The column today by Gideon Rachman in the FT poses the question: Is Obama really a better speaker than JFK?

his most famous phrases are vacuous. The “audacity of hope”? It would be genuinely audacious to run for the White House on a platform of despair. Promising hope is simply good sense. “The fierce urgency of now”? It is hard to see what Mr Obama means when he says this – other than that some inner voice has told him to run for president.

And then there is “Yes we can” 

“Yes we can to justice and equality. Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world. Yes we can.”

This sounds to me like a man doing an impression of what he thinks a great speech might be like.

The substance of this criticism is that the speech writer for Obama (which in to large degree: himself) is not as great a speech writer as Sorenson, the writer for JFK. But even on the substance Gideon has ignored the call by Obama for people to engage and organize and the proof of it has followed in quick succession to show the effectiveness of that call. Given the trend lines for participation in the American democracy has been remarkably low, Obama's campaign has sought to set the course on this to high shores.

Gideon adds a good example himself.

Peter Sellers, a British comedian of the 1960s, caught the genre nicely in a parody speech: “Let us assume a bold thrust and go forward together. Let us carry the fight against ignorance to the four corners of the earth, because it is a fight that concerns us all.” Mr Obama might easily give a speech like that – although he would probably strip out some of the detail.

Clearly words alone do not matter as much the ability of a  speaker to use those words. Other campaigners have equally tried to deliver their share of good speeches; there is nothing wrong with the words, only with the speaker.

Gideon ends with this as some kind of a peace offering:

So Mr Obama is not relying on empty exhortation because that is all he is capable of. It is a deliberate political strategy. And it makes sense. The more a candidate gets stuck into the detail, the more likely he is to bore or antagonise voters. Appealing to people’s emotions is less dangerous and more effective.

Really?