Just a quick comment re: a claim above (think it was ambi) about Lincoln and FDR laying out such a clear-cut case for war and being such effective war leaders.

How does ANYONE here, today, know how Lincoln’s “case for war” was perceived back when it was made? I assert we don’t. We read his speeches 130 years after the fact and say, wow, what a speaker! What great words! Given that there were riots galore and he couldn’t get McClellan to actually take the army and fight, perhaps the case he made was not as convincing then as it is now.

FDR wanted US entry into WWII long before he got it and it required Pearl Harbor to get the nation solidly behind him.

Neither man had to content with the age of televised speeches. Lincoln’s voice and speaking style would not likely have played well to a TV audience. His physical looks may well have played very badly. How would Roosevelt’s polio wracked body have effected Americans had they seen him give every speech on TV (not by today’s standards but by those of the time)?

Last, but not least, in their days people were more likely to read a candidates speeches rather than hear them. How many people stop and read the president’s speeches?

JMO, but we make WAY too much of presentation style and WAY too little of the words spoken. Try reading the speeches and see whether you find them convincing or not.

Presentation skills are all well and good, but I’ll rather have leadership without finely honed presentation skills than lack of leadership coming from a fabulous speaker. Others clearly have different priorities.