Second, I am not really buying in to the apologist argument that Gandalf 'really means', 'Tom would not be thinking about the Ring momentarily and that in forgetting it for that moment, he would be inviting doom upon Middle-earth.' Gandalf says "he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away." Gandalf does not say, "it would slip his mind from time to time". Nor does he say "Tom would not focus on it sufficiently to be safe." (Which, by the way, would be true of anyone, even Frodo, and possibly less true of Tom than most.) He says that Tom would soon forget it or even throw it away! When Gandalf says 'forget', I have to think he means 'forget'. This has to cause alarm bells to ring. If we are careful readers we know for sure that Tom does not forget!
I find it interesting that in the passage that talks about Tom nearly forgetting to take care of his guests (which, in my experience, means that someone has forgotten something but is still within the time limit, as it were), you dismiss the passage as mere hobbitry or teasing on Tom's part, despite there being no indication of such in the text. In other words, you're quite willing to look at (and even favor) other readings beside the clear, straightforward one. However, when Gandalf uses the world "forget", you immediately latch on to a single definition, and won't even consider other completely legitimate usages of the word. It seems to me Gandalf
needs apologists if his detractors are that determined to stack the deck against him.
However, I do think that we, as close readers, should not be taken in quite so easily by Gandalf's glib insinuations. We should examine the hypothesis that Gandalf is wrong, as much or more (because there is more textual evidence suggesting that Gandalf is wrong) than trying to speculate about how Tom fits Gandalf's assertions. Which we have not until these two threads.
I will confess, I am
not a close reader. I am much more of a big-picture reader who likes to look for themes and patterns and parallels, even if it means missing a lot of the finer details (i.e. where others may miss the forest for the trees, I have a tendency to miss the trees for the forest). It seems to me that careful study of a text requires both kinds of reading, and fortunately we have a good mix of people who can do both.
It is, I think, this big-picture view that makes me most dissatisfied with the "Gandalf was wrong" reading of this passage. First of all, I think either view can accommodate Tom. Some at the Council clearly felt that Tom would make a good guardian, so I can't fault readers too much for agreeing, even though I personally find the arguments against to be more persuasive and satisfying, from a story perspective. But what about Gandalf? If he's right, this would certainly be in keeping with his role as wise counselor. If he's wrong, however, why is he wrong? There are two options.
The first is that he's mistaken, but why? If Tom actually would make a great guardian (and if this can indeed be proven from the little that the reader has seen), then the only way that Gandalf wouldn't know this is if he knows less about Tom than the reader (who knows little enough, to be sure). But this would require Gandalf to know so little about Tom that he
must know that he doesn't know, and therefore it would be grossly foolish and irresponsible for him to state so conclusively that Tom would make a poor guardian.
The second possibility is that he knows Tom would make a good guardian but wants to persuade the others to vote for the Mordor plan. This would be nothing short of an outright lie on Gandalf's part. Not only that, it would mean that Gandalf would be willingly throwing out an idea he knows to be good in favor of a highly risky plan with little hope of success ("just a fool's hope," as he'll say in a few books).
Now, we know that Gandalf can make mistakes and that he can sometimes be rather creative with the truth. However, to claim that he is wrong about this, I think, necessarily makes him either an utterly incompetent buffoon, or else a liar and near-traitor. These characterizations are completely at odds with how he is portrayed throughout the story, so barring some other reading that can have him be wrong without logically reaching one of these two conclusions, I must utterly reject such a premise.
I'd also note that Tom's ability to resist Sauron is unproven, and possibly untested; while he survived Morgoth's reign in Middle-Earth, the conflict in that time was concentrated in Beleriand and Tom was in Eriador.
Not to mention, why would Morgoth have even targeted Tom in the first place? Sure, if he conquered everything else he'd probably go after Tom next to complete his domination; but why waste resources on Tom before then, while he's still busy fighting lots of other foes? Whereas if Sauron found out that Tom had the Ring, he would have every reason to drop everything he was doing and focus all his resources on its recovery.