While some of the commentators have noticed the differences in "style," none that I have heard have pointed out that the two were using different rhetorics.
McCain's a Classic
John McCain was adhering to classical rhetorical principles, which aims to "win" by refuting the opponents' points in order to convince the public of the superiority of the speaker's position. From time to time, however, he committed a classical fallacy, ad hominem (to the man). He chose to focus on the man, with his comments about Obama's lack of knowledge or understanding and, finally, on the statement that he thought Obama was unqualified to be president.
Obama's a Rogerian
Barack Obama was operating with a type of rhetoric that is less focused on winning, convincing and refuting than on achieving civility, consensus, and common ground. Here are the steps of a rogerian argument: cite the problem, state the others' position, acknowledge others, state own position, accommodate to achieve common ground while remaining true to ethics.
* * *
I'm not taking a position for one over the other, but I think it is important to understand what and why people were speaking the way they were. I leave it to others to decide what form of thinking and rhetoric they think we need.
