|
We all know he can't deliver a speech, well written by handler or not, to save his life. He mangles words, has an awful vocal gait, and often ad libs from the written word while petting the "air dog" that rests on the corner of the podium. Just awful for those of us that have to listen to him deliver them in real time. But, will they appear to be a better read in the future when the reader will be allowed to add proper pacing and inflection to the words written by speech handlers?
I was thinking about great speeches made by past Presidents on this holiday designated for them and I was pondering not just the words, but their auditory skills in delivering those words. No one doubts that Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address himself, so those words reflect his thought, and from all accounts, were delivered with ease and grace.
When did Presidents stop writing their own speeches, having handlers manage their words for them instead of writing motivational words about their times and their policies themselves? Who wrote all those Fireside Chats that families crowded around their radios to listen to and to actually assign their undivided attention to the words those Chats contained? When did the packaging become more important than the contents? Jackson Browne's words echo through my head: "they sell us our Presidents the same way they sell us our cars" and it really makes me wonder, when did the flash point become more important than the reason for the fire?
Having said all that, back to my original question. Will future readers think that blivet** was a better speaker than he really is when they read some of his speeches as stand alone examples of his communication skills, or will history, indeed, add the footnote that he couldn't "talk his way out of a wet paper bag"?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
