For the entire discussion about the war in Iraq both candidates did not necessarily use conversational style, disclose things about their personal lives, or reference to pictures. I would argue that, for the most part, the debate over the war included many good points of substance. However, mixed in with these points of analysis and statistics, there was a clear party-line rhetoric that neither side could escape. John Edwards would continue stressing in each answer that the main flaw of the Bush/Cheney ticket is that they insist on feeding American people distorted facts. Along similar lines, Cheney also primarily stressed his party-line message that Kerry/Edwards are notorious for being inconsistent. I would agree with Jamieson's general argument to the extent that I believe the leaders of this nation increasingly view their role as rhetorical. In fact, I would argue that the culture of the election process emphasized more the value of winning the people's hearts through a largely PR campaign instead of being solid about the central issues regardless of how it rubs other citizens.
However, it was interesting to note that I saw more of the picture-painting within the discussion of national issues. For example, John Edwards illustrates the image of millionaires sitting at their poolside when discussing tax cuts and tax reform. When discussing the gay marriage issue, Edwards also refers to his home state of North Carolina to make an illustration that states have traditionally respected one another's restrictions on marriage. Later, when speaking about medical malpractice, Cheney refers to a personal anecdote about a meeting he attended in New Mexico with a bunch of Ob/Gyns. Cheney also proceeds to speak about the how the trend of malpractice suits has affected his community in Wyoming. I believe that both candidates make personal references because they feel the need to relate directly to the average citizen, and make the average citizen realize that they are people just like them. However, I think that this strictly PR purpose takes away from the larger message that each politician is trying to hit at. There seems to be, on the whole, much less substance involved in discussing national issues and much more time spend on schmoozing and attempting to be bipartisan. Perhaps the debate on national issues would be more robust and meaningful if the actual planks of policy were debated instead of why/how a plan will affect people.

if that link above doesn't work for you, this link also has the debate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/100504-16v.htm

Was I the only one who thought the debate wasn't boring? It may not have been especially productive (although, what modern government debate is?), but I found it as intriguing now as I did when I watched it last year [granted, I have a very personal interest in the government's decisions on Iraq, and he was in Iraq during the election last year]. I hadn't watched this again since then, and it made me remember how I was feeling towards politicians last year around this time. I had also forgotten about the use of the 'axis of evil' term by the Bush admin., and it sounds even more strange now looking back and hearing how often it was used.

Do you find that these two candidates employ the kind of rhetorical presentation that Jamieson attributes to television?
Are they less inclined to describe pictures and more inclined to references them as if the audience could see the picture easily?
I agree with much of what has been said in respect to both candidates relying on verbal visualizations of situations. Edwards, in reference to Halliburton especially, and Cheney, in reference to education.

Are they more inclined to a conversational style of speaking?
Somewhat, but I could have done without Edwards plugging him & Kerry at every possible moment "...but as president, John Kerry will " Everyone knows which side each of them were on, that was just a waste of time and a frequent departure from the semi-conversational style.

Are they more inclined to disclose things about their personal lives?
Only if it works for their side, obviously. Edward's mention of being at the Sbarro pizzeria when a suicide bomber hit was followed by Cheney drilling him on his attendance record in the Senate. I think in that instance, it made Cheney look mean and insensitive, even if he was bringing up a good point.

My post was ridiculously long. I didn't want to cull it. However, since it's not even my turn to lead the discussion I am going to just briefly say that Cheney did the conversational/captioning thing, whereas Edwards did the autobiographical/picture painting thing.

Here are some personal opinions on public speaking:

I miss the blank check analogies for broken democratic promises and the connections to Gettysburg that King used in his famous I Have a Dream speech. I miss the images of black children and white children and children of all groups playing together. I miss hearing someone speak that sounds so passionate, so determined that it give all those who hear energy. It's still not clear why people gave up on that. I don't know that it's a more democratic way to communicate. I just know that I find it beautiful writing and delivery.

I saw Ari Fleischer speak this week. He did the captioning, the autobiography, and the conversational tone. I thought he was trying to sell me something. I didn't have much appreciation for this style.

I guess my point is people can say meaningful, true messages using any of the approaches mentioned in Jamieson. They can also say BS using any of the approaches. I guess her point is that increasingly it's the conversational approach that sways public opinion.

So far, posted comments suggest that Cheney and Edwards engaged in a conversational style of speaking. Jamieson argues that, through radio and television, "public address" has become "private conversation." I agree that the debate had a conversational spirit, even if it engaged the public in one of the more boring conversations of last November. Personally, I do not respond well to conversations (arguments) that rely on statistics quoted without context, and simply repeating those statistics does not help. Personal life experiences were merely sidenotes for the candidates. I don't think that either candidate would have necessarily performed "better" if they had included personal anecdotes about their own lives, but it would have made the debate less repetitive. Current media practice affects the idea that the modern rhetoric of personal address relies more on referring to an image in the public domain and less on actually describing the event. If a speaker frames her debate in the form of a minimally descriptive "caption," how does the audience determine the image (or version of the image) in question? If the media fails the public by misrepresenting an event or there is controversy surrounding the event, the speaker should clarify the image to which they are referring. Maybe personal experience can do this. When Gwen Ifill brought up the issue of a constitutional amendment to define marriage, Cheney had a great opportunity to let the public know which "image" of this debate he believes is accurate. The public knows his daughter is gay; Edwards knew it. Still, Cheney opted to evade any discussion of the private consequences that this public action would have for him and his family. Whether or not I would agree with his position, his own experience mirrors the experience of a significant portion of the public. Cheney had an opportunity to show the audience how government affairs directly affect the public. The failure to take that opportunity--on this issue and others--stalled the debate. This is what I meant by "boring."

1)Do you find that these two candidates employ the kind of rhetorical presentation that Jamieson attributes to television?

Edwards does use images in the way that Evan describes but he is incredibly personalizing, self-disclosive, and auto-biographical as well.

He talks about his father " Now, he didn't have a college education, but he was doing what he could do to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud of him. I'm still proud of him."

He even talks about Cheney's daughter " Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her."

2) Are they more inclined to a conversational style of speaking?

I think that they are more inclined to a conversational way of speaking than the debates in the 60s were but not by much. They have most of what they are saying memorized it seems like.

3) Are they more inclined to disclose things about their personal lives?

Edwards seems like he is and he certainly has no problem disclosing Cheney's obvious ironies but he has a sad past he chooses not to speak of.

4) Are they less inclined to describe pictures and more inclined to references them as if the audience could see the picture easily?

Hell yes they do that all the time. With the pictures of Iraq and death. With AIDS and the word million which is used approximately 25 times.

I actually wrote out a post earlier today but for some reason or another it never appeared on the forum. So now, I get to write it all out again (sigh!). It was interesting to watch the vice presidential broadcast after reading the words of Jamieson. At the start, it was clear that each candidate took a cool, calm conversational approach to the audience before them. They truly personified the current style of public speaking that has replaced the ancient art of orating in a passionate roar. Early on, each candidate relied heavily on imagery to illustrate the significance of their comments. Cheney, for instance, commented early on that "as we go forward in Afghanistan, we will pursue Osama bin Laden and the terrorists as long as necessary. We're standing up Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their own security. We'll keep U.S. forces there -- we have about 16,000 there today -- as long as necessary, to assist the Afghans in terms of dealing with their security situation." He is giving the people of America an image of the progress that his administration has achieved with regards to terrorism in Afghanistan. Edwards also harnesses this tactic for his own benefit. When describing Kerry, he characterizes him as "a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute, who made it very clear that he will do everything that has to be done to find terrorists, to keep the American people safe." The imagery of someone possessing such qualities is appealing the masses. It makes them feel warm and safe. Although it does not depict any actual event, one can't help but visualize the type of president that Kerry could be. Throughout the debate, each candidate kept a calm conversational tone and never really raised their voice even when they verbalized disdain for an oppositional slight.
When asked if each candidate was more inclined to disclose things about their personal lives, I found that this was not really the case (at least in this debate). The only mention of their personal lives was when it pertained to a political issue such as Edwards' experiences when he traveled to Jerusalem or Cheney's experiences throughout the events of 9/11. I felt that according to the guidlines set out by Jamieson, it may have been more beneficial to present their personal lives openly so as to seem more human and relateable.
Overall, I felt that each candidate was less inclined to describe pictures and more inclined to references them as if the audience could see the picture easily. As described by Jamieson, before the introduction of television it was necessary for public speakers to describe every aspect of the topic of discussion (as with the eulogy of Abraham Lincoln). With television, however, people have the ability to visually see images of what is happening all around the world. Most of the time, Edwards and Cheney merely spoke of experiences and crisis but never spent time on describing the colors, textures, sizes, shapes, etc. of what made up these scenes. Most of the people watching the debate have already been exposed to the images by watching televised news media. Edwards and Cheney realize this and cannot affort to spend time detailing these pictures.
For the most part, this debate is an accurate depiction of the present style of public oration described in the text. Not much else to say really.

Not from what I can tell, and maybe that's the way it should be. Theorhetically, no one should vote on the basis of how great a VP's marriage is, but then again...this is the debate between the candiacy for the most useless seat in the US government, and as such, it is mostly for entertainment value. Edwards could have talked more about his life-long crusade to end poverty, showing for once a VP actually has an agenda. Cheney could have talked more about his daughter, referencing how he came to grips with her sexual preferance, thus softening up some of the democratic vote. But most of the debate echoed phrases such as "the liberation of Iraqis" or "the unjust war being fought in Iraq". Come on guys, stop taking yourselves so seriously.

Couldn't get the video to work but I remember the debate, and I used the transcript.

[1] Do you find that these two candidates employ the kind of rhetorical presentation that Jamieson attributes to television?

- Yes, John Edwards does a great job at relating his argument to images. For instance, he says “the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq -- the American people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their television every single day.” He purposely references the horrible images of Iraq we see on TV every day, because it’s a lot easier to visualize death than progress.

[2] Are they more inclined to a conversational style of speaking? Are they more inclined to disclose things about their personal lives?

- The two candidates are inclined to conversational style. Both Cheney and Edwards prefer to tone down their language so that the average American can understand what they are talking about. For instance, Cheney says, “[Success] in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people; they have been able to establish a democratic government. They're well on their way to doing that. They will have free elections next January for the first time in history.” He doesn’t get into any specific details of the ‘how’, instead he plugs key phrases like turn over the government to the people, free elections, first time in history, and democratic government.

[3] Are they less inclined to describe pictures and more inclined to references them as if the audience could see the picture easily?

-I think they do a little of both. Like David explained, Edwards references his personal experience in Israel. This is not only touching, but it makes Edwards a credible source for what’s going on. Also, Cheney uses his own personal experience when he explains, “Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. We had -- guerrilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress.” He conjures up old images and credits himself with observing that analogous change.

Cheney begins with a style that is personal in that he first gives reasons to why there are questions about his leadership. He also relies on images very early in the debate when he states: “The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power.” Rather than explain the significance of the event, Cheney, with the mere mention of the Saddam’s capture, is relying on the American memory of Saddam Hussein being captured, ragged beard and all. It also relies on the very powerful and positive image of Iraqi people bringing down the statue of Saddam in the capitol city of Baghdad.

Edwards also relies on imagery fairly early. On his response during the third question, Edwards replies to Cheney by saying that “We will keep this country safe. He defended this country as a young man, he will defend this country as president of the United States.” However, this statement is rather useless and hollow. It was made specifically to remind viewers of the pictures they had been seeing in magazines, newspapers and news shows of Senator Kerry as a young man who served his country in Vietnam. It also relies on reminding people that while Kerry was at war, Bush was in the National guard and the whole mess of details in that controversy.

Edwards, to me, comes off as more casual and conversational in his tone. His very first comment in the debate is directly towards Cheney when he said: “Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq.” He continues to cite only fatality counts by month, but fails to mention the insurgency or the state of Iraq. His mention of casualties helps to bring the conversation to a part that most American s can understand, the death of our sons and daughters.

Edwards again uses a very personal tone in an answer about Israel, when he mentions a pizzeria he ate at that he later found out was bombed. However, in total, there is very little mention of a family life from either candidate. They seemed more focus on discussing reasons leading up to decisions they have made, and no time referring to a personal life: wives, family, children pets, etc…

It seems, at least as this debate has illustrated, politicians are more inclined to rely on the images they know the citizens will remember when discussing a certain topic. In this way, they need not waste time on eloquence of imagery and instead go straight to their talking points after a brief mention of an image.