Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson writes in the Washington Post that Clinton and McCain should not use Obama's speaking acumen in attacks against him. History has shown that vocal eloquence is no weakness, and "rhetoric" was not always a four-letter word.

"Civil rights leaders possessed few weapons but eloquence -- and their words hardly came cheap. Every president eventually needs the tools of rhetoric, to stiffen national resolve in difficult times or to honor the dead unfairly taken.

It is not a failure for Obama to understand and exercise this element of leadership; it is an advantage.

Some Obama critics go even further, accusing him of inducing a "creepy," "cultish" "euphoria." A candidate delivers a good stump speech, adds a dose of personal magnetism and suddenly he is a sorcerer, practicing the dark arts of demagoguery.

But Obamamania is pretty mild stuff compared with our rhetorical history."

Gerson writes that Obama is the next in a series of the country's leaders able "to rise on the swell of their own words," after Hubert Humphrey and Ronald Reagan. Should Obama be the nominee, Gerson argues, McCain should throw out any criticism of Obama's speeches, and focus on his ideology.

"Why does Obama want to fight terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan but not in Iraq? How would it advance the war on terrorism to grant al-Qaeda's fondest wish -- an untimely American retreat from the Middle East? Would Obama really devote his first year in office to a series of surrender summits with the leaders of Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea?

These are serious criticisms; the argument against rhetoric is not. Obama's political weakness is that he is too liberal, not that he is too eloquent."