for Chicago Olympics” as an opinion article on October 1, 2009. Broder’s article

claimed that President Barack Obama should be able to fly to Copenhagen in order to support

Chicago’s bid without being heavily criticized for doing so. He puts forth a couple strong logos

throughout his article that he hopes would help the reader understand that Obama’s trip is

worthwhile and should be supported. From a critic’s point of view, bringing mass publicity to

Chicago could be “the best favor the president could possibly do for his adopted hometown”

(Broder). Rationally, Broder’s statement revealed that he thought Obama’s trip would be the

best thing Obama could do for Chicago in such a small window of time. Now Obama is not just

traveling to Copenhagen because he wants to do a favor for his adopted hometown, but because

in reality, he is a true campaigner. He has not been involved in a vote and campaign-worthy

issue since the presidential elections on November 8, 2008, making it almost a year since he has

been able to show off his ability to persuade a large group of people. Obviously, “campaigners

like to campaign, and this is a fair fight,” (Broder) so why should anyone stop Obama from

putting his best talent to the ultimate test? In simple words, Broder thinks it would be a logical

move to make the Olympics a political battle rather than a mere fight for the best location.

Broder’s use of logos throughout his article is not the only form of rhetoric in his article;

his weaker emotional statements, or pathos, are written in an effort to make the reader
3
emotionally supportive of Obama’s trip. Obviously the IOC does not want the Olympic Games

somewhere unpleasant because that would draw opponents rather than supporters. Broder claims

that Chicago’s “magnificent lakefront, its healthy, diverse neighborhoods and its mayor, Richard

Daley, who is as smart and accomplished a builder of urban success as anyone in the world,”

(Broder) should be able to help Obama convince the IOC that Chicago is a nicer place than

people give it credit for. From the statement, Broder hopes his list of great Chicago areas makes

the reader feel a little more proud of the United States and the cleanliness of the possible 2016

Olympic Games location.

The magnificent lakefront and diverse neighborhoods may be something unique to the

worldwide Olympic fans, but it is nothing new to the Chicago natives. Chicagoans needed a

change of pace, and with the audience the Games would attract to Chicago, people would not

come to “show each other up, but to revel in a shared experience” (Broder). The writer knows

only a small percent of the world’s population ever sees the Olympics firsthand, so he hopes the

reader, a potential Olympic Games attendee, would have faith in Obama’s trip to support his

adopted hometown. But before Americans could enjoy the Olympics firsthand, Obama had to

make the trip to Copenhagen regardless of the outcome. In the end, Broder made a strong

argument that emphasized a great deal on the logical reasons why Obama made the right choice

by going to Denmark. He simultaneously used a few emotion catchers that he hoped would

catch the attention of the readers so that they would ultimately support the trip.

Regardless of the opinion of the writers, both Greising and Broder had strong arguments

that have the potential for extreme influence on the audience. Neither article could be classified

as “right;” however, one could possibly appeal more to certain audiences. Democrats would

probably tend to read Broder’s column since it is in support of Obama’s choice whereas
4
Republicans would end up reading Greising’s article. If, for example, a Democrat was to read

Greising’s article, he may actually begin to believe that Obama’s trip was uncalled for because

the pathos and logos in the article are very powerful. But in the end it does not matter which

political party one comes from, but what appeals more to the reader. If the reader tends to be an

emotional man, Greising’s article might get him to share his side whereas a man interested only

in the logical aspects of life may be the one influenced by Broder’s article. But these are opinion

articles, meant to get the word out about what is happening in the world and what people think

about it; not to get the whole nation to side with or against President Obama. Even though these

writers are important, influential men, does not mean the nation is going to have a mass changing

opinion every day. David Greising actually writes for the Chicago Tribune and ultimately

knows what is going on in Chicago and what the city really needs to help it succeed. As a result,

one can trust the opinion of Greising and the information he supplies. But that does not

necessarily downplay the authority of David Broder. As a man that studies Obama’s every move

from the heart of the nation, Washington D.C., Broder writes about important issues that engross

the nation. His information is just as trustworthy as Greising’s, especially in this situation. So

while Greising has strong pathos and logos, Broder still has numerous strong arguments based on

logic. So whether or not Obama should or should not have flown all the way to Copenhagen to

lobby for the Chicago Olympics was all up to him because his opinion and reasoning were the

only things that mattered.

In the end, President Barack Obama ended up traveling to Copenhagen to lobby for the

Olympics. Greising did not think he should have gone in the first place so the loss could have

saved him a trip; but, Broder thought Obama could actually have the influence to alter the IOC’s

ultimate vote. Regardless, Broder could very well still hold the opinion that Obama made the

5
right move by traveling to the IOC meeting, but really, who knows? One thing is for sure:

Obama did not exactly fail us; however, he just did not have the proper effect on the IOC. He

could possibly have the power, like Broder said, but maybe he was not too influential, as

supported by Greising. Ultimately, the arguments made by both writers were strong in terms of

rhetoric and most likely attracted the same amount of support.

The concluding paragraph is extremely weak… probably because I didn’t have a thesis, which

caused the body paragraphs to have nothing to connect to, so I ultimately did not have the

claims I would need to write a good concluding paragraph.

I liked the overall organization and structure of the paper… that was actually one thing I made

sure to focus on so that it flowed nicely.

I used ethos, pathos and logos so the only one I didn’t use was kairos… but I don’t really

understand what those are so that’s why I didn’t put any in, or at least not that I’m aware of.

I don’t think a “however” section would have worked for this paper like it would in the

Ethnography because we aren’t giving our opinion or anything.