Honestly, Michelle was better than Barack too. But Barack was still a lot better than Romney.

Both.

There were so many good ones though too.

Obama went the route of being inclusive, reaching out as "we" to the middle.

He tempered the partisan talking points and placed the emotion in abstract notions of faith and patriotism.

He played it safe, but that's arguably what he had to do.

i thought that very very important. what clinton did was just as important.

Obama will always be more inspirational.

Bill Clinton's speech was wonderful, and was factual, and laid out the case for President OBama. But it was President Obama that brought it home and INSPIRED.

I voted for Clinton.

POLL: Best DNC speech?

So did most people.

Not even close, IMO.

He had the easier job though. Its always easier imo to make a case for somebody else than it is to make the case for yourself.

Clinton is the best speaker in the past few decades and has an uncanny gift for breaking things down perfectly while not sounding preachy. I have never seen him not nail it even in his darkest days.

Obama uses more soaring rhetoric. They are very different types of speakers.

bill gets his energy FROM the crowd, Barack gives his energy TO the crowd

and he's humble, that's not as fun to watch as someone with a tad of hedonism (bill)

But Obama is the truly profound person that has saved our asses

and the Prez needed to do more than would be humanly possible by one person,
which is why I believe there are conventions, instead of just one person
who gives a speech......

Bill was excellent for those centrists and undecideds (and his speech
basically had a centrist "compromise" approach which we would have jeered
if it had come from Barack's mouth) who needed to understand the what's what.....

but Barack was better at getting folks who have been
saying they were disappointed for 3.7 years to finally
see the reason why they need to get off their ass and
make the difference into their own lives...and to let us know
that we have always been the change that we were waiting for.

If Barack Obama can bring voters out that voted for him last time,
then we win.

Personally, I think this is a one dimensional pundit-like question which is more destructive
than it is constructive to the cause of re-electing Barack Obama. Sounds like something
Politico would ask....But have fun!

If he had gone heavy into flamboyant rhetoric or fired-up party organizing, it could have backfired.

Who cares there both Democrats

and talk about compromise, like Clinton did....we'd be all up and down Obama's throat,
including those choosing Bill's speech as being "better".

Obama simply can't win, as I think the standards set for this Prez
are always somehow different....

Obama was never competing with Clinton.

Their goal was the make the case for another 4 years of an Obama Administration, in their own style.

They both did great.

Clinton did exactly what he needed to do and Obama did as well. They were both brilliant.

Very well put!!!

Barack Obama gave a historic and rousing presidential speech.

It was exactly as it should have been and exactly as planned.

Apples and oranges. Do you love caramel or a banana split?

Why is this question important, i saw that alex whit was asking the same.

Those dudes both sucked. But when it comes to Obama and Clinton, it's like trying to choose between lobster and filet mignon, Ginger or Mary Anne. So I agree with you that the question is a bit silly since their speeches had very different styles and purposes. And they both nailed it.

I would prefer an answer from the op, but thanks for your response

Bill crushed it.

Clinton's job was to sell Barack Obama, remind people that he faces a tough hole and eventually broke through it and convince people that President Obama is pretty much going through the same experience, but its a much bigger hole.

President Obama's job was to complete the story Clinton started with his speech and sell his vision for the future and instill a sense of positivity/higher purpose back into his campaign.

Clinton said a lot of things the President could not say. In that regard, he did give a historical review of how we got where we are, and if President Obama had gone there, Republicans would have accused him of whining it wasn't his fault. They can't do that with Clinton.

Only President Obama has the authority to speak about the future -- what he absolutely will not do and what he will try to do. For instance, he said he would not agree to do away with a tax credit that gives those who buy homes a financial break. (The Republicans do want to repeal the home mortgage tax deduction.) Clinton could not make that statement on Obama's behalf. It had to come from his lips. Nor could Clinton speak for Obama in the latter's description of how he himself is acutely aware of his own shortcomings. The Lincoln quote Obama used in referencing the loneliness of having literally no one else to turn to so he turned to faith -- these are personal things that President Obama had to say himself.

Clinton gave a perfect speech for what he wanted to accomplish. President Obama hit every single note he needed to hit in what Chris Matthews described as his best speech ever (and that's saying something because some of Obama's speeches will be referenced in history, I am sure, over and over again). In this latter regard, President Obama gave a great speech.

Both gave great speeches and to say one did better than the other is kind of irrelevant, don't you think? We as Dems are lucky to have both of these people on our side -- politically blessed, really.

Sam

I'll give him that. But no one and I mean no one can touch Obama when it comes to being a great orator over all. The More Perfect Union speech was one of the best speeches I've ever heard from any politician ever. Obama's speech at the DNC was just good, not great. To be honest he's given better SOTU speeches than this speech tonight. The bottom line is, we should stop comparing, Obama and Clinton aren't running against each other. They were both making the a case, for why Obama should be re-elected. They are both great speakers, enough already with the Obama vs Clinton bs.

Two different speeches by two different men.

The point is clear.

We have the better ideas.

i don't think they can be compared

I'd give the edge to Bill for clear explanation and delivery.
Obama for keeping it non-partisan...

Stating that, both of them have a significant one word for their speech.

Bill = Arithmetic
Obama = Citizenship.

So I'd say both were done well.

bluntly say, here's what the Repubs said, and here's why it's a lie.

I mean, when Obama said that R/R are both "new" to foreign policy, and delivered it with just the right touch of serious amusement, I was strangling! LOL!!

Michelle and John Kerry.

President Obama had to "behave" himself too much to not upset the independents. Clinton got to shred the opposition--and could disembowel them with a smile..

He could snip at the Republicans a bit more. And of course who'd blame him for doing so. If someone tried to investigate the hell out of me, I'd bite their leg off too.

With Obama in second place.
I tend to agree, though I saw more of Obama's speech than Bill's.
They were a little different in scope and target expectations, so it's a little hard to match them up.

(*rare short speech for Bill Clinton)

In EVERY convention, the President needs to give a vision speech, while everyone else can give a raw meat attack the Republicans. If you want to see the difference, you can look at Bill Clinton's two acceptance speeches (on CSPAN) and what he did here. (or Kerry 204 vs either this year's speech or last years.) While the acceptance speeches are always the culmination of a convention and important, the earlier speeches are far more likely to be "fun" and "fiery".

What is clear is that the DNC did an incredible job with Clinton giving an incredible speech (far better than his speeches in 2000 - 2008) completely destroying all the Republican arguments on economic issues. The economy IS the issue of this year. Other speakers assisted on this - and most of them came back to a theme that we are in this together. (I loved that they layered this through everything and the final song was Bruce Springstein's We take care of our own, written for Obama (Christie can eat his heart out!) Kerry did the same on foreign policy, but that was already on issue in Obama's favor and, maybe due to successes, is almost not an issue this year - though in any year the candidate needs to pas the CIC test and this speech puts Romney at Palin level!

Biden and Obama's speeches were different - as they should be. Biden was extremely good at showing both his humanity and completely showing himself not to be anything like the grotesque
caricature the RW has created. Obama had the trickiest speech and he was exceptional. He did a masterful job listing an outline of next steps that will lead us to a better America. That everyone expected. He also - maybe relying on his community organizer background - made this change a MOVEMENT, not just electing him in 2008 and now. We are fighting for ourselves and the country we want and need. That element took it beyond a regular acceptance speech.

So, this is a lot of words to say that while BOTH speeches were uncommonly good - and Obama could not have done his speech if Clinton and others had not cleared all the "brush" - I would give Obama a slight preference because I think his shift that this is OUR struggle is inspirational and I hope it rekindles a sense of purpose - rather than discouragement that it was so hard.

IT IS TIME TO UNITE!!!!!

We will all unite under Obama in the end, but all I asked was a simple question. Who gave the better speech!!

Why not let Fox News do this for you!

You are comparing apples and organes--two different speeches with two different purposes!

Stop dividing Democrats!!!!

I asked a simple question and you got bent out of shape about it. Like this question is going to make any difference on how we vote this November??!! GMAB!!

You're now on IGNORE!

STOP DIVIDING DEMOCRATS!!!!

I think that both speeches were substantive, answering the immediate needs of the campaign. Obama's speech did a great job of recasting the vision for American in partisan terms, making it specifically about voting D. I might remember both speeches, though, through their one-liners rather than on the whole. On that count, Clinton was fun. I loved the delivery.

ok, Bill.

Bill: the American Demosthenes.

hands down.

He is a serious man with a serious job.

Clinton is like an improv act, enjoying his applause, etc., He did bring up some very very good points overall and his support of the President is very important - but Clinton is really all about Clinton.

I just wander what kind of deal had to be made for him to be there and so supportive.

He bargained something, bet on that. He didn't do it for the goodness of heart and the betterment of Democratic chances at the polls.

they each had a different purpose

You nailed it.

One of the best speeches in history. By comparison Obama's seemed subdued.

x

Breaks it down in terms that cuts to the heart of the matter. Reemphasizes points when necessary. I'm not sure there has been a better politician as skilled in delivery and preparation of a speech. President Obama's speech was good too.

Barack is ok, if you set aside the bipartisan material and the faith stuff and the fact that he is always either introduced by or followed by a homophobic bigot....

who gave the better speech Obama or Romney?

madmom!

I'd have to go with Obama. It was more concise and to the point, and well-suited to the purpose of accepting a nomination.

Now the Big Dawg, and words alone can't describe how much I love the guy, you know he tends to ramble on a bit. Now we Democrats love it -- I could have gone on for another hour or so -- because we love him.

For for a general purpose, make-my-case speech to the general public, I go with Obama.

But for a barn-burner to get the crowd pumped up, it's Elvis any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Period. I enjoyed Pres. Clinton's speech and it helped the democrats cause tremendously. Just the fact that he was there is great. But it doesn't really matter what he said as long as it was supportive. However Barack Obama is our current president and his speech was brilliantly delivered in terms of what's ahead for this country moving forward with his administration.

He could have damned Obama with faint praise, or talked about himself, or gone on about Romney being a stellar businessman.

Without saying it was better, Clinton's speech has done more than Obama's for creating positive buzz.

I gave Pres. Clinton's speech a standing ovation. Both speeches were supurb. I agree that he fired up our base bigtime. I was a huge Clinton fan until the 2008 campaign became so divisive. This speech put him in a more positive light for me personally. He's been redeemed once again.

Clinton was good, but too long winded

Clinton Danny even second or third best. those were Michelle Obama and deval. Patrick respectively

and you want people to listen, get someone else to say it.

Barack Obama could not have provided the same "Professor Bubba's EZ Guide to Policy" type speech, or to the same affect as did Clinton. Clinton, for all his skills, could not have delivered the same inspirational political sermon that Obama gave, or to the same affect. Each are #1 in their niche. Not equal, but equally good.

Obama knocked it out of the park just as much in 2004 when he wasn't the nominee. Better than both Clinton or Kerry's speeches.

because it's like people want to divide democrats.

But they're both on our side, so it don't matter.

I though Kerry's speech was best out of the DNC but Clinton's was more enjoyable for me than Obama's even though the President's was very good. I enjoyed Clinton taking his time to go over so much detail, which is difficult to do. He had some weak moments though, which can be expected for a 50 minute speech.

Bill Clinton finally saw that he needs Obama's voters and Obama needs his voice.
and Hillary needs BOTH of them and Obama's voters in 2016 and 2020.

It is like the great duos of all time.

much as Paul Simon would protest, he needed Art Garfunkel
Paul McCartney better with John Lennon than without
Hall needed Oates
Brooks needed Dunn
Abbott needed Costello
Burns needed Allen
JFK needed LBJ

together we move forward.
apart they move back

with 1968 in fighting as the reference point, in 2012, it is like 1964 election all over again.

2013 will see the single greatest moving forward in America ever. (Just like 1965 was.


Democrats acting as one...wow it indeed is beautiful!!!

I just love that guy!

Clinton and Obama -- I couldn't really choose.

Bill Clinton's speech was better in my opinion. It left no room for Republicans to twist, misquote or generally malign in any way. Other than that, I believe they were equal, and did a great job at promoting their own views; however, I fear they both didn't hit Republicans hard enough for their backwards and contradicting views.

Anyway, watch this video

the effect it had on the voters.

As much as I love Obama, Bill's speech brought me to my feet!

And Mrs. Obama's speech brought the house down too!

Glad they're ALL on our team!

Bake

Clinton is on a different level.