Puffy, sure, but what do you expect from the Post style section? I read pieces like this for the quotes, basically, not the architecture the writer constructs around it, which can be like building a geodesic dome around a piece of woodworking. For instance, the whole thing is about Rhodes: The Man, The Speechwriter. But as the piece points out, Rhodes is also in on the policy process (“a foreign policy speechwriter, deputy national security adviser and sometime administration spokesman…”). When Mark Lippert left the NSC, both Denis McDonough and Rhodes advanced. You might think that would be worth exploring. But no — this reporter wanted a piece about a speechwriter, and that’s what he delivered.

Anyway, those quotes. Gibbs:

“If you have technocrat without some lift, or you have lift without some technocrat, none of it would match the time,” said Gibbs. “That’s what makes them a great team.”

He’s talking about Jon Favreau’s (alleged) poetry versus Rhodes’ (alleged) prose. The whole piece basically says Rhodes’ writing plays Martin Amis to Favreau’s Kingsley. Myself, I just listen to the foreign-policy and national-security speeches, so this rings true to me:

Rhodes insisted that the “values” coda of the West Point speech “very much leads into the Oslo speech,” making clear that America is bearing much of the international burden in Afghanistan. “It was a starting point,” Rhodes said.

I loved the West Point speech. The piece points out that George Packer called it “least rousing, most skeptical call to arms I’ve ever heard.” That’s exactly what I loved about it. We need less jingoism and emotional exploitation in our war speeches. There’s a line in there about glory in battle but no glory in war. That’s perfect.