The 1988 Vice-Presidential debate between candidates Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen served as a rhetorical forum for airing the policies and behaviors of each candidate. Elements of compliance-gaining and apologia were interrelated and overlapped throughout the debate. Both candidates effectively maneuvered these strategies and avoided direct questioning of one another in the majority of their exchanges. Several findings emerge from assessing the debate: (1) both candidates demonstrated a conscious intent to persuade, manage conflict, manipulate responses, and gain compliance; (2) Senators Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle both applied strategies of compliance-gaining and apologia as manipulative rhetorical tools; and (3) the rhetorical discourse in this debate also demonstrated the use of a sub-genre of apologia, specifically compliance-gaining apologia, as opposed to apologias of confession, denial, or regret. (Thirty-four notes are included.) (Author/MS)