Although both President Johnson and President Obama outlined a military tactic and nation-building process that they hoped would be implemented, both presidents adopt different ways of presenting their ideas: Johnson in a way people can relate to and Obama in a way people can understand. What Johnson needed for the continuation of the war was the support of the people, and to do this, Johnson gave the people what they wanted to hear. He took advantage of war fever and carefully wove his speech to invoke emotional bonds and obligations from his audience. It raised sensitive issues, such as the strangulation of women and children in the middle of the night because of their family ties to the government. He talks about the Vietnamese people as innocent, helpless bystanders who needed help. In doing so, Johnson made it clear to the American people that he was the protector. If they didn't take on this role, no one else would suffer and many more would suffer. Not only did what he said influence people, but the way he said things was crucial to understanding why people were so moved by his speech. Although he did not speak in an inspirational and powerful tone, the pace at which he spoke was slow enough to make people concentrate and hang on to his every word. This slowness of his speech really attracts the audience and I, the listener, was really impressed by him when he asked the question: “…Have I done enough? Ask yourself this question in your homes and tonight in this room. Did each of us do everything we could? Have we done enough?” By questioning the audience after arousing their emotions, Johnson managed to make people feel as if they were directly responsible for the war efforts, and by doing so, Johnson was able to win... middle of the paper... ....in terms of military force. To summarize, Obama's speech differs from Johnson's in many ways. First, Obama did not try to inspire people to join his cause, America's cause. Instead he explained everything: the reasons for his plan, the budget required, a set time period for the withdrawal of troops and a set goal. There was total transparency: the strategy. The second major difference is that he knew what the limits were for the United States and did not set unrealistic goals. For example, he knew from the war with Vietnam that US power was limited to public support for the war, and what people favor now is the rapid withdrawal of American troops. To do this requires stability in Afghanistan. Third, his speech was characterized by a sense of pragmatism, appealing to logic and reasoning, while Johnson's speech was intended to appeal to the people..