First

In his piece in the New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg argues that Obama and the democrats should not give up on passing healthcare legislation because they still have an 18 vote majority in the senate. To make his point Hertzberg uses several elements of argumentation. First, he makes the claim that the democrats are backing away from the republicans even though they still have a huge majority. He grounds this claim by showing that Obama has been backing down to the republicans. For example, he cites the fact that Obama has proposed a spending freeze which is in accordance with republican views. He then provides strength to his argument by stating that in the state of the union address, Obama acted like more of a leader. Hertzberg then qualifies his statements by citing Obama's trip to the republican retreat in Baltimore. Obama used diplomacy to quell support among the republicans for healthcare and to try to reach a compromise. Hertzberg sticks to the Toulmin model of argumentation to make his point.

Hendrik Herzberg argues that Democrats should move forward with the health care bill despite their loss of the 60th chair. He asserts that the Democrats have been using their loss as an excuse for not pushing the health care bill, which he supports by saying that Obama was also affected by the loss. Obama, though, recovered his ground by the time he gave the State of the Union, and even took a moment to tell the Democrats not to give up. The Democrats simply need to use other techniques, since they can't automatically pass any bill. Ultimately, Herzberg leaves the reader with the idea that the Democrats must keep pushing, otherwise they will have a difficult time achieving anything over the next few years.

I think Henrik may be addressing the senate, particularly the republicans- just my stab at it. Henrik is trying to focus on the positive, stating that the Democrats still have a majority, just not an applicable one. He basically describes the gridlock we’re in and tells us how Obama’s trying to fix it. Henrik tells us we need to find other ways to make the health bill pass and that we should not give up hope yet. The quote from Obama’s speech describes Obama’s feelings, stating he feels, ‘we are so close, let’s get it done.’
A side note, Obama may have been trying to get some of the Republicans on his side using the common “redneck” saying “Git’r dun’ in his speech but in a more mannered way.

Henrik says that the Democrats should still pursue their healthcare bill and try to get it passed, because soon they might not be able to do anything else. This, though, could be their gateway to change, as Obama promised. He urges Democrats to not have a defeatist attitude with the election of Scott Brown and their loss of the 60 votes needed. The Democrats need to keep in mind though that they still have a high majority and can still make a huge impact, as promised. Henrik's audience could be the Democrats of the U.S. He could be urging them not to lose faith just yet. Obama is still trying and so are the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and the House. In my opinion, people are getting frustrated that things are happening slowly, and the Democrats cannot give up. They made a promise, and who says they won't fulfill it? I think Henrik wants the liberals to give Obama and his administration more time to complete their goals and fulfill their promises.

Hendrik Hertzberg argues that Democrats in Congress need to "keep their heads up" and realize that they have one of the largest majorities in Congress in years. These Democrats, he claims still have the power to make a significant change, in areas such as the Health Bill, and the loss of a single vote to the Republicans shouldn't hinder their progress. Hertzberg shows the contrast between the pre-SOU President Obama and the post-SOU President in order to illustrate the change in confidence and motivation that the Democrats should follow in taking the right steps into the future. "Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done." Obama's speech summarizes the attitude that Democrats should have in the coming months, according to Hertzberg.

In this article, the author says that the democrats must continue to try and pass the healthcare bill, despite Scott Brown's victory. He uses Obama as an example to demonstrate what he thinks all democrats must do: move on, like Obama did, and keep fighting. By showing how Obama went from "discombobulated" to confident as he delivered his speech, he shows the followers of Obama that they must follow in his footsteps and do the same. This makes sense, as I think this article is aimed at the democrats. These are the people who need to continue working for healthcare and who would be interested in following Obama. He also supports this by saying that the democrats still have a huge minority and still have a lot of power- this is logos.

I just posted and it all deleted and I'm tired so this will be short...

Hertzberg's argument in this piece is that, to put it bluntly, Obama needs to get his act together and get the health care bill passed. To make his argument, Hertzberg makes many broad claims. He often uses qualifiers to scale down claims, such as, "just about everyone outside the Republican congressional caucus recognizes that, with unemployment at ten per cent, the near-term need is for more public spending—more stimulus, not less."
Hertzberg also uses backing to support his claims. When he states, "reconciliation is arcane but effective," he backs it up using evidence - "the Republicans used it to enact tax cuts for the comfortable." This particular piece of evidence also serves as an analogy, comparing two key pieces of legislation for presidents.

Hertzberg states his argument pretty bluntly in the final paragraph: if, with the largest majority in years, the Democrats fail to pass much-needed health-care reform, how will they do anything else? There are, of course, a few underlying assumptions (warrants?): (1) the health-care reform bill is adequate; (2) the bill is central to future Democratic legislation (and to Obama); and (3) America’s “increasingly dysfunctional governmental mechanisms and increasingly raucous political culture” is simply ridiculous, and threatening to real change. These might not actually be warrants (assumptions?), though, because Hertzberg addresses these ideas throughout the piece. He agrees with Obama’s challenge to Republicans to create a better approach to the health-care issue, notes that health-care has “consumed much of the Administration’s first year” and his second-to-last paragraph (as well as much of the piece) implies that the Republicans need to listen to Obama’s “passion for comity” (am I making an inference?).

It would seem logical that the intended audience of this piece is the various parties in Congress, but I don’t see those people actually changing their minds based on something in the New Yorker. I think Hertzberg has to be aware of that, too. I feel like it’s more for erudite, liberal scholarly types who enjoy reading and debating about politics. I’m not sure how much he intends to instill real change.

Hendrick Hertzberg claims that Democrats need to push on and pass the healthcare bill, even though they have lost their 60 seat supermajority. He points out as evidence that the democrats should not let the special election in Massachusetts slow them down, because they still have huge majorities in both the house and senate. Hertzberg ultimately argues that if the Democrats cannot pass such an important piece of legislation with such a large majority, its unlikely that they will be able to do anything else. Another claim that Hertzberg uses to support his argument is the idea of deficit spending. Hertzberg is clearly an economic liberal (in the Keynesian sense, not Friedman sense) and assumes that his audience will agree with his claim. There are an incredible number of warrants behind this claim, that Friedman does not explicitly address because of the audience he is writing to.
Therefore, Hertzberg's article is probably aimed at liberal or moderate democrats--the scholarly audience of the New Yorker. Because contrary to what Hertzberg believes, that "just about everyone outside the Republican congressional caucus recognizes that, with unemployment at ten per cent, the near-term need is for more public spending—more stimulus, not less" many americans do not believe that, because economics is a difficult subject that many Americans either don't understand or don't bother to learn. It is usually the democrats (and not even the Blue Dogs) who believe in Keynesian economics, even though it worked during the Great Depression.
The point of Hertzberg's piece is to convince his audience that the democrats absolutely must pass healthcare reform. I think that Hertzberg's article may have an influence because the healthcare message has gotten so muddled that many Americans (including democrats and the "elite" audience of the New Yorker) are not even sure what is in the healthcare bill or whether it is worth the time and effort to pass it now amidst an economic crisis. It's not just the "Average American" from Indiana who is lost in this debate, but the liberals in the Northeast (such as Massachusetts)--and the target audience of the New Yorker--as well.

IN "Sparrin' Words," Hendrik Herzberg argues that the Democrats' healthcare plan will have significantly more difficulty being passed despite President Barack Obama's words of optimism.

Herzberg primarily uses logos in this piece, revolving his argument solely on logic instead of emotion. For example, he states that there are only two ways the Democrats can pass the bill, and he effectively lists out these two methods. Even before this, he acknowledges the difficulties the Democrats will face when trying to pass the health-care bill ("any new health-care bill that requires a standard floor vote in the Senate is out of the question").

Herzberg also uses a lot of inductive reasoning in this piece. He mentions specific examples (such as Browns victory in Massachusetts and specific things Obama said in his State of the Union Address) and makes broader statements. Inductive reasoning essentially allows Herzberg to connect these events to one another and weave an argument.

It seems likes Hertzberg's purpose with this piece is convince Democrats that all is not lost. He does this by arguing that their leader, President Obama, is still effective and just as powerful. The main way he does this is by illustrating Obama at different points in recent political history. First, he describes Obama as "plainly discombobulated" and "feeble," after Scott Brown won the senate race in Massachusetts. Then, Hertzberg illustrates him during the State of the Union address saying, "He looked and sounded like a trillion bucks," and "he appeared to be unusually relaxed, even bouncy." The second description of the President is the one we are used to and see all the time. However, by providing the weaker illustration first, Hertzberg makes the stronger one seem much more powerful. In a way, he utilizes a "straw man" technique, cutting down the poor image of Obama and replacing it with strength.

In Sparrin' Words, Hertrzberg argues that the Democrats should continue to move forward with the health care bill. He explains that both the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed similar health care bills and now need only one more vote to merge the bills into one. He uses fact, that the democrats have 59 senators of of one hundred, to point out that this is still the largest majority wither party has had. Hertzberg uses the same facts that one arguing against him would, but points out why these points prove that it's still possible to pass health care.

While Hendrik Hertzberg's article on the State of the Union and the drive towards health care reform was mostly factual, it clearly held a bias in favor of Obama and his message. Interestingly, the author heavily relies on inductive reasoning, spending most of the piece giving evidence that the Democrats are in a strong position but still appear impotent and reaching the conclusion in the final paragraph that if Democrats do not pass health-care reform now they will probably be unable to get anything else done. The conclusion, in turn, is based on several claims throughout the piece: that Congressional Democrats are unwilling to go against a filibuster; that the health care bill is closer than ever before to being complete; that Congress could push the process through by using reconciliation. As for Hertzberg's audience, it is most likely the pessimistic liberals who have given up hope on passing health-care. After all, he is not arguing in favor of the merits of health-care (I imagine the assumption that "healt-care reform is necessary and beneficial" comprises a huge warrant in the piece). Rather, he is trying to convince readers that Obama's State of the Union Address does not have to be just words, that if the Democrats in Congress follow up on his lead, they may - and must - salvage the bill.