So I’m just backing him because I prefer him to the other two on offer and wondering aloud about the rest.

And both Reagan and Clinton had the pathos in spades – people with very different politics but both with abundant charm that they could convey to a whole audience. A pity about the ethos, and modern voters of course are sadly uneducated in the logos.

LBJ was not only a good speaker, he was a very complex character. Of course one part of that character was “war criminal”.

The Greek ideal of rhetoric was the combination of logos, ethos and pathos – i.e. using logical, well-structured argument to propose some moral purpose in a manner that connects emotionally to the audience.

Flowery language in lacklustre settings to discuss trivial issues is bathos.

Also absolutely right about JFK – a stiff, stagey, speechmaker who often had good speechwriters (as did Reagan, who at least delivered them far better).

Now for really good speakers you have to look at LBJ – watch some of the documentary footage of him winning the south in the face of the race hatred civil rights policy had brought – be is feisty, inspiring and, most imprtnatly, concerned actually to change an audiences mind.

The other contemporary US Presidential speaker who is superlative is Bill Clinton, and his style is almost the anti-Obama. What makes Bill a great speaker is that he does away completely with high blown rhetoric of the ponderous pauses (beloved of Tony Blair for example) – instead he connects, seems to be speaking off the cuff, and takes his audiences on an emotional journey. when you dont even realize the politician has been delivering a speech – then you know its been a good one.

I agree – or I think I do. But I didn’t include him because I haven’t heard his speeches – or rather haven’t taken them in as a German speaker. And the people I was talking about were not demagogues. Hitler does however qualify on all the criteria I mentioned, though in an earlier draft I wrote about generosity also, which kind of rules him out.

But Hitler was a bit of a rule breaker – to put it mildly – and he had all the other qualities I mention. But then he’s sui generis in this as in other ways and I won’t bother much more about him for these purposes.

I can understand why he isn’t on your list, but I don’t think that one can deny the quality of Hitler’s speeches as speeches – he would probably have been nothing without them. Similar problem to the Leni Riefenstahl question, only more so. But I suspect that if anything he only backs up your point – he had sincerity in the sense that he truly believed what he said, he had a historical moment to suit him, and he had the fantasy of himself that could fuse with his time to achieve transcendence. Even a moral seriousness, if you can accept his premise that the only people that qualify to be considered as worthy of moral consideration are ones like him – a premise which he unfortunately managed to persuade his countrymen to take seriously.

The only wee point of difference being that he was a genocidal psychopath.

Getting back to the main point, Obama’s speeches so far, soaring as many of them have been, have all more or less been made in the cause of securing his nomination for president (and the presidency itself). I think it is only (hypothetically) when Obama has achieved this, and he is making speeches not just for political purposes but in support of a cause that he can back with tangible state action, that great use of language becomes a great political speech.