So Tom Hanks has endorsed Barack Obama, comparing him -- according to the clip I just saw on Hardball -- with FDR, HST, JFK and RWR (that last would be Ronald Reagan -- apparently the Dems have the monopoly on names that can be reduced to catchy three-letter-initials, though of course it didn't help John F. Kerry).
But of course one of these things is not like the others, and I don't mean that the former presidents are all white guys. FDR, JFK and Reagan were all remarkably gifted practitioners of political speechmaking -- the three best of the modern presidential era. In fact, each invented a style and persona that their successors and would-be successors have often struggled (and failed) to immitate.
As I recount in White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters, Truman had a tough time with unenviable task for following FDR. For the first couple of years of his first term, Truman's speeches even read more like Roosevelt speeches. But Truman could not read a speech -- he had poor eyesight and a flat delivery.
Truman's aides were puzzled -- he was so engaging and funny in private, why couldn't he translate that into an effective speaking style? Things turned for Truman when his aides hit on the idea of liberating him from his speech texts: They gave him talking points and let him extemporize.
Obama? If elected he could become a magic speaker in the vein of the Big Three; the extent to which he can go off-the-cuff in a Trumanesque manner remains unclear.
In the mean time, I suggest you check out these and other great stories in White House Ghosts.
Harry Truman is a much over rated president.
Instead of continuing FDR's great legacy, he did his best to roll back as much as he could.
Truman's 'straight talk' was worth pretty much the same as (maybe a bit more) McCain's.
Truman was the president who started the great American corporatocracy. No President since FDR has favored people over corporations ever since. Obama may be our last chance.
And yes, Obama does have racist leanings, we all know that by now.
The Clintons are in fact racists and have used race-baiting to define Obama and to bring out the back- woods "Deliverence" style "working class whites" a'la Rodger Clinton and the Rodham boys
Oh, but she says "solutions" and "experience" "proven record" in her speeches -- so she must have those things, right? Just like if I keep saying that I have $3million in the bank it will be true too, as long as nobody ever asks to actually see it... Or will I have to just settle for the $28 dollars from the gas tax holiday (certainly that's worth laying off 300,000 people and allowing our infrastructure decay...).
What he's not good at, for some reason, is the debate question. All the "ums" and pauses really drive me crazy. But answering real people's real questions -- he's great at that. Go to a town hall meeting, then retract this column, please.
Oh that's right. Obama is "hope" and "change"....we can make him president and hope he changes and does something.
Where's Hillary's bill to balance the budget? Whoops she doesn't listen to experts. Where's her bill to fix Medicare? DOA from when she failed in the 90s. Where is Hillary's Bill to save the economy? Again, economists are elite, so she's going to fix it with her gut instincts. Where is Hillary's bill to make gas cheap again? Oh right, a gas tax holiday to save you $30 over the summer.
Hillary is "lie" and "pander". but yeah, she has "35 years of experience". but oh wait, why was she over the weekend criticizing Washington for not listening to the little guy? Isn't she the embodiment of the Washington system? What a world.
Obama's speaking style betrays a thoughtful deliberate mind. Careful in his choice of words, keen in his insights, he is less likely to say "bring it on" or speak of obliterating foreign nations.
Obama could be a great visionary leader, a statesman who holds himself above the fray, but it is the media who claims leadership, unelected, unaccountable except to their corporate masters so we will hear nothing but Willie Horton, er Jeremiah Wright until we get Hillary.
I have no doubt that Hillary has different styles of speaking as well. I don't pay much attention because I'm not a supporter, but I certainly don't intend on suggesting that she's inferior to anyone.
He did some horrible things because I think he was fooled by these two groups. The atomic bombs for sure. But I think the creation of the CIA has caused just as many deaths, if not more, and has arguably created an even scarier world than nukes have.
Point is this: America is really in some deep trouble, completely beholden to financial and military interests, and some really gutsy changes need to be made before it really is too late. Hillary, who is a completely owned candidate, will only make cosmetic changes to the power structure. We can not settle for a soundbite-spitting flag-pin-flaunting politician who appeases the powers that be when there are such major issues on the table.
Barack has the intelligence, the will, the principle, the courage, and the judgment to make the right decisions on REAL problems where Truman barely understood what he was facing and could only respond in a two-dimensional manner. I think Truman was an honorable man, just not very sharp, maybe just too 19th century to keep up.
Who are you? Hanks can have his own opinion on his own site. He is not asking for your biased debate. His is opinion. At no point has he twisted facts, voted for a fake war that has killed thousands, taken votes from the right-wing, nor lied to people who don't understand about the gas tax. Keep following your lying candidate.