Vollmer 1

Quinn Vollmer

Professor Lori Bedell

CAS 137H

22 September 2017

Contrasting Keynotes

“There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of

America.” 1

Lines like this are what ensnared the crowd at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

– and the millions at home watching on their televisions. Barack Obama, then an Illinois Senator

and US Senatorial candidate, certainly caught some attention that night; his message of unity,

faith in America, and his heart-warming narrative ultimately earned him much more than just

sustained applause.

“Look at Congress since the Republicans took over. Democrats proposed refinancing

student loans. And Republicans? They said no!... To every Republican in Congress who said no:

this November, the American people are coming for you!” 2

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren took a very different approach in 2016 when she

had the honor of addressing the DNC. She issued grave warnings concerning America’s future if

the opponent were to be elected, and questioned America’s commitment to equal opportunity for

all. As Bitzer would note, the explanation for the disparate tones and content of their speeches

can be found by examining the rhetorical situations in which these Keynote Addresses were

delivered.

The primary exigence that Obama and Warren address is the same: a call to civic service,

to vote for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Additionally, the political
 Vollmer 2

landscapes of 2004 and 2016 are not entirely different. The Pew Research Center describes 2004

America as “almost evenly divided politically yet further apart than ever in its political values.”

Political polarization and anger had rather quickly dissipated the unity inspired by the September

11th attacks.3 Similarly, in 2016, Pew’s research showed that partisan views of the opposing party

were more negative than at any point in nearly a quarter century. In fact, “sizable shares of both

Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feeling of not just frustration, but fear and

anger.” 4 The noteworthy differences in rhetorical situation can be seen in the reputations of the

speakers themselves and the campaigns that their party are opposing. Just prior to his address,

Barack Obama had won the primary election for a seat in the US Senate by a landslide margin –

now a rising star in the national Democratic Party, America still did not know much about him.

At the time of her address, Elizabeth Warren had served nearly four years in the US Senate and

had delivered an address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. The Republican

candidates opposing the Democrats that these two Keynote speakers were supporting were very

distinctive as well. George W. Bush, the incumbent running against Democrat John Kerry, had a

first-term average approval rating of 62%.5 2016 Republican candidate Donald Trump, on the

other hand, was a far more polarizing figure. These differences in speaker and presidential

candidates were key in shaping the rhetorical strategy of the speakers. Obama and Warren –

addressing very similar primary exigencies in contrasting rhetorical situations – deliver wildly

different speeches utilizing dissimilar brands of the same intrinsic proofs, namely ethos and

pathos. Additionally, the speakers differ in their presentation of extrinsic proofs to the audience.

Politicians are built almost entirely on ethos. Both Obama and Warren spend significant

time strengthening the already well-established ethos of their respective presidential candidate.

According to Warren, Hillary Clinton is “one of the smartest, toughest, most tenacious people on
 Vollmer 3

the planet.” John Kerry “embodies the best this country has to offer,” says Obama in his address.

The nature of the speakers’ usage of ethos diverges sharply in other respects, however. Warren is

an established national political figure with a significant following. She rather briefly addresses

her humble beginnings, but her ethos is already strong and therefore her subsequent arguments

have weight. For the unfamiliar Barack Obama’s endorsement of Kerry to mean anything, he

needs to build his own ethos from the ground up. To begin his speech, Obama narrates his own

American Dream story: he was the product of an “improbable love” between a Kenyan and

Kansan, afforded a world-class education, and now a US Senatorial candidate. His charming

anecdotes and eloquent delivery immediately captivates the crowd – they applaud frequently and

vigorously. Obama establishes a potent ethos as a different kind of politician; he is young, lively,

and motivated by a hopeful vision for America. The audience’s infatuation with this startling

personality entails that they are attentive and eventually responsive to Obama’s support of John

Kerry. Warren’s primary use of ethos is not building her own or strengthening that of the

candidate – but an attack on the ethos of the Democrats’ opponents. While Democrats have

fought hard for working people, “Republicans and lobbyists battled [them] every step of the

way,” Warren says. Among other things, she adds that Republicans oppose the American

commonplace of “equality of opportunity” by fighting to keep the “system rigged.” Perhaps

around half of Senator Warren’s address is directed towards Donald Trump, accusing him of

“fanning the flames of fear and hatred,” “conning” the American people, and encouraging the

“rigging of the system.” Not once does Obama mention the name of Bush or the Republican

Party, except for two instances where he makes the case for unity between the parties. Both

strategies serve to drive the audience in favor of the Democratic candidate, but the speakers

approach their mutual milieu of political polarity using inverse methods.

 Vollmer 4

Obama and Warren are both deeply effective in inspiring strong emotion in their

audience. Their usage of pathos, while a key component to the potency of both addresses, strays

dramatically. One of the points both speakers make quite early on in their speeches is that

America is a land of opportunity. Obama continues to build on this theme. His own story is proof

of the American Dream, he says, even adding that he believes “that in no other country on Earth

is [his] story even possible.” The audience feeds off of Obama’s frequent citing of American

commonplaces - equality of opportunity, class mobility, American exceptionalism, and others –

and their feelings of pride grow strong. Of course, Obama then directs these patriotic feelings

towards the exigence, calling his audience to support John Kerry and thus reaffirm the values

that make America singular. After her concise biographical segment, Warren recognizes

America as a “land of opportunity”, but almost immediately casts doubt onto this claim. The

system is rigged, the playing field uneven, she says. Warren expresses grave concern over the

future of the American Dream. She adds to this pessimistic prophecy with predictions of what an

America under Donald Trump would look like: “An America of fear and hate. An America

where we all break apart. Whites against blacks and Latinos. Christians against Muslims and

Jews… the more factions the better.” This strategy hopes to achieve Warren’s goal of gathering

support for Hillary Clinton by rousing an intense fear of the other option. Senator Warren is also

noticeably less fervid about her patriotism relative to Obama – likely in response to an increased

skepticism of patriotic and nationalistic sentiment on the left. Warren’s pathos is instead directed

at the fear of Americans, rather than love for their country.

In an effort to reinforce the congruity of priorities between the candidate and the

audience, Senator Warren relies most heavily on extrinsic proofs. She recites a long list of

specific policy areas and social issues where Hillary Clinton will fight for Americans. By voting
 Vollmer 5

for Hillary, you’re supporting the things she cares about, for instance: raising the minimum

wage, paid family and medical leave, debt-free college, expanding Social Security, strengthening

Medicare, and many other issues. Warren discusses other Democratic achievements, as well:

“Democrats fought for a strong consumer protection agency so big banks can’t cheat people…

Five years later, that consumer agency has returned $11 billion to families who were cheated.” In

comparison, Obama’s use of extrinsic proofs is less evident and more humanized. He doesn’t just

list the policies that John Kerry or the Democrats will fight for. Obama tells stories, recalls

personal experiences he has had with struggling Americans. Instead of citing the high costs of

health services as a problem facing America, he tells the story of “the father [he] met who was

losing his job and chocking back the tears wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the

drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he counted on.” This strategy communicates

the problem while also tugging at the heartstrings of the audience – perhaps a more effective

method.

Granted the opportunity to deliver the Keynote Address at the 2004 and 2016 Democratic

National Conventions, Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren gave strikingly different

performances. Despite the near-identical exigencies and similar political landscapes, other

features of the rhetorical situation drove Obama and Warren’s contrasting usage of ethos, pathos,

and extrinsic proofs. In many ways, their personal situations were similar. They were both

considered rising stars in the Democratic Party – though Obama’s rise to fame was quite sudden.

Eventually, Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States. As for Elizabeth

Warren, a 2020 campaign for the US Presidency is not unlikely. Perhaps, just as Obama’s 2008

presidential campaign was grounded in the values outlined in his speech, Elizabeth Warren’s

future campaign will find its roots in the content of her Keynote Address.
 Vollmer 6

Works Cited

1. "C-SPAN: Barack Obama Speech at 2004 DNC Convention." YouTube, uploaded by C-

SPAN, Google, 18 Aug. 2008, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0&t=919s.

Accessed 25 Sept. 2017.

2. "Watch Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s full speech at the 2016 Democratic National

Convention." YouTube, uploaded by PBS NewsHour, Google, 25 July 2016,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0EsVKS4ADw&t=918s. Accessed 25 Sept. 2017.

3. The 2004 Political Landscape. Pew Research Center, 5 Novemeber 2003. Pew Research

Center, www.people-press.org/2003/11/05/the-2004-political-landscape/. Accessed 25

Sept. 2017.

4. Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016. Pew Research Center, 22 June 2016. Pew

Research Center, www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-

animosity-in-2016/. Accessed 25 Sept. 2017.

5. Presidential Approval Ratings -- George W. Bush. Gallup News. Gallup,

news.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx. Accessed

25 Sept. 2017.