Random thought on rhetorical styles
Palin has no facts. She spews out rhetoric that meanders around a point but is never centered on anything, because she doesn’t know anything. When there is a nugget of information buried in there it’s often confusing or irrelevant. Example: She claimed Obama votes with his party 96% of the time. I had to think about that one, what does it mean? Does that mean he votes the same as Harry Reid? As a majority of Democratic Senators? Against the GOP position? Against Bush? What does that mean?* This was 90 seconds into her two minutes. The rest of her answer was empty phrases bumping up against each other in the hopes of randomly forming a sentence.
The other extreme is exemplified in the persona of Michael Dukakis. He knew his facts and could pull them out, but couldn’t weave them into a larger picture. Too technocratic.
Biden tends towards Dukakis. He knows a lot and always has a fact ready. When he is on his game it adds up to a bigger picture, when he is not he sounds like a blowhard professor. In the VP debate the first part was not so good, but the second half brought it together.
The master is Bill Clinton. No matter what the topic, whether speechifying or responding to questions, he always had relevant facts at hand. And he could easily show you why his facts where the most relevant ones, how they destroyed any other vision, and wrap it all up in a larger theme. He’ll quote you the minimum wage factsheet, but also convince you that it speaks to the fundamental unfairness of the his opponent and is a disgrace the founding fathers vision of a better world where all citizens rich and poor etc… That’s rhetoric. If you give Bill Clinton and Joe Biden the same facts, they’ll both be convincing, but Clinton will have you drinking the water waiting for more.
* It seems to mean “how often [he voted] with [the Democrats] on bills where the parties split.”