I don't think it's too nostalgic to pine for longer, epic exhortation of ideas. People still give memorable speeches (cf. Obama's "More Perfect Union"), and people still memorize the speeches of old. They give context to the soundbites and give depth when we want to go beyond the misquotes. But yes, blaming twitter goes too far, because it certainly has its place, too. It's just another tool of communication that has its benefits and pitfalls.
We get moving speeches when issues hit so close to home that the words serve as kindling for our deeper emotions. Every speech is inextricably tied to its own context.
Malcolm X, "The Ballot or the Bullet" Ronald Reagan's Space Shuttle Challenger address LBJ, "We Shall Overcome" JFK, "Ich Bin Ein Berliner"
None of these speeches would have been as meaningful in a different time, with different events and feelings and happenings.
"Wow! @wikileaks admits its supporters are engaged in anti-American cyber-terrorism. No wonder Wikileakes loves me so much! #ImWithPutin"
Is that really from a presidential candidate? With a misspelling and a hashtag that is not what you would think would chime with the electorate. Plus some narcissism thrown in, just to make you cringe.
As for the tweet itself, I am amazed that Wikileaks thinks Assange is that much of a hero that they think that some anonymous fan would take down the internets in response to Assange's internets being taken down. There is some conspiracy minded thinking going on there, warranted or not, it is not the sort of mindset that Wikileaks need to be in if they are to function as an organisation. For instance, if some real conspiracy was going on, e.g. the U.S. military were running a 'cyberstorm exercise', then Wikileaks would have taken the bait. In so doing this takes discussion away from what Wikileaks seek to publish and towards the ethics of hacking.