According to Rex Murphy, Obama and Palin are the two great political speakers in America today. In reality, one is much greater than the other.

Up until a few weeks ago, I read Rex Murphy sporadically at best. Then the other week he published this questionable piece on climate change (in short: regionalism should trump action), which was neither inspired nor thoughtful.

Wondering if the previous week had been an outlier, I read him again this weekend and was even more dumbstruck. Here was Murphy deriding Barack Obama and praising Sarah Palin for her ability to "connect" with her supporters.

Well, I'm willing to grant Murphy that Palin may create "a more forceful bond with her supporters than [Obama does] with his." Perhaps, but that doesn't make her more effective than Obama. David Koresh had an even more forceful bond with his supporters, and I'm not sure that worked out well for anyone.

Obama's oratory strength isn't that he creates a powerful bond with his supporters (although he has, from time to time, done this. It's that he connects with those who don't always agree with him – he is able to reach and engage a broader audience. Palin has never done this. How often do you see an African American – or heck (as she would say it), any visible minority – at a Palin event?

Still more farcical is that Murphy would argue that Palin's inaugural speech as a vice-presidential candidate was rhetorically equivalent to Obama's speech on race. Really? Palin's speech succeeded in generating a spark yes, but only among the conservative base that already loved her. The speech was populist, said little, and began the process of persuading most Americans that she didn't belong in the White House.

In contrast, Obama's speech arrested a decline in the polls and engaged both his supporters and doubters. And it did so while addressing possibly the most volatile and politically sensitive issue in the United States. One hundred years from now, Obama's speech will likely be seen as a pivotal moment in the history of race relations. Palin, to say nothing of her speech, will probably not be remembered at all. Is this rhetorically equivalent?

Finally, and perhaps most appalling was Murphy's characterization of Obama as someone who "offers a kind of self-flattery to his worshippers. They feel exalted that they have the intelligence or sensibility to see how remarkable their man is." I remember first being floored by Obama during a speech in which he did the exact opposite of this. It was January 20 and Obama walked into the heart of the African American religious community – Martin Luther King's church, on Martin Luther King Jr. Day – and talked about how African Americans need to work harder to live up to MLK's legacy. He was, in fact, very unflattering to his audience, arguing that if African Americans wanted justice, freedom, and equality, then the homophobia, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigrant resentment that sometimes exists in their community had to be acknowledged and confronted.

Oh, to be flattered by Obama.