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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 20 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report