Eloquence or Plain-Speaking?

“Eloquence, at its highest pitch, leaves little room for reason or reflection, but addresses itself entirely to the desires and affections, captivating the willing hearers, and subduing their understanding.” — David Hume

“ — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” — Abraham Lincoln, at Gettysburg

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” — George W. Bush, Address to The Knesset

“By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children. But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.” — Barack H. Obama, Race Speech

“Bullshit!” — Joseph R. Biden, Jr., commenting on the President's Address to The Knesset

As for most intellectual inquiries, the short answer to the title question is, "It depends". More to the point, it not only depends on "pitch", as Hume posited, by which I assume he meant level or degree of polish [N.B. lower case p], but also on context and its requisite degree of substance.

President Lincoln's immortal words were spoken on the occasion of the dedication of a national cemetery for those who gave their "last full measure of devotion", in the bloodiest battle in American history. His eloquence on the occasion was of the highest pitch indeed, but more importantly his words were substantive to such an extent that his Address at Gettysburg, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, is an element of the triad that comprises what Mortimer Adler called "the American Testament". Lincoln's substantive eloquence was "altogether fitting and proper" for the historical significance and the solemnity of the occasion, which is why his remark that "The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here" was not only an expression of modesty, considering the more than 46,000 casualties and losses in the battle, but likely his intentional application of irony as well.

President Bush's words might not rise to the level of eloquence, but they comprise substantive plain-speaking that is certainly pertinent and timely.

Senator Obama's speech has been liberally accorded the status of eloquence. Perhaps it is. It was well crafted, though a bit long for my personal taste. But its substantive quality is somewhat in doubt, in my humble opinion. For a Presidential-campaign position-statement, it seemed long on high pitch and rather short on specifics, but I grant that that is also a matter of opinion, which can, and likely will be debated.

Senator Biden's plain-speaking stinks. At multiple levels of pitch.