His 1996 acceptance speech, "Bridge to the Future," did what it was supposed to, but the rest of his speeches and his delivery weren't particularly impressive.
Apparently he was better at informal communication, and of course, the "one on one."
And why always drag in Hitler? That's where a lot of people tune out or turn against one's argument.
They presume that Hitler gets brought up because one doesn't really have a very good case. Godwin's Law and all that.
Well, he was a good enough speaker to keep himself in office, and “convice” those impeaching him that he had done nothing wrong. Also, I was speaking more to his ability to flatter, and his ability to play the game of politics in his speeches and personal interactions.
I bring up Hitler because he is the best (in recent memory) example of people being caught up in this cult of personality phenomenon. Who better to show the dangers, even if the dangers and risks are not equal?