Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold.

[gulliver]

149. I'm not sure what to make of posts like this.

I give the rhetoric a B at best. It shows an above average mastery of emotional appeal, audience pandering, and productive fallacy. The straw man "defenders," the theme and the central fallacy of the piece, are a weakness rhetorically—way over-played. That makes this more of a lash-out piece with appeal limited to a minority. That is the shame, because the writing is a solid A. One wonders what the author is capable of accomplishing were analytical seriousness given the same priority as writing style.

The political and moral analysis is basically an F if genuine or an A if a caricature. I don't think this is a Freeper post intended to sow internal conflict, because too much effort went into it. So I give it an F, as I give the author the benefit of the doubt that the rhetoric is intended to be productive and not merely an expression of sado-masochism or narcissism.

Overall, I think the engine and wheels of the piece work fine, but the transmission has a lot of ego and maybe some damage or underdevelopment in the emotional core. So the wisdom is not there yet. It screams foolishness in fact, but it screams it in such a way that, provided the poster is young, is hopeful.