Sarah Palin - Use of Logos

Moderator Gwen Ifill begins by asking vice president candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin “What promises, given the events of the week (the bailout plan), have your campaigns made to the American people that you are not going to be able to keep?” After a brief response by Biden, Palin is given the opportunity to prove herself to Americans. She opens with the statement, “The nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you he doesn’t tell one thing to one group and turn around and tell something else to a different group.” This is an attempt to show the audience that she and McCain, unlike Biden and Obama, will stick to their word; America will not have to worry about false promises within their campaign. Ideally for Palin, Americans will look at this contrast as a logical reason for favoring the McCain campaign. While this is an obvious logos appeal, Palin also appeals to the audience’s emotions with the use of pathos: she shows us that we, America, should never have to worry about false promises and with her and McCain in office, we are free of that worry.

Palin then launches in to a speech about an energy plan that Obama voted in favor of. This plan gave large oil companies big tax breaks. In response to this, Palin claims she “took on those oil companies and told them no way… that greed wasn’t going to happen in my state. I had to break up monopolies and say the people are going to come first, those tax breaks aren’t going to the big companies anymore – not when it adversely affects the people.” By these statements, Palin is attempting to show the audience, once again, the logic of voting in favor of the McCain campaign rather than the Obama campaign. She backs this idea up with the fact that Obama did indeed vote in favor of this particular plan. The audience can use their own reasoning to realize the obvious logic: under she and McCain, these tax breaks on large companies would not happen; the people would be more protected.

We can see another overlapping of rhetorical appears when Palin states that she had to break up companies “as governor of an energy-producing state, and undo (actions) in my own area of expertise: energy.” Here, Palin establishes her own authority, employing ethos, by mentioning her “area of expertise.” Still, her argument is rooted in logic. She continues to build on the idea, common in politics, that her side of the campaign is superior to the other (Obama and Biden). Palin closes her argument by stating “I don’t believe John McCain has made any promises that he would not be able to keep.” She leaves the obvious conclusion to the audience, once again. She has presented the facts about differences between her own campaign, alongside McCain, and Obama and Biden’s. The audience is to use this evidence to make their decision.

"Say It To His Face"

Upon being asked, “Are both of you willing to say to each others faces what your campaigns have said about each other?”, both political candidates are given prime opportunity to make use of rhetorical strategies to persuade us, the audience, that each is the better candidate. The interviewer begins by giving examples of each man’s negativity toward the other’s campaign: Obama has deemed McCain angry and out of touch; McCain has described Obama as disrespectful, dangerous, and dishonorable. Immediately, we look to see which candidate handles these remarks better; which candidate’s argument is more persuasive.

McCain begins by establishing his authority, applying ethos. By saying “I know from my experience in past campaigns…” McCain attempts to show us that he is knowledgeable in the area, perhaps more so than Obama. McCain then turns to pathos, playing on the emotions of the audience. McCain claims the allegations that he and Sarah Palin were associated with segregation and church bombings were “so hurtful” – the audience is expected to sympathize. He again uses this strategy when he claims that “Senator Obama didn’t tell Americans the truth (concerning public financing).” This is an attempt to make Americans feel that they indeed deserve the truth, and should not settle for less. McCain’s use of logos was apparent when he stated “it is a matter of fact that Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any other political campaign.” Whether this is fact of not, McCain uses the statistic to logically make Obama’s campaign look bad.

Obama takes a logical approach right off the bat, with use of logos. First, he says to “look at the record”: CBS conducted a poll where 2/3 of American people said McCain was running a negative campaign, while only 1/3 said Obama was. Next, he uses a startling statistic: “100% of John McCain’s campaign ads have been negative.” Though McCain remarks “it’s not true”, the audience will still take this thought into consideration. Obama then uses pathos to relate to the audience: “Americans are less concerned with our hurt feelings than addressing issues that matter most to them.” When Obama comments “Americans can’t afford four more years of failed economic policies – they deserve we talk about most pressing issues”, he is still using pathos to relate to the audience but also employs logos, speaking logically about the importance of the focus of the debate and politics in general. Obama and McCain both use ethos in the way they present themselves: both are already looked at as having authority, and the manner in which both listen and speak enhances their authority.

Both men use a comparison-contrast rhetorical arrangement. Most often, each is comparing himself to the other candidate, making points about which is the “better.” McCain comments that he “always repudiated” out of bounds remarks by Republicans, where Obama has not done so with hurtful remarks by Democrats. Obama, with his comment that “McCain’s campaign said if we keep talking about the economic crisis, we will lose… so we need to change the subject”, is comparing his integrity to McCain’s. He points out that what Americans deserve is to talk about these issues, and he will do so where McCain will avoid it out of fear of losing. Use of the comparison-contrast arrangement helps both men to appear superior to the other by pointing out each others flaws, while boasting about their own decisions and actions.