I wonder: How do Speechwriters Help V.P. Harris to Prepare to Debate Trump?

Vice President Harris met Mr. Trump on Tuesday for the first debate. Being a word and speech nerd, the debate with him made me wonder how the speechwriters serve or help her in the preparation. I know that some days afterward, I am late too opine on or observe VP Harris’ debate performance. Nonetheless, I wonder about writing speeches or other oratory for clients.; and how for a presidential debate?

How many average Americans consider what process and tactics go into preparing for a political debate? In the realm of speech, and performance, for years I was a toastmaster; 15 years separated my tenures. I had a history of being the most artistic and ambitious member; I went from speaking at a lectern and from paper to memorizing my speeches while exploiting stage space. Toastmasters’ culture was and remains most suited to the novice.

In lieu of staying with Toastmasters, I needed a separate place or setting where I could express my artistic and ambition for thespian speaking. As the Harris Trump debate was upcoming, I noticed this high level of word prep, I wondered how the White House speechwriters might have helped Vice Pres. Harris.

According to the Opera browser’s Aria.ai, speechwriters help Vice Pres. Harris with message development, fact checking and research, argument structuring, practicing delivery and the like.

Is it a leap that with meager debate experience as vice president and none against Trump this event would be a disparate setting for Vice Pres. Harris? You can digest all the subject briefing books you want to (the verb “want” is probably a very optimistic choice.) More than 30-minutes into the strange overly-formatted show something reminded me that a subject matter and test was supposed to be about Harris vantage point and intention regarding global affairs.

In watching the Trump Harris debate, a great difficulty I noticed in her responses was that she was structuring hers into threes. The point of the last portion was to jab at or contrast with Mr. Trump. When you only have 30- to 40-seconds in which to describe a major matter in substance that is a feat!

Citizens may have slight memories of Lincoln Douglass debates. those were 180s years ago. We (think that) we want to hear substance of policy proposals – But the 21^st-Century state of communications, and especially the affect of social media on our adult attention spans are obstacles. To venture deeper than a bumper sticker is a feat. Tragically for rhetoric most media must be “snackable”.

The older generations, Gen-X and older might want substance. To satisfy the whole populace (and ratings, probably) substance might be shed.

This event makes me wonder about exploiting my journalistic, oratorical and related talents for private clients… In rhetoric, I am torn being my appetite to write, rehearse and perform speeches, and the novel challenge, and fear of writing speeches or similar materials for what speech professionals call the principal.