A rhetorical and comparative study

of the victory speeches of Barack Obama and Mircea Geona

Silvia IRIMIEA, PhD

Babeş Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca

Abstract

The study sets out to examine the political discourses of two

presidential candidates: of America’s candidate to presidency Barack
Obama and of the Romanian party leader Mircea Geoana in a
comparative study which also seeks to remind the reader of the
overwhelming and manipulative influence of both PR and media on
society.
As an interdisciplinary insight, the present analytical study was
built on linguistic concepts like: genre, (political) discourse, on
politics and democratic overtones, and on psychological contributions
to civil political speech. The scholars and researchers whose
remarkable works informed the present inquiry are: Bhatia (1993),
Swales J.(1981, 1985, 1990), Bakhtin (1975), Bitzer L.(, 1968, 2002),
Devitt A. (2004), Fairclough, N. (2003), Jamieson K. M. (1975),
Miller C. (1984), Charaudeau & Maingueneau( 2002), Johnson, David
w. Johnson, Roger T.(2000). The primary sources used for the
analysis of speeches were: Carr D, (2010), The Pew Research
Centre’s data and online newspaper articles.
The two discourses looked at in the study are: Obama’s Victory
speech presented in Chicago on 5th November 2008 and the
Romanian presidential candidate’s (Mircea Geoana’s) eight-minute
speech of his delusive glory delivered on the night of the elections,
when he falsely declared himself the elect president. Whereas
Obama’s speech turned out to be a model speech, which will continue
to instigate to further rhetorical inquiries in the decades to come,
Geoana’s speech, which looked pathetically thin and followed
Obama’s speech very closely in several respects, soon fell into
oblivion.
After a brief discussion of political discourse in general, the
study focuses on the rhetorical convergence of issues in other
American presidential election speeches, illustrated by the 2000
presidential elections which opposed G.W. Bush to Al Gore, each
1
 allegedly standing for the same cause but representing different
positions and strategies. The study then pursues an analysis of the two
discourses or genre texts (Obama’s and Geoana’s) along Halliday’s
concepts of field, mode and tenor. It equally undertakes to highlight
the similarities of the two speeches and to interpret the collected data.
Next, the study moves on to an in-depth examination of what makes
the two speeches resemble so much, starting with the delivery
moment and ending up with the promises of the new administration
and the final wish, whereby every quotation of the rhetorical ‘import’
phenomenon is commented on.
The findings reveal that Obama’s speech exerted a great
influence on Geoana’s oratorical performance. However, the study
does not attempt to cast any doubts on Geona’s rhetorical skills, nor
to praise the uniqueness of his speech. Finally, it does not come as a
surprise that the Romanians who were unaware of the monumental
American original held their candidate in high esteem and praised him
as a caring, new president who distinguished himself as a master of
oratory.

Introduction

The present study seeks to examine the political speeches of two outstanding
politicians, Barack Obama’s Victory speech and Mircea Geoana’s Victory speech
in an attempt to find elements of convergence and prove the similarity thereof. The
study is carried out against the background of an interdisciplinary perspective,
which brings together linguistics (discourse and genre analyses), politics, political
studies and psychology.
The works that have informed the study belong to renowned linguists like:
Bhatia (1993), Swales J.(1981, 1985, 1990), Bakhtin (1975), Bitzer L.(, 1968,
2002), Devitt A. (2004), Fairclough, N. (2003), Jamieson K. M. (1975), Miller C.
(1984), Charaudeau & Maingueneau (2002), Johnson, David w. Johnson, Roger T.
(2000), while the primary sources used for the analysis of speeches were: Carr D,
(2010), and The Pew Research Centre’s data, and the politics-related sources come
from: Foner, Hart, Lawrence and Shapiro, Leuchtenburg, McGee, Rodgers, and
other scholars.
The study goes out from a discussion on political speech and its role in a
democracy, the contribution of psychology, the main features of political speech,
areas of convergence in political speeches (illustrated by the speeches of Al Gore
and George W. Bush) and, finally, a Halliday-based analysis of the two speeches.
2
 1. Political Speech in a Democracy: The Contribution of Psychology

Political speech was considered by Thomas Jefferson and the other founders
of the American Republic to be the heart of democracy. Jefferson thought that the
basic issues that influence a society should be spoken in a free discussion
characterized by conflict of ideas and opinions. Political speech usually involves
all citizens in the decision-making process, persuades others and shows what
course of action is most effective in solving the problems of the society. In a
democracy, political speech is regarded as a method of decision.
Jefferson and the other founders of the American Republic thought that
different positions in a political speech would increase the citizen’s understanding
of the problem. Each course of action was expected to receive a complete hearing
and to be analysed in order to reveal its strengths and weaknesses. James Madison
described political speech as including an open-minded consideration of other
points of view. These ideas or opinions about political speech shared by Jefferson,
Madison and the other founders of the United States democracy were grounded in
philosophy. In the book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ written by Baron Charles de
Montesquieu in 1748, the relationship between people and different forms of
government is made visible. Charles de Montesquieu argued that if a monarchy
survives on the loyalty of the people, a free republic survives on the virtue of the
people.
In a democratic society, psychology has the responsibility to socialise new
citizens into the attitudes they need in order to participate actively in political
speech. Psychology needs to formulate a theory which explains how political
speech operates and a normative procedure to help citizens to engage in political
speech, and maybe help a generation to participate in the political process. Since a
theory that helps citizens engage in politics focuses on constructive controversy,
political speech is a type of conflict known as controversy. Constructive
controversy is when one person’s information, ideas, opinions, conclusions are
incompatible with those of another and the two seek to reach an agreement.
The main role of political speech is to improve the cohesiveness of a
democracy, while controversy creates positive attitudes toward the advocates of
opposing positions. When citizens involve in political speech, their ability should
increase, and, in a constructive controversy, participation increases the
participants’ experience and skills in doing so. Constructive controversy provides a
normative procedure based on a political speech theory validated by research.

3
 2. Politics and Political Speech

When we think of politics, we think of it in terms of the fight for power

aimed at setting forth specific ideas and interests and putting them into practice.
Equally, politics is the process through which groups of people make decisions and
is a characteristic feature of all human group interactions, including academic and
religious institutions. Politics also refers to the regulation of a political unit and to
the methods and tactics used to formulate policy.
In politics, political speeches play an important role. We can differentiate
between internal and external political communication, depending on the setting
and the communicative partners involved. Internal political communication refers
to all forms of speech that concern the functioning of politics within political
institutions. External political communication, on the other hand, targets the
general public.
Political speech is the formal exchange of reasoned views on what courses
of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. Political speech is considered
an essential ingredient of a democracy and it has been used throughout the history
of the United States. It rests on the exposition/discussion of problems and use of
persuasion techniques. It is widely used in political debates, candidacies, even in
our everyday life, and its recognized purposes are: clarifying citizens'
understanding of an important issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned
judgment as to which course of action will solve a problem (such as poverty,
crime, drug abuse), increasing citizen participation in the political process and
socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need in order
to become active citizens. Political speech almost always involves problems and
solutions as main ingredients.
A political speech fulfils different functions determined by the underlying
political activities. Its topics are related to politics and may involve: political
activities, political ideas, political relations. Another characteristic feature of
political speech is that it is made for a wider public.
The speakers delivering political speeches are normally leading politicians,
who can speak to members of the same political group or to the whole nation.
Politicians, usually, do not deliver speeches as individuals, but rather as
representatives of political parties, governments, or nations.
The speakers are limited as political actors as to what they can do and say
and how. A political candidate should present valid and logical information
because this will enhance credibility. If a politician prepares his or her arguments
well then the results will be the expected ones. Beside politicians, there are many
people who participate in political speech communities everyday and this happens

4
when they read political topics discussed in newspapers, on billboards or listen to
televised debates.

3. Rhetorical Convergence in the 2000 Presidential Election Speeches

There are many citizens who agree that all politicians use the same words in
their political speech and even if they want to look different, sometimes they use
similar arguments, similar terms to describe their policies and they may have even
the same purposes. Sometimes, politicians use rhetorical ambiguity, which is a
campaign strategy that may bring more votes, but which can, at the same time,
bring fewer votes as well. If the ideology of a candidate is stronger and more
interesting, then the candidate will win more voters on his side. In the 2000
campaign, Bush and Gore spoke about the same issues, including: maintaining a
strong military, providing prescription drug coverage, strengthening social security
and increasing accountability in education, but each spoke in different ways about
how these targets will be accomplished.
Political analysts opinionated that Al Gore had an advantage on issues, while
George W. Bush had an advantage on personality. Regarding the latter’s victory,
The Baltimore Sun (October 24,. 2000) argued that ‘negative attitudes toward
personality, which seem to be negating have perceived advantage on issues.’ Gore
lost the presidential campaign because the public did not understand him well and
because they were less informed. Regarding the two candidates’ rhetoric, the
voters were still confused and this can be explained through the spatial theory of
voting. For example in 1996, Bill Clinton held a position between his own party
and the Republicans and this turned out to be a great strategy. In 2000 some
scholars, including Jacobs and Shapiro (2000), argued that a candidate could win
the race if he or she would use popular words and symbols to impress the public.
This is how Obama impressed an entire nation in 2009.
Many citizens share the view that politicians adopt some positions which do
not show conviction and there are moments when they change the words which
describe their positions. Pertaining to this, Jacobs and Shapiro (2000:7-8) explain
that ‘The irony of contemporary politics is that politicians both slavishly track
public opinion and, contrary to the myth of pandering, studiously avoid simply
conforming policy to what the public wants.’ In 2000 the two candidates said that
the polls did not have a great importance for them; for example, Gore argued that
he did not think they had all that much meaning and Bush explained that he did not
base his decisions on what polls and focus groups said. Bush and Gore paid more
attention to senior citizens, while education, prescription drugs for seniors and
social security became the most important issues for each candidate. In spite of the

5
fact that the two candidates had different plans and goals for these issues the
rhetorical convergence of their advertising turned out advantageous for the voters.
It is obvious that Democrats are more supportive of government than
Republicans are and, usually, in their speeches Democrats speak about policy
while Republicans speak about principles. In the 2000 presidential campaign
George W. Bush criticized a lot the federal government speaking less about his
plans for some programs. In 1996 a survey showed that even if the voters paid less
attention to the election, the differences between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole on
various issues were clearer than the differences between Gore and Bush. For
example, in 1996 in the case of abortion 80 percent of voters believed that Bob
Dole said that it was hard for women to obtain abortions, while 14 percent believed
that Bill Clinton favored such restrictions. In 2000, 61.1 percent of voters knew
that Bush favored restricting abortion while 25.5 percent believed that Gore
agreed.
However, in 2000 the major differences regarded the issue of death penalty
when Bush proved to be a better speaker on the issue. Moreover, in 2000 a survey
showed that 61 percent of voters believed that George W. Bush and Al Gore took
different positions on the issues. Another survey demonstrated that many voters
believed that the two candidates were moderate and fewer believed that they were
conservative. Many surveys also showed that citizens associated the two
candidates with the same ideological position and that most voters were aware of
the difference between the candidates and their parties, but that they were confused
about their issues.
Usually, political speech includes inductive arguments and moves from
specific facts to a general conclusion; for example Gore began to speak about
specific environmental problems in Texas and then he finished his speech by
saying that he was unprepared to assume presidency.
In fact, the presidential campaigns have many functions and they do not
serve only to choose leaders but also to make the citizens think of their past and
their future. This tendency has been noted by Hart (2000:8), who argues that
‘Every four years, the American nation reconstitutes itself, thereby giving its
citizens an opportunity to reflect on who they are and what they want to become’.
If candidates mean what they say and want to continue the same policies then
rhetorical convergence is not problematic, but this is a rare case in a presidential
campaign because the candidates and the press are about to ignore the issues on
which they do agree.

4. The Victory Speeches of Barack Obama and Mircea Geoana. A

Halliday-Based Discourse Analysis
6
 Holding the American President in high esteem, Mircea Geoana expressed
his support for Obama before the latter was declared President. After Obama’s
victory, Geoana shared the internationally widespread enthusiasm over a new,
strong and powerful democratic leader. He valued the American President’s
interest in health care, an improved education policy, reducing the social
inequalities and his economic recovery strategy. Under the circumstances, it was
expected that the Romanian presidential candidate would draw his inspiration from
the American political model. Thus, following Obama’s model, Geoana proposed
for the success of his economic recovery plan the establishment of an Economic
Recovery Advisory Board, echoing the one founded on February 6, at the White
House.
Not only were the political attitudes of the two candidates convergent, but so
were their victory speeches. The only main difference lies in the fact that Obama
was, eventually, victorious while Mircea Geoana falsely claimed victory. In the
following pages we shall focus our attention on the two speeches.
Context is a component that enables us to understand the underlying features
of a text, in this particular case a spoken one. We shall undertake an analysis of the
two speeches applying Halliday’s model, i.e. looking at the three aspects which are
assumed to have linguistic influences on discourse: field, mode and tenor. Field
stands for the language used to express a specific subject matter, tenor accounts for
the participants and their relationship, and mode refers to the channel of
communication (written, spoken or signed).

Obama’s speech

Variable Context of production Linguistic features of text

7
FIELD

Activity the Activity: victory speech The lexical sets show the topic the writer
participants are of the newly elected U.S. is dealing with. One can notice the use of
carrying out OR topic President. a political jargon: democracy, campaign,
of text.
peace, security, liberty, government,
Hearer/ reader’s
knowledge assumed policy. Beside these, there are a many
by the speaker/ writer The speaker assumes words dealing with the social aspects:
(amount). that the audience has rich, poor, gay, black, workers, Latino,
Linguistic features: knowledge of what he is young people.
Sets of vbs. and talking about.
nouns. The way in which the President addresses
Lexical sets show the whole nation is carefully thought out
content area (activity to include everyone, maintaining, at the
or topic)? same time, the dignity of a great leader’s
Exclusion of language.
outsiders (difficult
terms/ jargon)?

8
TENOR The power relation The knowledge is stated as fact, given
seems to be equal. that the President was irrevocably elected
Relation speaker-
However, it is an to represent the nation for several years.
writer:
power, contact, interaction between a
There is an attitudinal lexis, as the
affective very important political
speaker starts by thanking those who
involvement. figure, the presidential
Linguistic features: candidate of the U.S. supported him, his rival and all of the
+/- equality – people who voted him or did not.
(elected President) and
power Furthermore, the example of the 106-year-
the American citizens.
Knowledge: old African-American voter is filled with
stated/negotiated Contact: full. A new emotional content.
Attitudinal/ neutral representative of the
lexis.
entire American people
Colloquial/ formal
lexis. was elected and he
Vocatives? (roles, speaks in the name of the
relations) whole Americans to all
Americans.

It appears that there is

affective/emotional
involvement, given by
the emotion of the victory
and the commitment to
the American citizens.

9
MODE

Physical distance There is almost no It is a speech (thus, a monologue) with

between interlocutors spatial distance between many direct invitations made by the
and possibilities of interlocutors, as it is a speaker. Frequent use of the first person
contact.
speech held before a singular ‘I’, ‘my’, but also plural ‘we’,
Distance between the
use of language and numerous audience. ‘our’. Moreover, the speaker addresses the
the activity (social audience directly: ‘your’, ‘you’.
In what experiential
process) it realises.
distance is concerned, It is context independent, as it doesn’t
Language as
action/reflection language is used as contain many deictic expressions.
Linguistic features: reflection, when the However, it and this appear in some
+/- spoken – written President talks about past places.
Monologue? occurrences, but it is also
I/ you (invitation Non-spontaneous: the speech has been
used as action, when he
purpose)? clearly prepared beforehand. However,
speaks about the courses
Context dependent the fact that it is delivered in front of an
of action to be taken.
(deixis)? audience gives it a note of spontaneity.
Spontaneous?
Lexical density/ light With regards to grammar, one can notice
NPs. that it is standard and it is characterised
by simplicity.

10
 Geoana’s speech

Variable Context of production Linguistic features of text

FIELD Activity: victory speech of the The lexical sets reflect the topic
candidate who falsely assumes the speaker is dealing with.
Activity the
he was elected President. Surprisingly, only a few key words
participants are
carrying out OR topic used belong to the political jargon:
of text. democracy, government, crisis,
Hearer/ reader’s The speaker assumes that the political majority, programm,
knowledge assumed audience has knowledge of transition, unity. Some key words
by the speaker/ writer what he is talking about. come from the social jargon:
(amount). solidarity, harmony, fairness, youth,
Linguistic features:
Sets of vbs. and support, work, while the remaining
nouns. majority spring from the common
Lexical sets show stock of words: tolerance,
content area (activity generosity, love, Christian,
or topic)? celebration. The way in which the
Exclusion of President addresses the whole
outsiders (difficult
nation is carefully thought not to
terms/ jargon)?
exclude anybody, maintaining, at
the same time, the tone of the
speech resembles that of great
leader’s.

11
TENOR The power relation tries to The knowledge is stated as fact,
appear equal. However, it is an given that the politician is certain
Relation speaker-
interaction between a very that he was elected President.
writer:
power, contact, important political figure, the
There is an attitudinal lexis, as the
affective President of the U.S. and the
speaker starts by thanking all
involvement. Romanian citizens.
Linguistic features: Romanian citizens, the former
+/- equality – Contact: full. The candidate President, the parties’ leaders.
power who thinks will be the President
He confesses his nervousness and
Knowledge: of Romania addresses the
stated/negotiated excitement at one point and
people who elected him and
Attitudinal/ neutral concludes by expressing his love
those whose President he will
lexis. towards the Romanian nation.
be.
Colloquial/ formal
lexis. It appears that there is affective
Vocatives? (roles, involvement, given by the
relations)
emotion of the victory which he
expresses several times. In
support for his involvement he
uses the expression ‘from my
heart’.

12
MODE

Physical distance There is almost no spatial It is a speech (thus, a monologue)

between interlocutors distance between interlocutors, with many direct invitations from
and possibilities of as it is a speech held before a the part of the speaker. Frequent
contact.
large audience. use of the first person singular ‘I’,
Distance between the
use of language and ‘my’, but also plural ‘we’, ‘our’.
In what experiential distance
the activity (social Moreover, he addresses directly the
is concerned, language is used
process) it realises. audience: ‘your’, ‘you’.
as reflection, when the
Language as
action/reflection President talks about past It is context independent, as it
Linguistic features: occurrences, but it is also used doesn’t contain many deictic
+/- spoken – written as action, when he speaks expressions. However, it and this
Monologue? about the courses of action to appear in some places.
I/ you (invitation be taken.
purpose)? Non-spontaneous: the speech has
Context dependent been clearly prepared beforehand.
(deixis)? However, the fact that it is delivered
Spontaneous? in front of an audience gives it a
Lexical density/ light
note of spontaneity.
NPs.
With regards to grammar, one can
notice that it is standard and it is
characterised by simplicity.

If we apply Halliday’s variables to our speeches/discourses, we barely notice

any differences, which testifies for the similarity of the speeches. The data
collected in the tables are briefly discussed below.
The genre (and the field) is that of political speech in both cases. As such it
is a written text prepared to be read aloud or delivered in front of a larger or
smaller public. This already anticipates the twofold nature of the text: both written
and oral.
The lexical choices of both texts come from the same field, that of politics.
Obama’s speech takes in more words from the world of politics, such as:
government, policy, peace, security, campaign, some of which emerge in Geoana’s
text as well. The latter used words like: vote, campaign, president, political crisis,
nation. Words related to the social dimension of politics are traceable in both the
13
American Democrat’s discourse and in the Romanian Socialist-Democrat’s one:
young, old, rich, poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white etc vs old, young,
those from the countryside, the people from Romania, those outside its borders.
The manner in which both speakers address the issues is by no means very formal,
as they both wanted their message to reach out to an extremely broad audience and
be understood practically by every citizen.
The tenor of the two discourses reveals the power relations as equal
relations. Nevertheless, Obama speaks from his position of authority, and this is
accounted for by his impeccable posture, his careful and impressive choice of
words and his exquisite and confident tone. Geoana, on the other hand, is visibly
nervous, excited and he admits to this at one point. Thus, the emotional
involvement is more prominent and present in Geoana’s speech, in which he uses
such expressions as: ‘from my heart’, ‘I love you Romanians!’. Obama is more
restrained and self-controlled demonstrating thus his ability to be a true, confident,
strong, though sympathetic leader. He appeals to the listeners’ emotions when he
evokes the 106-year-old African American woman, who faced the most important
historical events of the 20th century and ended up casting her ballot for Obama in
2009. He appeals to the emotional feeling of his audience, when at the end of his
speech he gives his presidential blessing to the Americans.
In what mode is concerned, the fact that both speeches are delivered in front
of large audiences (onsite and televised), gives them a special status. Spatial
distance is minimised to the fullest, and experiential distance translates through the
language used as reflection, while language itself becomes a social process.
However, the political component of the speeches determines the language to be
used as action, when both leaders invite the citizens to cooperate with them in
fulfilling their tasks. The nature of political speech calls for the constant use of
‘subjective’ pronouns, i.e. first and second person pronouns. This linguistic
strategy narrows down the distance between the interlocutors, making the speaker
a friendlier figure to the listeners. Obama’s speech, even if it was presented as an
oral exercise, is clearly non-spontaneous, whereas Geoana’s speech seems to be
more of an ‘on the spot’ oral text, as this is visible from his lack of fluency and
coherence.

5. A Further Analysis of Similarities

Following a more general interpretation of the speeches, let us take a closer

look at what makes the two speeches so alike. From the very beginning we can
notice the use of the ‘triple’ technique, a figure of speech that is recurrent in
Obama’s speech (‘Who still doubts, who still wonders and who still questions’, he
14
then continues by repeating the motif ‘answer’ three times: ‘It’s the answer’).
Similarly, Geoana’s speech contains the same structures repeated twice in his
discourse: ‘Am avut dreptate’(‘We were right’) and ‘Victoria noastra’(‘Our
victory’). In the introductory parts of both speeches the word ‘tonight’ has a
particular significance. (Obama: ‘Tonight is your answer’, Geoana: ‘E o noapte
frumoasa…’-‘This night is a beautiful night…’).
Then, the next part of Obama’s speech is devoted to thanking. He thanks his
family, his campaign staff, the volunteers of his campaign and, ‘above all’, his
American citizens. ‘This is your victory’ are the words that he finishes this section
with. Mircea Geoana starts by thanking his party, staff, his closest political ally,
Crin Antonescu, and other supporters. What strikes as almost plagiarism, is his
deep gratitude shown to his wife, two children, and finally to his grandmother, who
was watching him on TV, and his passed away father. Obama also refers to his
passed away grandmother and family.
What is different in the two speeches is the approach to the task ahead.
Obama warns about ‘the enormity of the task that lies ahead’ and the ‘challenges
that tomorrow will bring’, devoting many words to this subject. His emphasis is on
the importance of being realistic and active rather than on being optimistic and
hopeful. He urges the Americans to action: ‘So let us summon a new spirit of
patriotism… where each of us look after not only ourselves, but each other.’
Geoana follows the same trait: ‘Dar de maine …incepe munca
adevarata’(Tomorrow real work starts’). He does not focus on the difficulty of the
task, instead he is more concerned with his promise or commitment to stop the
political crisis that Romania is faced with. Nevertheless, Obama’s call for action is
traceable in the last part of Geoana’s speech, where he urges the Romanians to be
confident, win the others’ trust and show others the respect they are entitled to.
Obama mentions the ones who didn’t vote him and those who didn’t grant
him their confidence. He turns to them in a diplomatic and moving way: ‘I hear
your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too’. Geoana pursues
the same idea: ‘Sunt preşedintele tuturor românilor şi îi voi trata [pe cei care nu m-
au votat] cu egal respect’(‘I am the president of all Romanians, including those
who did not give me their ballots, and I will show them the same respect’).
Another example of convergence rests on the Romanian politician’s quoting
the Romanian values in the same way as Obama mentioned the American values.
The difference lies in the fact that the ones quoted by Geoana are not
representative for the Romanians, whereas those quoted by Obama are true
American values. In addition, the Romanian candidate to Presidency brings several
social categories into discussion, claiming that he would make no difference.
Obama does this at the beginning of his discourse. Geoana takes up the American
President’s metaphor, and adapts it to the Romanian circumstances, speaking of a
15
very important religious holiday in Romania, i.e. Saint Nicholas’ Day. Last, but
not least, Geoana brings up in his discourse the presidential blessing, which is so
customary in the American presidents’ speeches.

Conclusions

The last two sections have shown some aspects that account for the
convergence of the two Victory speeches. The study has used M.A.K. Halliday’s
model to look closer at the two discourses, which, however, indicated a strong
similarity in what the three linguistic variables of field, tenor and mode are
concerned. The only relevant differences resulting from the analysis are related to
lexical choices linked to topics and differences regarding sections of the speeches.
The study has moved beyond Halliday’s model noting further similarities, which
were not transparent from the model.
The answer to the dichotomy convergence (or linguistic import) vs
creativity lies in the high esteem and appreciation that the Romanian politician has
had for the American leader, who he drew his inspiration from. We cannot blame
Geoana for plagiarism, since Geoana departed from the American model in respect
of the organization of his speech and the approached topics. However, the great
influence that the American model exerted on him is indisputable and
overwhelming. Furthermore, for the Romanian simple-minded citizens who have
not heard or studied Obama’s monumental presidential speech, Geoana’s discourse
may have had a powerful effect portraying him as a caring, new president who
possesses oratorical skills.

Bibliography
1. Brady, Henry, and Sniderman, Paul (1985) Attitude attribution: A group basis
for political reasoning. American Political Science Review.
2. Elder, Charles D., and Cobb, Roger W. (1983) The political uses of symbols.
New York: Longman.
3. Foner, Eric (1994) The meaning of freedom in the age of emancipation. Journal
of American History.
4. Hart, Roderick (2000) Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Jacobs, Lawrence, and Shapiro, Robert (2000) Politicians don't pander:
Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
16
6. Leuchtenburg, William E. (1988) ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt: The first modern
president’. In Leadership in the modern presidency, edited by Fred I.
Greenstein, 7-40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. McGee, Michael Calvin (1980) The "ideograph": A link between rhetoric and
ideology.
8. Rodgers, Daniel T. (1987) Contested truths: Keywords in American politics
since independence. New York: Basic Books.
9. West, Paul (2000) For Gore, a battle for green territory. The Baltimore Sun,
(October 24, 2000).

e-sources
1. Carr David, ‘How Obama Tapped into Social Networks’ Power’. In NY Times,
November 9, 2008. Last accessed: January 29, 2010. [online]
http://nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html
2. Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence ‘Winning the Media Campaign’.
October 22, 2008. [online’ Last accessed: January 29, 2010.
3. Obama’s speech from http://changing minds.org/index.htm. Last accessed
January 29, 2010.
4. http://www.catavencu.ro/discursul_presedintelui_mircea_geoana-11603.html
5. ‘Geon il plagiaza pe Obama’. In Evenimentul zilei. Thursday, 12 \November
2009. http://prezidetiale.evz.ro/emain/articolul/875597/Geoana-il-
quotplagiazaquot-pe-Obama- Last accessed: January 29, 2010.

17