Response to Emily

I completely agree with what Emily had to say about Hillary Clinton’s speech. I felt that the pathos was certainly the most effective portion of the speech. Her many examples of this the treatment of women around the world were very touching and inspiring. I know that the examples used in her speech touched me and got deep into my emotions. Her logos is very obvious to Americans; for us, it is difficult to understand how anyone could possibly think differently. I feel that the logos worked well for the American audience; however, if she was trying to persuade the oppressors of these women, I feel that more logic needs to be expressed, connecting human rights directly to women’s rights. Also, her ethos was established, as Emily stated, by the simple fact that she is a woman, who has full rights.
I also agree that her kairos is completely on target. If this speech had been given several years ago, the unstated major premise (that woman’s rights are needed) would not have been so widely accepted. Today this idea is so widespread that it is difficult for Americans to imagine a different thought process.
As I have previously said, I feel that the audience is a very important part of the rhetoric of this speech. If she was directing this speech towards Americans and asking them to support woman’s rights, then she did a wonderful job; however, if the speech was directed at the oppressors’ this speech would not have been effective.

Sorry, I didn't realize until after I had typed the response that somone else had already responed to Emily, please let me know if this is ok or if I need to respeond to someone else as well