Response to Ambassador Young's Speech

Overall, I was unimpressed with rhetoric of Ambassador Young's speech. This comment is made from a purely Modern Rhetoric, analytical perspective, but I support it with the fact that the speech seemed unorganized and multi-themed.
There to celebrate Martin Luther King and his work, Ambassador Young simultaneously emphasized and down-played the non-violent approach and initiation, respectively, of the movement by King. He spoke of the "struggle"'s past and continuation, of the economy of the country and the poor, of local and global instances.
Ambassador Young did utilize rhetorical tools such as logos, pathos, and ethos. His credibility is established through his work with Martin Luther King, the awards and titles he has earned, his positions in the government, and the many celebrations he has participated in. He supports his position with historical examples and experiences: President Jimmy Carter advocating non-violence and facilitating minimal death in Israeli war; the US military being the first to desegregate, realizing that divisiveness cannot lead to success; a story about children begging for food. And he appeals to the emotions of his audience by claiming that all, despite race, are affected by the "struggle"; a special appeal to women by stating that their involvement is crucial to success; emphasizing the progress already made, but calling for continuation of civilized means to reach a goal; and again, the story of children begging for food.
Although Ambassador Young's speech contained all of these strategies and methods, lacking the organization his speech was not as effective as it might have been.