the inaguration speech of "flat rhetoric but interesting ideology"

I haven't listened to Obama's speech myself so I can't completely agree or disagree with Mr. Gerson. He said that the speech was "rhetorically flat" but I'm still not sure what he meant by that. I agree with his comment that the instances of cliches and not-so-perfect phrasing didn't make "much difference to the two million people on the Mall — [who] were into the moment." I think it's better that he focused more on his ideology than his rhetoric ; what you're actually eating is more important than its presentation (although presentation does help). He gave good content and people seemed satisfied with what they got. Obama has proven his eloquence in previous speeches. This one showed that he cares about substance. Gerson also talked about how Obama didn't trace America's history to show how historical the moment truly was. I think that's jussomething he expected Obama to do and was personally disappointed when he did not. It was a huge moment in US history and showing the country's progress more would have been cool, but i think it's a good thing that historic-ness wasn't the heart of his speech. Although he is different from any other before him he has the same duty to lead the country and uphold the Constitution just like any other president. Talking about his ideology with a just few references to the past tells me that he is focusing on the future wellfare of our country rather than on his achievement. It is intersting to analyze a presidential speech from a literary perspective, but in the grand scheme of things picking out how a speech wasn't perfect is pretty trivial.