A Rhetorical Analysis Of Barack Obama's Second Victory Speech

1143 Words3 Pages

There have been many amazing presidents throughout history but there are only a select few that had the honor of serving two terms in the white house as president of the United States. The Forty-fourth president in particular is amongst those who were elected for a second presidency. Our former President Barack Obama, he was known to be the president that spoke about “hope”. Obama being elected for a second time shows that the American people believe he is a reliable individual. On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 Obama gave his second victory speech. He gave this speech in his hometown of Chicago Illinois at the McCormick Place 2301, S King Dr. The significance of him giving this speech is that he went back to his hometown where he grew up. The …show more content…

This is where the rhetorical strategies begins, he starts the sentence off using anaphora to avoid being noticeably repetitive but still effectively reach his point. This tactic can help the audience to remember what he says. The future is one of the main points Obama wants to get across to the American people. He again using anaphora saying “it moves forward because of you”..”it moves because..” sequencing each other. He uses all this to keep the main topic in the audience's minds.He used “You and I” twice, “Together, we the people” three times, “We, the people” four times, “Our journey not yet complete” five times. Even though he employed these expressions all through the speech he first uses it early in the speech.The phrase used in Obama's speech support the idea of what the message he was trying to convey being unity. Also, used word such as “family’, “nation”, “help”, and ‘with” only strengthen what he is trying to persuade with the audience. He also used this to build his ethos earlier so neutralize possible condemnation. “Harvard is studying the effect of using positive words or images, such as those related to rewards, victory, or security, at the start of a negotiation, rather than focusing on the items in dispute”. (Meacham,

Open Document