Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Just how much of that speech did Clinton make up on the spot? Prepared remarks: 3,136 words. Remarks as delivered: 5,895 words   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 120
    More: Cool, Delaware Democratic Party, Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton, President Obama, New Democrats, Washington Post, United States, Bank of America Stadium  
•       •       •

1469 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2012 at 4:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-06 10:37:58 AM  
I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.
 
2012-09-06 10:41:51 AM  

DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.


He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.
 
2012-09-06 10:43:59 AM  

Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.


Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.
 
2012-09-06 10:46:40 AM  

DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.


Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.
 
2012-09-06 10:49:39 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.


Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's. As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.
 
2012-09-06 10:49:41 AM  

DamnYankees: Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.


Awhile ago, he forgot his notes on a speech about the CGI. He gave it anyway. He's just that good.
 
2012-09-06 10:50:54 AM  

DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.


We should only be electing people who can ad lib for 25+minutes and continue to make sense. It proves they think for themselves and aren't reciting from a play book.
 
2012-09-06 10:52:18 AM  

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.

Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's. As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.


Yes I love Obamas speeches! I'm a serious fanboy and I'll be making popcorn tonight for this one. (im really serious).

Also I wonder why the Republicans didn't bring out either of their X Presidents.. We can see what a positive impact having an X-President at a national convention has.
 
2012-09-06 11:09:12 AM  

DamnYankees: Obama is better. Their styles are very different,


They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I think who speaks better depends on the topic and what the desired outcome is.

I'd argue that Reagan needs to join Clinton, Obama, and JFK in the "damn good speakers" arena, even though I'm not a fan of his policies or legacy.
 
2012-09-06 12:05:07 PM  
Bill Clinton did his 1994 State of the Union without the help of a teleprompter after the wrong speech was loaded, so he pretty much went from memory.

That is, if my feeble memory is correct.
 
2012-09-06 12:23:38 PM  

DamnYankees: As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.


Not that I'm saying that's what's happened here, but this reminds me of something I've noticed recently. It's the practice of making a statement that is partially positive (Obama is so good) but includes and is partially based on a negative (thin resume). This allows you to get the negative accepted into the conversation without challenge.

Maybe it's an old tactic, but I've noticed it a lot in political discussions recently.
 
2012-09-06 12:40:20 PM  

mahuika: DamnYankees: Obama is better. Their styles are very different,

They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I think who speaks better depends on the topic and what the desired outcome is.

I'd argue that Reagan needs to join Clinton, Obama, and JFK in the "damn good speakers" arena, even though I'm not a fan of his policies or legacy.


Maybe. Although I must admit, Bush Sr also had his moments.
 
2012-09-06 01:03:04 PM  

DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.


There's a reason McCain's 2008 campaign manager was on MSNBC saying he wished the right had someone that could match his speaking ability.
 
2012-09-06 01:11:02 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.


So, Clinton and speak circles around me. But, I always ad lib in front of a crowd because it allows me to connect and tailor my message.

Basically, I have a mental list of points I need to make and examples to illustrate each point. I think of it as "teaching" the audience.
 
2012-09-06 01:11:21 PM  
Using basic arithmetic skills, I am able to calculate computationally and derivate that Mr. Clinton "ad libbed," 53 percent of his speech. "Ad lib" is latin for "add lie," which means then that 53 percent of Mr. Clinton's speech was a lie. Since the legal definition of "fiction" is more than 50.5 percent lie, Mr. Clinton's speech must be classified as "fiction" and, in the future, only made available in that section of bookstores (online or brick/mortar). Furthermore, pursuant to various and sundry laws, since a candidate cannot be nominated on the merits of a fictional speech, Mr. Obama did not receive the Democratic nomination by midnight and therefore Mitt Romney is now the only legal candidate for president. Good job, Mr. Clinton, you ruined it.
 
2012-09-06 01:14:57 PM  
www.washingtonpost.com 

Holy shiat, dude. I don't remember the 1996 speech, but I don't see how that's even possible.
 
2012-09-06 01:15:16 PM  
And he still stumped the fact-checkers.
 
2012-09-06 01:16:13 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Using basic arithmetic skills, I am able to calculate computationally and derivate that Mr. Clinton "ad libbed," 53 percent of his speech. "Ad lib" is latin for "add lie," which means then that 53 percent of Mr. Clinton's speech was a lie. Since the legal definition of "fiction" is more than 50.5 percent lie, Mr. Clinton's speech must be classified as "fiction" and, in the future, only made available in that section of bookstores (online or brick/mortar). Furthermore, pursuant to various and sundry laws, since a candidate cannot be nominated on the merits of a fictional speech, Mr. Obama did not receive the Democratic nomination by midnight and therefore Mitt Romney is now the only legal candidate for president. Good job, Mr. Clinton, you ruined it.


*claps*
 
2012-09-06 01:22:14 PM  

Bontesla: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

So, Clinton and speak circles around me. But, I always ad lib in front of a crowd because it allows me to connect and tailor my message.

Basically, I have a mental list of points I need to make and examples to illustrate each point. I think of it as "teaching" the audience.


The most people I've given a speech to would be around 3500 so nothing at like a giant stadium but once you've done over 100 people they're pretty much the same. On that 45 minute speech I had no teleprompter or presentation or anything, just me and a stage. Memorize the core points in the order you want to talk about them and then let your experience and expertise take over. Any upper level executive who talks to their employees would do this as well. In this case the product is politics and the competition is the Republicans. Teleprompters are tempting though because any "gaffe" in a political speech of this magnitude gets the attention of 100+ million people and stupid headlines to follow with the word Gaffe in them.
 
2012-09-06 01:29:34 PM  
I saw a news story about this this morning. They played a clip of his speech, filmed from behind with the TelePrompTer in view. Clinton was speaking at length while the text on the screen didn't move.
 
2012-09-06 02:17:39 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And he still stumped the fact-checkers.


not according to AP, who found that he lied about a blow job in 1998.
 
2012-09-06 02:47:31 PM  
what would be the point of ad-libbing there? did he just suddenly remember a bunch of sh*t that he had forgotten to include in the text or was there a bunch of stuff that he couldn't get pre-approved by the convention handlers?
 
2012-09-06 02:57:21 PM  
liveapartmentfire.files.wordpress.com

"OK, fine. I'm not going to say much. Among things I admire, almost near the top is creativeness, and everyone in this group has it. It shows in your work, it shows in your thinking, and it shows in your speech, what you do, what you write, what you say. "And it's one reason this group is so terrific. Bill Clinton has none of it. He has not a creative bone in his body. Therefore, he's a bore, and will always be a bore."

"The next four years will be filled with pretty words, and pretty music, and a lot of goddamn nonsense!"
 
2012-09-06 02:57:21 PM  

thomps: what would be the point of ad-libbing there? did he just suddenly remember a bunch of sh*t that he had forgotten to include in the text or was there a bunch of stuff that he couldn't get pre-approved by the convention handlers?


It's called jazz, man. Get hep.

manlyweddingblog.com
 
2012-09-06 03:08:58 PM  

Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.


cameroncrazy1984: Awhile ago, he forgot his notes on a speech about the CGI. He gave it anyway. He's just that good.


Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And he still stumped the fact-checkers.


There has to be a "most interesting man in the world" photoshop in here somewhere.
 
2012-09-06 03:09:57 PM  

thomps: what would be the point of ad-libbing there? did he just suddenly remember a bunch of sh*t that he had forgotten to include in the text or was there a bunch of stuff that he couldn't get pre-approved by the convention handlers?


Probably he wrote a speech to fit his allotted time, but decided at the last minute to make sure he talked about everything he wanted to mention, knowing nobody would stop him. Or, all the extra stuff was stuff he decided to add based on the speeches given right before his.

Or it was all planned to be a story in itself, since everyone knows Clinton can wing it like that.
 
2012-09-06 03:37:25 PM  

thomps: what would be the point of ad-libbing there? did he just suddenly remember a bunch of sh*t that he had forgotten to include in the text or was there a bunch of stuff that he couldn't get pre-approved by the convention handlers?


My guess would be he had a set speech full of points he wanted to make, to strengthen the claim for Obama getting re-elected. Then the passion of what he was talking about took over, and he deviated from that set speech, going back and forth to cover everything he could possibly think to say.

Obama's a passionate, engaging public speaker, and so is Clinton. He could have stood up there another hour and kept right on going, and not only would no one try to play him off, the audience would be equally as enraptured at minute 100 as they were at minute 1. THAT is the mark of a great public speaker. If you can stand in front of 20,000 people and talk policy and numbers for nearly an hour, when it's past 11 p.m. and people want to go home, but they don't waver in their their rapt attention to every syllable that comes out of your mouth, you've got 'em. He could have started reading from Ulysses by James Joyce at that point, and people wouldn't have blinked.

I was 10 when Clinton was elected to his first term, so I wasn't old enough to vote for him, but I was starting to get into politics at that time, thanks to my dad, and I watched the convention that year and the convention in 1996 as well. At 10 and 14, ages when most kids could honestly give less than a rat's wet asshole about politics, I sat in front of the TV and listened to every word that came out of his mouth, even if I didn't have the firmest grasp on the policy issues he was talking about. That 1996 speech, which was a little over twice as long as the one he gave last night, was the only time I could remember prior to turning 16, that I was allowed to stay up that late on a school night.

I said in the gigantic mega thread last night that I had a raging girl boner for him, and it's totally true.
 
2012-09-06 03:40:18 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.


How is it possible for people like Isaac Asimov to write scientific reference books from memory?
 
2012-09-06 03:41:30 PM  

Demetrius: Bill Clinton did his 1994 State of the Union without the help of a teleprompter after the wrong speech was loaded, so he pretty much went from memory.

That is, if my feeble memory is correct.


He could probably five you the basic points from that speech today.
 
2012-09-06 03:41:35 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I said in the gigantic mega thread last night that I had a raging girl boner for him, and it's totally true.


that sounds like an enlarged clitoris, were you really into steroids when you were 10?

i was about 10 during the 1992 election also, but i was a perot kid, mostly because i thought dana carvey was funny at the time.
 
2012-09-06 03:42:44 PM  

mrshowrules: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

How is it possible for people like Isaac Asimov to write scientific reference books from memory?


Wait, Asimov did what now?
 
2012-09-06 03:44:25 PM  
I'll just leave this here.

farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2012-09-06 03:49:07 PM  

mrshowrules: I'll just leave this here.

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x378]


+1
 
2012-09-06 03:50:48 PM  

DamnYankees: mrshowrules: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

How is it possible for people like Isaac Asimov to write scientific reference books from memory?

Wait, Asimov did what now?


He wrote almost 500 books. I'm guess over 300 were non-fiction and many scientific. A guide to the bible, a guide to Shakespeare and a good to modern scientists for instance. In many cases they are almost like text books and are used as reference material by academics. The books are known for how well they explain things but also their accuracy. The popular claim by many including Asimov himself is that he writes the books from memory of all the things he has already read. Clinton, like Asimov, is said to have a true photographic memory. I'm not sure if this is 100% true but no one would argue that their memory is farking incredible.
 
2012-09-06 03:51:23 PM  

thomps: Coco LaFemme: I said in the gigantic mega thread last night that I had a raging girl boner for him, and it's totally true.

that sounds like an enlarged clitoris, were you really into steroids when you were 10?


Sounds like you're interested in the size of a 10 year old girl's clitoris. Hmm.
 
2012-09-06 03:58:50 PM  

mrshowrules: I'll just leave this here.

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x378]


don't forget this gem from her acceptance speech:

i41.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-06 04:03:25 PM  

FlashHarry: mrshowrules: I'll just leave this here.

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x378]

don't forget this gem from her acceptance speech:

[i41.tinypic.com image 580x458]


That can't be real. Can it? Damn you Poe!!!
 
2012-09-06 04:23:45 PM  
So where's the transcript of the real speech, and not the prepared remarks?
 
2012-09-06 04:24:30 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible.


"The President's startlingly freakish that way."

i63.photobucket.com


xynix: Also I wonder why the Republicans didn't bring out either of their X Presidents.


Because both of them are named "Bush"?
 
2012-09-06 04:25:04 PM  
Clinton mentions of G.W. Bush = 3

Romney, Ryan mentions of G.W. Bush = 0
 
2012-09-06 04:27:40 PM  
Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.
 
2012-09-06 04:27:55 PM  
Nice stats and all but how many chair props did he use? Zero you say? That automatically makes Clint Eastwood's speech better.
 
2012-09-06 04:31:26 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Using basic arithmetic skills, I am able to calculate computationally and derivate that Mr. Clinton "ad libbed," 53 percent of his speech. "Ad lib" is latin for "add lie," which means then that 53 percent of Mr. Clinton's speech was a lie. Since the legal definition of "fiction" is more than 50.5 percent lie, Mr. Clinton's speech must be classified as "fiction" and, in the future, only made available in that section of bookstores (online or brick/mortar). Furthermore, pursuant to various and sundry laws, since a candidate cannot be nominated on the merits of a fictional speech, Mr. Obama did not receive the Democratic nomination by midnight and therefore Mitt Romney is now the only legal candidate for president. Good job, Mr. Clinton, you ruined it.


Bra Vo
 
2012-09-06 04:31:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And he still stumped the fact-checkers.


I heard someone last night mention that he has a photographic memory.
 
2012-09-06 04:33:40 PM  

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.

Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's. As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.


Apples and oranges. They're both incredibly great speakers but do it in separate ways.
 
2012-09-06 04:35:55 PM  
The man even results in a surplus of words.
 
2012-09-06 04:36:09 PM  
Fall in Light: Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.

That should be of interest to anyone in this thread. Thanks.
 
2012-09-06 04:37:02 PM  

Fall in Light: Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.


Thank you thank you thank you!!!!
 
2012-09-06 04:38:43 PM  

Fall in Light: Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.


Thanks! I've been looking for that.
 
2012-09-06 04:38:49 PM  

Rwa2play: DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.

Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's. As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.

Apples and oranges. They're both incredibly great speakers but do it in separate ways.


I forget where I heard it last night, but they were arguing this point and said that "It's poetry verses prose. Clinton is prose - Obama is poetry."
 
2012-09-06 04:39:24 PM  

Fall in Light: Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.


Wow, that must have been stressful as hell for the teleprompter operator...
 
2012-09-06 04:39:47 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Fall in Light: Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.

That should be of interest to anyone in this thread. Thanks.


Of course! I was trying to think of a witty headline so I could submit it, but I fail at the funny.
 
2012-09-06 04:40:13 PM  
Man, I would hate to be whoever was in charge of the telepromter. Trying to figure out when to start it and stop to keep up with all the on-the-fly deviations. Whoever that mystery AV nerd was, I applaud him/her.
 
2012-09-06 04:41:44 PM  

Rwa2play: DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.

Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's. As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.

Apples and oranges. They're both incredibly great speakers but do it in separate ways.


Obama and Clinton have complementary strengths. Clinton makes a stronger emotional connection, and Obama is much more analytic.
 
2012-09-06 04:42:55 PM  

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.

Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's. As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.


Keep in mind that Clinton won the presidency against a relatively popular Republican who just finished a quick and successful war in Iraq.

Obama has better flourishes in his speech, he's more inspirational. But Clinton's the better story-teller, a better policy wonk, and speaks with a stronger conviction. They both ad-lib well, but Clinton, as evident last night, can make it seem much more rehearsed and scripted. With Obama, you can see his mind's still formulating thoughts as he says them so he has more pauses in his sentences, but with Clinton, it's like chess to him - he already planned several moves out.

CSB time: My cousin and I got to meet with Clinton once for a chat, and god bless her but she tends to ask pretty dumb questions and this occasion was no exception, but Clinton played it cooly and wow'd us with insights that we hadn't thought about. The chat went on for a good ten minutes - he absolutely wanted to make sure we get everything what he was saying.
 
2012-09-06 04:42:56 PM  
It was like Dad visited your dorm room and told you what the real world was like.
 
2012-09-06 04:43:30 PM  

Serious Black: Clinton makes a stronger emotional connection, and Obama is much more analytic.


I would say its the exact opposite. Clinton is much better at making policy arguments in his speeches, while Obama's more soaring rhetoric is far more emotional.
 
2012-09-06 04:45:45 PM  
Clinton is a very skilled orator. Just ask Monica. She used to gush about it.
 
2012-09-06 04:47:16 PM  

Fall in Light: Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.


Nice. THAT should have been a green light, not the ten or so hit pieces.
 
2012-09-06 04:47:17 PM  

DamnYankees: Serious Black: Clinton makes a stronger emotional connection, and Obama is much more analytic.

I would say its the exact opposite. Clinton is much better at making policy arguments in his speeches, while Obama's more soaring rhetoric is far more emotional.


Funny how we can come to different conclusions. Regardless, I think we both agree that they are great public speakers whose weaknesses are as strong or stronger than many other speakers' strengths.
 
2012-09-06 04:50:43 PM  

mahuika: I'd argue that Reagan needs to join Clinton, Obama, and JFK in the "damn good speakers" arena, even though I'm not a fan of his policies or legacy.


Ditto. I'm no fan of him either, and hate how false much of his legacy is, but his 1980 acceptance speech was on CSPAN the other night and it was brutally good. He absolutely eviscerated poor little Jimmy Carter on all fronts. Whether his speeches were rooted in reality didn't matter, he was a very effective speaker and so it didn't surprise me that he won EVERY SINGLE STATE in 1984, except for Minnesota.
 
2012-09-06 04:51:10 PM  

The Banana Thug:

CSB time: My cousin and I got to meet with Clinton once for a chat, and god bless her but she tends to ask pretty dumb questions and this occasion was no exception, but Clinton played it cooly and wow'd us with insights that we hadn't thought about. The chat went on for a good ten minutes - he absolutely wanted to make sure we get everything what he was saying.



Your cousin is female. No question is too dumb for the man with pussy on the mind.
 
2012-09-06 04:53:12 PM  

DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.


I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says. What's more, I think it has always been very clear Bill Clinton loves this country. Maybe people disagree with his policies or him farkin around with an intern but you sure as fark can't question his love for this country. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about the GOP.
 
2012-09-06 04:53:31 PM  
And this is why the dude crushes ass.
 
2012-09-06 04:54:08 PM  

The Banana Thug: he was a very effective speaker and so it didn't surprise me that he won EVERY SINGLE STATE in 1984, except for Minnesota.


He may have been a good speaker, but that's not why he won in 1984. Ted Kennedy was also a great speaker.
 
2012-09-06 04:55:02 PM  

lennavan: I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says.


Im not so sure about this. Like him or hate him, the one thing everyone should agree on about Clinton is that he is an AMAZING liar. I think he'd be able to give a speech at the GOP convention and be just as good.
 
2012-09-06 04:58:34 PM  

Coco LaFemme: thomps: Coco LaFemme: I said in the gigantic mega thread last night that I had a raging girl boner for him, and it's totally true.

that sounds like an enlarged clitoris, were you really into steroids when you were 10?

Sounds like you're interested in the size of a 10 year old girl's clitoris. Hmm.


hmm, i need to spend some time re-evaluating my life.
 
2012-09-06 04:59:08 PM  

DamnYankees: Voiceofreason01: Clinton is probably the best and most charismatic speaker we've had as president since JFK. The man's just plain good at it.

Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's. As Matt Yglesias tweeted last night, Clinton is good, but keep in mind that Barack Obama is so good at formal political speeches that he won nomination on otherwise thin resume.


This, plus there is still a lot of rivalry between the two. Clinton clearly hit it out of the park last night - add that to everything else and tonight's speech might be something very special.

I'm think something ala Lenny Bruce: chain smoking, wearing only a bathrobe, with plenty of profanity - that would be sweet.
 
2012-09-06 04:59:44 PM  

lennavan: DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.

I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says. What's more, I think it has always been very clear Bill Clinton loves this country. Maybe people disagree with his policies or him farkin around with an intern but you sure as fark can't question his love for this country. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about the GOP.


I will frequently say things here that I would only say in public with my buttons were really being pressed, especially comments or leading questions like "you don't love America." I had a bit of an epiphany last night after one of my FB friends posted his 14th comment on Bill Clinton's speech (yes, 14). I'm starting to think that stuff about even Tea Party supporters that I know personally. Not just that they love what they believe America is, but that they really don't love America at all. That was a real depressing thought.
 
2012-09-06 05:06:55 PM  
One thing about Clinton's speech is he laid out all the flaws of the GOP already and presented several accomplishments of Obama. So tonight Obama doesn't have to get into any of that, and can talk purely on an up note and about what he wants to do. Clinton's speech removed any need for any negative comments or tone in Obama's speech, which when you think of it is just brilliant strategy.
 
2012-09-06 05:07:43 PM  
This is why I hate presidential "debates" in the modern form. They aren't debates- they're scripted talking points to previously vetted questions.

I don't want to see that- I want to see the candidates asked tough, factual questions and then be forced to ad-lib their responses for 10+ minutes. If you can't do that, you're simply not smart enough to be president.

Clinton is a master at this, because he understands the material, he believes it and he can communicate it. Obama is damn good at it as well- witness the utter flaming destruction of the House Republicans when they were stupid enough to tangle with him. The teleprompter jokes continue because they simply can't deal with the fact he can own them face to face at will. Reagan was weaker at the understanding part, but the latter two were there in spades.

The sad part is I can't think of a recent Republican who can do that. The ones with charisma (Palin) are too stupid for words, the ones who believe it are boring as sin (Romney, Ryan) and the ones who can do it all switched parties a while ago.
 
2012-09-06 05:09:05 PM  

DamnYankees: lennavan: I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says.

Im not so sure about this. Like him or hate him, the one thing everyone should agree on about Clinton is that he is an AMAZING liar. I think he'd be able to give a speech at the GOP convention and be just as good.


Yeah I don't think so. Have you seen some of the recent interviews with people asking how his relationship with Obama is? He clearly chose his words very carefully there. If you read between the lines at his word choice and what he didn't say, it's not exactly a glowing lovey-dovey relationship.
 
2012-09-06 05:09:15 PM  
I think Clinton is GREAT at taking complex ideas and putting them into clear, comprehensible form, with the common touch and massive charm. He can do POLICY in a way which seems like charming conversation.

Obama does well at speaking with grand, sweeping majesty. He speaks like a statesman and a visionary leader, pulling people in to great causes.

They gave Clinton the point by point rebuttal speech, based on the record. If Obama now focuses on fostering enthusiasm and introducing a general initiative or two... they both will have played to their strengths.
 
2012-09-06 05:10:41 PM  
A speech that was longer than the one he had prepared? HE LIED TO US! IMPEACH HIM AGAIN!!

/History's GREATER Greatest Monster!
 
2012-09-06 05:12:45 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: This is why I hate presidential "debates" in the modern form. They aren't debates- they're scripted talking points to previously vetted questions.

I don't want to see that- I want to see the candidates asked tough, factual questions and then be forced to ad-lib their responses for 10+ minutes. If you can't do that, you're simply not smart enough to be president.

Clinton is a master at this, because he understands the material, he believes it and he can communicate it. Obama is damn good at it as well- witness the utter flaming destruction of the House Republicans when they were stupid enough to tangle with him. The teleprompter jokes continue because they simply can't deal with the fact he can own them face to face at will. Reagan was weaker at the understanding part, but the latter two were there in spades.

The sad part is I can't think of a recent Republican who can do that. The ones with charisma (Palin) are too stupid for words, the ones who believe it are boring as sin (Romney, Ryan) and the ones who can do it all switched parties a while ago.


Mitt Romney can't ad-lib to save his life. If he could prepare for every possible question, he would do pretty well in a debate other than having the charisma of a dung beetle. But if he's faced with something for which he doesn't have a memorized script to use, he's completely screwed on all three counts.
 
2012-09-06 05:15:10 PM  

Serious Black: lennavan: DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.

I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says. What's more, I think it has always been very clear Bill Clinton loves this country. Maybe people disagree with his policies or him farkin around with an intern but you sure as fark can't question his love for this country. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about the GOP.

I will frequently say things here that I would only say in public with my buttons were really being pressed, especially comments or leading questions like "you don't love America." I had a bit of an epiphany last night after one of my FB friends posted his 14th comment on Bill Clinton's speech (yes, 14). I'm starting to think that stuff about even Tea Party supporters that I know personally. Not just that they love what they believe America is, but that they really don't love America at all. That was a real depressing thought.



They don't. Seriously, they don't. What is America? America is not individuals, America is a country, a society. They don't give a fark about collectivism or the country. They care about themselves and that's it. It's a major part of their campaign "see that thing over there? I built that!" No you giant douchebags, we all built that together as a country.

Though in their defense, seeing people continue to go without necessary medical care because they can't afford it, or go hungry while the rich constantly get richer, if you were to ask me do I love the country as a whole, I don't.
 
2012-09-06 05:17:05 PM  

Serious Black: Mitt Romney can't ad-lib to save his life. If he could prepare for every possible question, he would do pretty well in a debate other than having the charisma of a dung beetle. But if he's faced with something for which he doesn't have a memorized script to use, he's completely screwed on all three counts.


Luckily for Mitt, a recent port upgrade gives him the ability to download questions at 5.6Mbps.
 
2012-09-06 05:17:20 PM  

lennavan: Serious Black: lennavan: DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.

I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says. What's more, I think it has always been very clear Bill Clinton loves this country. Maybe people disagree with his policies or him farkin around with an intern but you sure as fark can't question his love for this country. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about the GOP.

I will frequently say things here that I would only say in public with my buttons were really being pressed, especially comments or leading questions like "you don't love America." I had a bit of an epiphany last night after one of my FB friends posted his 14th comment on Bill Clinton's speech (yes, 14). I'm starting to think that stuff about even Tea Party supporters that I know personally. Not just that they love what they believe America is, but that they really don't love America at all. That was a real depressing thought.

They don't. Seriously, they don't. What is America? America is not individuals, America is a country, a society. They don't give a fark about collectivism or the country. They care about themselves and that's it. It's a major part of their campaign "see that thing over there? I built that!" No you giant douchebags, we all built that together as a country.

Though in their defense, seeing people continue to go without necessary medical care because they can't afford it, or go hungry while the rich constantly get richer, if you were to ask me do I love the country as a whole, I don't.


We've been down this road of screaming at people, accusing them of not 'loving' america. Let's not go back there.
 
2012-09-06 05:18:17 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Using basic arithmetic skills, I am able to calculate computationally and derivate that Mr. Clinton "ad libbed," 53 percent of his speech. "Ad lib" is latin for "add lie," which means then that 53 percent of Mr. Clinton's speech was a lie. Since the legal definition of "fiction" is more than 50.5 percent lie, Mr. Clinton's speech must be classified as "fiction" and, in the future, only made available in that section of bookstores (online or brick/mortar). Furthermore, pursuant to various and sundry laws, since a candidate cannot be nominated on the merits of a fictional speech, Mr. Obama did not receive the Democratic nomination by midnight and therefore Mitt Romney is now the only legal candidate for president. Good job, Mr. Clinton, you ruined it.


Suck ad, libs!
 
2012-09-06 05:19:36 PM  

Epoch_Zero: lennavan: Serious Black: lennavan: DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.

I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says. What's more, I think it has always been very clear Bill Clinton loves this country. Maybe people disagree with his policies or him farkin around with an intern but you sure as fark can't question his love for this country. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about the GOP.

I will frequently say things here that I would only say in public with my buttons were really being pressed, especially comments or leading questions like "you don't love America." I had a bit of an epiphany last night after one of my FB friends posted his 14th comment on Bill Clinton's speech (yes, 14). I'm starting to think that stuff about even Tea Party supporters that I know personally. Not just that they love what they believe America is, but that they really don't love America at all. That was a real depressing thought.

They don't. Seriously, they don't. What is America? America is not individuals, America is a country, a society. They don't give a fark about collectivism or the country. They care about themselves and that's it. It's a major part of their campaign "see that thing over there? I built that!" No you giant douchebags, we all built that together as a country.

Though in their defense, seeing people continue to go without necessary medical care because they can't afford it, or go hungry while the rich constantly get richer, if you were to ask me do I love the country as a whole, I don't.

We've been down this road of screaming at people, accusing them of not 'loving' america. Le ...


We've been down this road before, people replying to posts without having actually read them. Let's not go back there.
 
2012-09-06 05:19:51 PM  

impaler: Serious Black: Mitt Romney can't ad-lib to save his life. If he could prepare for every possible question, he would do pretty well in a debate other than having the charisma of a dung beetle. But if he's faced with something for which he doesn't have a memorized script to use, he's completely screwed on all three counts.

Luckily for Mitt, a recent port upgrade gives him the ability to download questions at 5.6Mbps.


That may be, but seeing his reactions it seems he has quite a serious CRC issue.
 
2012-09-06 05:19:53 PM  

WhyteRaven74: One thing about Clinton's speech is he laid out all the flaws of the GOP already and presented several accomplishments of Obama. So tonight Obama doesn't have to get into any of that, and can talk purely on an up note and about what he wants to do. Clinton's speech removed any need for any negative comments or tone in Obama's speech, which when you think of it is just brilliant strategy.


Clinton is a master Politician. He knows how to play the game better than damn near anyone.
 
2012-09-06 05:19:54 PM  

The Banana Thug: mahuika: I'd argue that Reagan needs to join Clinton, Obama, and JFK in the "damn good speakers" arena, even though I'm not a fan of his policies or legacy.

Ditto. I'm no fan of him either, and hate how false much of his legacy is, but his 1980 acceptance speech was on CSPAN the other night and it was brutally good. He absolutely eviscerated poor little Jimmy Carter on all fronts. Whether his speeches were rooted in reality didn't matter, he was a very effective speaker and so it didn't surprise me that he won EVERY SINGLE STATE in 1984, except for Minnesota.


His State of the Union address after the Space Shuttle exploded ranks consistently in best speeches lists.
 
2012-09-06 05:20:50 PM  

Coco LaFemme:

I said in the gigantic mega thread last night that I had a raging girl boner for him.


I refer to that as a wide-on.
 
2012-09-06 05:23:53 PM  

lennavan: Epoch_Zero: lennavan: Serious Black: lennavan: DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.

I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says. What's more, I think it has always been very clear Bill Clinton loves this country. Maybe people disagree with his policies or him farkin around with an intern but you sure as fark can't question his love for this country. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about the GOP.

I will frequently say things here that I would only say in public with my buttons were really being pressed, especially comments or leading questions like "you don't love America." I had a bit of an epiphany last night after one of my FB friends posted his 14th comment on Bill Clinton's speech (yes, 14). I'm starting to think that stuff about even Tea Party supporters that I know personally. Not just that they love what they believe America is, but that they really don't love America at all. That was a real depressing thought.

They don't. Seriously, they don't. What is America? America is not individuals, America is a country, a society. They don't give a fark about collectivism or the country. They care about themselves and that's it. It's a major part of their campaign "see that thing over there? I built that!" No you giant douchebags, we all built that together as a country.

Though in their defense, seeing people continue to go without necessary medical care because they can't afford it, or go hungry while the rich constantly get richer, if you were to ask me do I love the country as a whole, I don't.

We've been down this road of screaming at people, accusing them of not 'loving' ...


I read it. I'll even read it again! See? BAM- READ!

My point is, unless you find someone actively subverting justice leading to a detriment or selling secrets to enemies, there's really no use to badgering people with the "OMG, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?" bullcrap. Case in point, the whole mess that led to everyone wearing a flag pin now. No flag pin - OMG COMMUNIST TERRORIST. It's useless.
 
2012-09-06 05:24:46 PM  

Epoch_Zero: lennavan: Serious Black: lennavan: DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.

I think what it clearly demonstrated is he absolutely believes and feels strongly about every word he says. What's more, I think it has always been very clear Bill Clinton loves this country. Maybe people disagree with his policies or him farkin around with an intern but you sure as fark can't question his love for this country. That's a hell of a lot more than I can say about the GOP.

I will frequently say things here that I would only say in public with my buttons were really being pressed, especially comments or leading questions like "you don't love America." I had a bit of an epiphany last night after one of my FB friends posted his 14th comment on Bill Clinton's speech (yes, 14). I'm starting to think that stuff about even Tea Party supporters that I know personally. Not just that they love what they believe America is, but that they really don't love America at all. That was a real depressing thought.

They don't. Seriously, they don't. What is America? America is not individuals, America is a country, a society. They don't give a fark about collectivism or the country. They care about themselves and that's it. It's a major part of their campaign "see that thing over there? I built that!" No you giant douchebags, we all built that together as a country.

Though in their defense, seeing people continue to go without necessary medical care because they can't afford it, or go hungry while the rich constantly get richer, if you were to ask me do I love the country as a whole, I don't.

We've been down this road of screaming at people, accusing them of not 'loving' america. Let's not go back there.


That's exactly my point. To me, the climate in this country is noxious and getting more suffocating as the election draws closer. I don't want to think that my brothers and sisters that I disagree with are anti-American, but that thought is burrowing into my brain. I've had to disengage with those people because I know I'm on the verge of repeatedly lobbing rhetorical napalm at them and permanently burning the bridge down.
 
2012-09-06 05:30:56 PM  

Epoch_Zero: My point is, unless you find someone actively subverting justice leading to a detriment or selling secrets to enemies, there's really no use to badgering people


Who exactly am I badgering? I'm having an internet conversation with a guy who is either an African American with no sense of humor, or a fictional wizard. Hell he and I even agree.

Epoch_Zero: with the "OMG, WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?" bullcrap. Case in point, the whole mess that led to everyone wearing a flag pin now. No flag pin - OMG COMMUNIST TERRORIST. It's useless.


I thought you read my post three times now. Had you read my post three times, there is no way you could reasonably suggest we are talking about "why do you HATE America." We are talking about how some people do not love America.

He seems like a nice guy but I don't love Serious Black. Does that mean I hate him?
 
2012-09-06 05:34:53 PM  

DamnYankees: Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.


Man talk good. Devil magic!
 
2012-09-06 05:42:43 PM  
Is it too unrealistic to ask for BIll to run in 2016? I mean seriously. He keeps himself in the public eye enough that it wouldnt be too hard to regain the popularity he had has president (hell, he probably won some people over just with this speech). He clearly knows his stuff. And while there will be the usual derp from the right, by this point, the folks that think a bj given by a woman that wasnt his wife is more important than the being only president to have surpluses (lets face it, they don't care about the technically lying about it; that just was used for impeachment), well by that point they are going to vote party line GOP anyway, not like he has a shot with them anyway

Hell, if you want, package him with his wife. Possibly the greatest domestic president ever with the vice president as one of the better if not one of the best Secretary of States the US has had? Unbeatable by anyone who judges using facts

/I like Castro as well, but would prefer him to wait for 2020. Its a bit of a jump to go from San Antonio mayor to president, so some grooming time would help
//plus by then, I believe its pretty possible that Texas could go Democrat (at least for the president) and having him as the nominee would be the icing on the cake
///no, seriously within the next decade, Texas will go democrat for the first time pretty much since the Southern Strategy
 
2012-09-06 05:43:55 PM  

Solid Muldoon: Clinton is a very skilled orator. Just ask Monica. She used to gush about it.


Umm, I'm pretty sure President Clinton was the one who was gushing.


\eww.
 
2012-09-06 05:44:24 PM  

ATRDCI: Is it too unrealistic to ask for BIll to run in 2016?


Not sure if serious
 
2012-09-06 05:45:27 PM  

lennavan: He seems like a nice guy but I don't love Serious Black. Does that mean I hate him?


I'm off to go down a gallon of ice cream and bawl my eyes out to The Notebook.
 
2012-09-06 05:49:28 PM  

BSABSVR: ATRDCI: Is it too unrealistic to ask for BIll to run in 2016?

Not sure if serious


i.chzbgr.com

God*mmit, for some reason I had it in my head he only had one term

Now I look like a god*mn idiot.

Please ignore that portion of my post

Ill go sit in corner now

/Castro and Texas stuff still applies
 
2012-09-06 05:55:15 PM  

impaler: That can't be real. Can it? Damn you Poe!!!




it's real.
 
2012-09-06 05:58:08 PM  

lennavan:
I thought you read my post three times now. Had you read my post three times, there is no way you could reasonably suggest we are talking about "why do you HATE America." We are talking about how some people do not love America.
He seems like a nice guy but I don't love Serious Black. Does that mean I hate him?


You have to take a side! OMG, how can you talk about politics without taking a side and then advocating for the most extreme positions it has? This is no place for gray matter, you have to pick one team or the other---Black or white! shiat or get off the pot!
 
2012-09-06 06:03:12 PM  

ATRDCI: Now I look like a god*mn idiot.


Hey, at least you didn't ask for FDR.
 
2012-09-06 06:06:39 PM  

Solid Muldoon: Clinton is a very skilled orator. Just ask Monica. She used to gush about it.


Gee, I thought it was the other way around....
 
2012-09-06 06:23:53 PM  

Serious Black: Glockenspiel Hero: This is why I hate presidential "debates" in the modern form. They aren't debates- they're scripted talking points to previously vetted questions.

I don't want to see that- I want to see the candidates asked tough, factual questions and then be forced to ad-lib their responses for 10+ minutes. If you can't do that, you're simply not smart enough to be president.

Clinton is a master at this, because he understands the material, he believes it and he can communicate it. Obama is damn good at it as well- witness the utter flaming destruction of the House Republicans when they were stupid enough to tangle with him. The teleprompter jokes continue because they simply can't deal with the fact he can own them face to face at will. Reagan was weaker at the understanding part, but the latter two were there in spades.

The sad part is I can't think of a recent Republican who can do that. The ones with charisma (Palin) are too stupid for words, the ones who believe it are boring as sin (Romney, Ryan) and the ones who can do it all switched parties a while ago.

Mitt Romney can't ad-lib to save his life. If he could prepare for every possible question, he would do pretty well in a debate other than having the charisma of a dung beetle. But if he's faced with something for which he doesn't have a memorized script to use, he's completely screwed on all three counts.


He would say that kind of question isn't appropriate, like his taxes or previous experience.
 
2012-09-06 06:26:16 PM  
I was listening to someone talk about the differences in speech styles. Clinton speeches generally have a way if drawing you in closer to him, as if he is speaking to you personally. It has been said that he somehow " makes the room more intimate and smaller" no matter how big the room/stadium is. At the end, Clinton always makes you feel he came over and put his arm around your shoulder.

Obama speeches are more fiery, call-to-action, rally round the troops, kind of affairs, less personally affecting than Clinton, but at the end, you are charged up to " do something" for the cause.

Both very effective when done well, but very different and an interesting contrast study.
 
2012-09-06 06:36:50 PM  

mrshowrules: DamnYankees: mrshowrules: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

How is it possible for people like Isaac Asimov to write scientific reference books from memory?

Wait, Asimov did what now?

He wrote almost 500 books. I'm guess over 300 were non-fiction and many scientific. A guide to the bible, a guide to Shakespeare and a good to modern scientists for instance. In many cases they are almost like text books and are used as reference material by academics. The books are known for how well they explain things but also their accuracy. The popular claim by many including Asimov himself is that he writes the books from memory of all the things he has already read. Clinton, like Asimov, is said to have a true photographic memory. I'm not sure if this is 100% true but no one would argue that their memory is farking incredible.


"Moonwalking with Einstein" is a fun, but slightly fluffy, read on the subject of memory.
 
2012-09-06 06:55:04 PM  

snowshovel: I was listening to someone talk about the differences in speech styles. Clinton speeches generally have a way if drawing you in closer to him, as if he is speaking to you personally. It has been said that he somehow " makes the room more intimate and smaller" no matter how big the room/stadium is. At the end, Clinton always makes you feel he came over and put his arm around your shoulder.


Clinton in 1992

Talking to the nation by talking to one person. He's a master at this.
 
2012-09-06 07:25:15 PM  

xynix: The most people I've given a speech to would be around 3500 so nothing at like a giant stadium but once you've done over 100 people they're pretty much the same.


I'd argue not quite. At certain sizes, the scope of an audience can completely deform your position. I've spoken with preachers who stood before crowds much larger than anything I've dealt with, and one thing they've all mentioned is the way that the audience can induce a kind of vertigo. I can't remember the precise details, but I remember DL Moody in one of the tent revivals mentioning that at one point the audience, as one, drew breath, prompting the whole tent to pull inwards.

The mental trick to handle 100 people may be the same trick as for 3,500 people, but the scope still transforms the experience.
 
2012-09-06 07:40:00 PM  

DamnYankees: Obama is better. Their styles are very different, but I look forward to Obama's speeches more than Clinton's


One of the differences is that Obama makes additions/revisions to the speech before giving it, rather than speaking off the cuff in the moment. I've seen copies of speeches others wrote which he's given and he revises them heavily. By doing the final polish himself, whenever he speaks it sounds like him, rather than sounding like the work of a speechwriter.

Obama can speak off the cuff but he tends to sound like a college professor when he does.
 
2012-09-06 07:46:27 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.


Have you ever heard him in an ad hoc interview? He's profoundly dynamic and responsive, but also polished in his thought and delivery.
 
2012-09-06 07:51:07 PM  

xynix: X-P


Ummm...there are only 2 living (elected) Republican Ex-Presidents and you can't bring one out without being reminded of the other :)
 
2012-09-06 08:11:11 PM  

SilentStrider: mahuika: DamnYankees: Obama is better. Their styles are very different,

They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and I think who speaks better depends on the topic and what the desired outcome is.

I'd argue that Reagan needs to join Clinton, Obama, and JFK in the "damn good speakers" arena, even though I'm not a fan of his policies or legacy.

Maybe. Although I must admit, Bush Sr also had his moments.


That was Dana Carvey.
 
2012-09-06 08:57:13 PM  

WhyteRaven74: One thing about Clinton's speech is he laid out all the flaws of the GOP already and presented several accomplishments of Obama. So tonight Obama doesn't have to get into any of that, and can talk purely on an up note and about what he wants to do. Clinton's speech removed any need for any negative comments or tone in Obama's speech, which when you think of it is just brilliant strategy.


It's the classic attack dog strategy: let someone on your team go full negative while the candidate stays positive. Worked with Biden last time around, but Clinton hits it out of the park.
 
2012-09-06 09:06:45 PM  

ATRDCI: Hell, if you want, package him with his wife. Possibly the greatest domestic president ever with the vice president as one of the better if not one of the best Secretary of States the US has had? Unbeatable by anyone who judges using facts


There's no telling what would have been the end results if Hillary won the Presidency in 2008. My personal opinion is that Obama was a bit naive and honestly believed that if he came in and tried to be reasonable that the Republicans would work with him. Hillary, on the other hand, I feel would have gone for the throat from day 1. Their priorities would likely have been different but Hillary would have possibly been more effective at influencing Congress than Obama has been. Whether that's good or not is really up to the individual, just an observation about Obama/Hillary.
 
2012-09-06 09:15:08 PM  

DamnYankees: Aarontology: DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.

He probably had his speech written out, but when he delivered it he added a lot on the spot.

Ya, but that's like 25 minutes of ad libbing. And it flowed and made sense. That's ridiculous.


He was far better than the Costco co-founder. While that person was honest and earnest, his performance was 10th grade speechmaking.
 
2012-09-06 09:32:21 PM  

Solid Muldoon: Clinton is a very skilled orator. Just ask Monica. She used to gush about it.


I didn't know that Monica was a squirter. Did Clinton's blue tie have any stains?
 
2012-09-06 09:41:01 PM  

FlashHarry: impaler: That can't be real. Can it? Damn you Poe!!!



it's real.


Remember, prior to being in public service, Sarah Palin was just a TV news reporter. All she did was regurgitate written words.
 
2012-09-06 09:45:10 PM  
I thought Mario Cuomo's speech about Clinton in 1992 was quite awe inspiring. I was sitting in traffic listening to it on the radio. After I got to my destination, I sat in the car continuing to listen to the speech to the very end. I was literally in tears.

Cuomo was also a great orator.
 
2012-09-06 10:09:36 PM  
Slick? Of course he can BS with the best.

Bubba's made tens of millions giving just such presentations.

Could have probably given Chavez or Castro a run for their money when they were in their prime.

He did look good. Laying off the cheesebugers has done him well.
 
2012-09-06 10:38:04 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Using basic arithmetic skills, I am able to calculate computationally and derivate that Mr. Clinton "ad libbed," 53 percent of his speech. "Ad lib" is latin for "add lie," which means then that 53 percent of Mr. Clinton's speech was a lie. Since the legal definition of "fiction" is more than 50.5 percent lie, Mr. Clinton's speech must be classified as "fiction" and, in the future, only made available in that section of bookstores (online or brick/mortar). Furthermore, pursuant to various and sundry laws, since a candidate cannot be nominated on the merits of a fictional speech, Mr. Obama did not receive the Democratic nomination by midnight and therefore Mitt Romney is now the only legal candidate for president. Good job, Mr. Clinton, you ruined it.


That's our Bubba!
 
2012-09-06 10:52:11 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't even understand how that's possible. Maybe he wrote it all beforehand and just gave the media a fake version.


If you know a topic and are comfortable with public speaking this is not a problem. Any one who went to college had at least one good professor did this three times a week.
 
2012-09-07 12:09:17 AM  

lennavan: . Have you seen some of the recent interviews with people asking how his relationship with Obama is? He clearly chose his words very carefully there. If you read between the lines at his word choice and what he didn't say, it's not exactly a glowing lovey-dovey relationship.


Huh, I hadn't realized. Wasn't really paying attention, I guess.

This was kinda interesting.

A Democrat deeply familiar with the relationship complained that the press has often made it seem that Clinton harbored "lingering resentments" from the primary battle: "It's always sort of implied that it's Clinton's fault." The truth, he added, "is that Obama doesn't really like very many people." He ticked off the names of some of Obama's longtime friends: the Whitakers, the Nesbitts, Valerie Jarrett. "And he likes to talk about sports. But other than that he just doesn't like very many people. Unfortunately, it extends to people who used to have his job."

...

As a Democratic President facing a resurgent conservative movement, Obama doubtless has come to appreciate what he once criticized as Clinton's focus on seemingly minor issues, such as advocating for school uniforms in public schools. Although Obama once scoffed at Clinton for his small-bore initiatives, more recently, according to White House officials, he has come to realize that when a President doesn't control Congress he must find solace in the often limited powers of his office.


I'm guessing that Clinton thought Obama was rather naive with his "left-wing change that people could believe in, but that would never gain traction." And now, look! People on the left are railing on Obama for being too centrist. He's like a Republican now!

Centrism works.

Well, at least it did work, before the GOP freaked out and went off the rails. Which happened because we elected a black guy. Soooo, catch 22, I guess.

No possibility for a "post-partisan" black president in the USA. That was also naive.

We should have just elected Hillary.
 
2012-09-07 12:50:39 AM  
So since apparently all of Fark has skipped out on Public Speaking classes.

If you are giving a speech you know exactly what you are saying going into it (well if you are a good public speaker you do). You don't read the whole speech. No matter how good you are at reading if you are reading your speech as you give it it will be very apparent. All he really needs is the topic and basic guide lines of points that he wants to make. In the case of Clinton who has decades of experience giving speeches, he knows how to make something flow as long as he knows what he wants to talk about.


Then there are the little things, to buy time to gather thoughts, extend applause, filler added during louder periods that will give crowds time to quiet down so you can move onto a point, or adding a statement to keep the audience interested (jokes etc). If you have not gotten an applause or cheer or laugh or even a boo depending a good orator will have something relevant and on topic to ensure that the audience remains engaged in the speech.

You can disagree with his political views but Clinton is one of the best orators in the last 100 years. You can lump others Reagan, JFK, Churchill, Hitler, and a whole bunch of others. Good public speaking skills are not reflective of political ideologies it is a combination of natural charisma and a crap ton of practice.
 
2012-09-07 07:32:46 AM  
My guess, TOTUS 100% telepromtered.
 
2012-09-07 03:18:26 PM  

L82DPRT: cheesebugers


L82DPRT: telepromtered


L8's Law.
 
2012-09-07 04:24:08 PM  

Fall in Light: Here's the text of the speech with what he ad-libbed in blue and what he got rid of in pink. Really interesting read.


Tremendous linkage! From the looks of it, Clinton was doing MAJOR on the fly editing of his speech while he was giving it LIVE in front of an enormous audience. Reagan was good a delivering a script, but I doubt he had the kind of talent Clinton does. Bubba is seriously a master orator.
 
Displayed 120 of 120 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report