Have you ever heard the phrase, don't count your chickens before they hatch? Even after the wave of Republican resurgence in '94 and approval rating in the 30s, Clinton was EASILY reelected precisely because he was persuasive and eloquent.
Effective extemporaneous communication skills are never a bad thing in a presidential candidate.
Way to bait and switch.
Nice one.
This is what you said, and I quote:
“Or, would you prefer to have someone who speaks much more eloquently and persuasively than the average American, especially considering how critical effective communication skills are in that job?”
You were in effect saying that we need someone who is a great orator to be president, so I asked you how the guy who is the “greatest orator ever” working out as president?
0bama is the biggest disaster ever to have hit this country.
So much for yours theory about this country needing a “great orator” to govern us. It's all empty talk, and no substance.
“Even after the wave of Republican resurgence in ‘94 and approval rating in the 30s, Clinton was EASILY reelected precisely because he was persuasive and eloquent”
You left out one little detail.
As Dick Morris(who was Clinton's top aide), pointed out, Clinton was elected with 42% of the vote, yet after one year in office, Clinton was polling at 56% approval rating, that is a net gain of +14%.
(Video here)
http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/12/dick-morris-says-republican-tsunami-is.html
0bama on the other hand, was elected with 53% of the vote, yet today he is poling at only 46% in the latest Rasmussen polls, that is a net loss of -7%.
0bozo is doing FAR WORSE than Clinton was, 11% worse as a matter of fact. That kind of approval gap spells disaster for the Kenyan.
Clinton was barely reelected—because Dole was a poor candidate and also that nut from Texas (forgot his name) was able to garner a large third-party vote. Clinton and his wife were and are unusually good liars and they had a fawning press. Do you want another liar like Clinton—maybe you do.
Hitler was persuasive and eloquent and we know how that worked out.
Oh, sort of like ad libbing an acceptance speech at the convention?
You seem overly impressed by multisyllabic terms not in common parlance. Others are less so, and deem such speech to be self important bloviation.
I'd tend to think that the success of Ronald Reagan, who was nothing if not folksy, but hailed as The Great Communicator precisely for his ability to speak to everyone, to bring clarity and simplicity to complexity, would be more of an ideal model for any Conservative, or even your garden variety, establishment Republican.
Wonky, complicated sentences are not the mark of any successful President in modern memory. GW Bush? Certainly not, although he had a much better grasp of the language than his occasional, tongue-tangled howlers might suggest. Clinton? Highly affected folksiness, very seldom veering into the sort of extemporaneity that you seem to think prerequisite. GHW Bush? Now, there's one who relished the occasional pompous turn of phrase. One termer. Reagan? Folksy as all get out. Carter? Wonk, wonk, wonk, and hated for it. One termer.
Are you beginning to sense a trend here?