Tonight's VP Debate

Does anyone else think tonight's VP debate might be an extremely interesting watch, rhetorically?

Even if we only approach it in light of this week's reading in Hart about style, there will be a lot to think about. We know that Biden and Palin are drastically different in everything from background, to experience, to rhetorical styles. That goes without saying, but like the comparison of Webster and Gallagher, is still worth considering.

Biden probably illustrates a "Periodic" style, as laid out by Hart on page 135. He is often quoted as being "long-winded" (source, New York Times) and unlikable. Others lump both together as "two straight talkers" and as "authentic people" (source, The Mercury News). His challenge is to use a style that, first of all, does not come off as elitist or chauvinist or know-it-all, and secondly, makes him a little more likeable to Joe (or Jill) Public. He must "strike a tone neither too condescending nor too deferential" (The Mercury News). And as Hart explains on page 127, "Americans hate language that calls attention to itself." Biden is much more likely to make a blunder of this kind than Palin. He should focus on channeling more of the "Running" style laid out by Hart on page 134.

Palin, on the other hand, has no problem being likable and relating to the common American. Her former opponent in the Alaska Governor's race in 2006 stated that her "biggest strength was her ability to 'fill the room with her presence'" (source, BBC News). And a New York Times analysis states "she knows the price of diapers and gasoline. Watch for her to emphasize that she understands the needs of people like you." Her challenge, then, is to use a style that makes her seem more presidential: more prepared to handle higher-level issues than diapers and gasoline. As was seen in her Convention speech, Palin illustrates more of the "Running" style, but might do well to answer in more "Periodic" tones, especially replacing "spontaneous responses (with) delayed, but more emotionally complex, responses" (Hart, 135). This style might quell naysayers who have reacted negatively to her gaffes in recent interviews.

Both candidates can accomplish much of their goals in the debate simply by utilizing the correct styles. And of course, as Mark Petracca is quoted in The Mercury News, "(escaping) humiliation or a rhetorical blunder,'' which both have made plenty of since the conventions (see "Biden-Palin: gaffe potential?", BBC News). However, Hart also quotes Klaus on page 128 as saying "style...'does not originate within the man; it exists apart from him, as an inheritance, a legacy, that shapes his conceptual ends as surely as he does.'" This, to me, says that Biden and Palin can only do so much to adapt their rhetorical style in order to meet the goals of being more likeable or more presidential without ringing false. Style may not be as changeable as we'd like.