Rhetorical Analysis Of His Essay 'Where's Waldo?'

Ruth Marcus’s essay on President Obama’s “Where’s Waldo?’ presidency is a look into President Obama’s presidential career or moreover a synopsis of what he has been missing from. She composes a list of details that the president in her opinion has been missing from, such as the stance he took on the health care issue, issues in Lybia, and the labor battle in Wisconsin, stating he avoids specific things to stay neutral and not cause controversy. For one the labor battle in Wisconsin because it is a swing state and he may lose support for taking the wrong position. She points out that he is mostly absent from things that a president should stay strong on and feels he only performs his best when the stakes are high and it is most important.
As can be seen clearly be seen in Ms.
Marcus’s writing, you will notice that her ethos is easily revealed. Her reference to current events and important world issues show that she is very knowledgeable on the subject matter at hand. She seems to have done her research and provides the reader with important issues and situations that have happened during President Obama’s presidency. By showing her knowledge of the subject matter she is more likely to convince the reader to side with her stance as most people will believe someone with knowledge on a subject more than someone who does not know the subject matter.
Throughout the writing the author tries to appeal to the reader by using the emotional tool which is pathos. Her specific words “Yes the dots connect to form an unsettling portrait of a “Where’s Waldo?” presidency:” will make the reader doubt the presidents accountably, and not many people would want an absent president, so you can say that this is a direct emotional appeal. (Marcus) Many of her points throughout the paper reiterate this similar pattern that he has maintained through his presidency, and backs the notion of a Where’s Waldo
presidency.
Ms. Marcus makes references to many specific issues that President Obama has avoided or been very reluctant to talk about. This is a good way to appeal to an audience, and would be considered logos. She provides many examples of current events that the president should have been persistent and present on and he was not. By detailing a list of these issues she allows the reader to form their own opinion on the president.
Overall I believe Ms. Marucs did a good job providing information on her subject matter, which allowed the reader to see the picture she was trying to present of President Obama’s presidency. Her description of all the important subjects that he reluctant to comment on clearly show that he truly avoids some topics all together. I feel her stance was neutral and that she was trying to point out the fact that he does not address issues head on like a president should.