Precis 4

Precis #4

                        Todd Graham, director of the debate at Southern Illinois University, professes in his article “Debate coach: Obama, heat up; Romney, stay cool” from CNN.com, that Mitt Romney, Republican presidential nominee, performed better than Obama during the Presidential Debate on October 3, 2012. In fact, he claims “Romney was hungry, Obama was flat” (ibid.).

                        Graham implements a simile and two metaphors to bolster his point. He employs a simile as in his analysis of Obama’s poor performance. If Obama doesn’t stick to one theme, “Romney will be like Teflon, and nothing Obama says will stick to him in these debates”(ibid.). Graham’s purpose is to illustrate Obama’s failure to support his claims with evidence, and if this persists, Romney will surely win every debate to come. He utilizes a metaphor when describing why Obama did not perform well in the debate. The problem was not that Obama didn’t clearly present his theme, “[t]he problem was that the new premise lacked bite”(ibid.).  Obama’s ideas were stated clearly but his lack of empathy and passion made his argument fall flat. Lastly, Graham employs another metaphor to describe what Obama needs to do in order to succeed in the next debate. He should “utilize the backward-step-pivot-forward technique as often as possible;” in doing this, Obama can turn all of his potential flaws into strengths, ensuring him a possible win in the next debate.

            Todd Graham applies witty diction. Graham attacks Obama’s dispassionate and distant tone saying that “ it’s bad when…uber-wealthy Mitt Romney seems like he cares more about the middle class and even lower class than the sitting Democratic president”(ibid.). Obama’s lack of passion and emotion not only made his argument less appealing but it also made it less believable. Syntactically, Graham implements short, choppy sentences. “Check. Check. And check.” claims Graham IN WHAT CONTEXT????. The short, choppy sentences appeal to the analytical tone because proves the author’s point that the Republican candidate played to all his strengths while Mr. President showed nothing but his weaknesses.

            I agree with Todd Graham in that Obama did not perform to the best of his abilities. Obama fell flat and he was unable to support his claims and arguments against Romney while Romney attacked all of Obama’s arguments as well as supplemented his own. If Obama wishes to succeed in the next debate, he should listen to Graham’s advice about turning potential flaws into strengths. Romney’s approach should be the same; he should be aggressive, but not mean. If Obama and Romney follow Todd Graham’s advice, the next two debates are sure to be interesting as well as enlightening.