I have to say that you are one of the very few people that I have ever heard try to favorably compare Bush to Clinton in terms of their speaking abilities.

 

Not even close.

 

Clinton and Reagan were the top of the heap.

 

Bush is somewhere in the bottom third or less.

 

 

Frances

 

I don't know that Reagan was that good. He did a lot of pausing and drawing out his "well"s. Clinton was excellent, Bush is poor. After all this time he still appears nervous. Of course, I would be to if my back was to Pelosi.

Find someone with a copy of one of Bill Clinton's state of the union speeches and watch it again. After you wakeup you might change your mind about. No doubt Clinton is a much, much better public speaker than Bush in general. However, Clinton had some real snoozers for State of the Union Messages. In general Clinton performs much better when he's improvising than when he has plenty of time to prepare.

 

Bush = horrible off-the-cuff, respectable for prepared speeches.

Clinton = outstanding off-the-cuff, boring and long-winded for SOTU speeches

 

Shooter -

 

Fair enough. If we are discussing only their SOTU addresses, I will take back my earlier statement. I was speaking about their abilities in general, not just in their SOTU addresses.

 

 

Frances

... After all this time he still appears nervous. Of course, I would be to if my back was to Pelosi.

Now that's funny.

 

 

Frances

On the whole I thought he did a very good job. I like the talk about losing dependency on oil, but I havn't seen much action. I also think he should have hit social security harder because it is going to fail if nothing is done. The end, when he recognized some of the guests, was excellent. The guy who jumped into the subway to save another man and the soldier from Independence was just incredible to see.

 

Webb's response was well done as well. He could have made it a bit more effective, I believe. I think he made some hard hitting points (comparing CEO salaries to regular salaries), whithout directly saying "socialism." I don't agree with it, and some here do so this isn't denigrating that idea or starting another debate, I am just saying that it is a bit of a taboo word to the American people, and he made his point without directly expressing it. I didn't think it was necessary to pick up the picture when he was talking about his father. It was distracting, he could have made his point without it, and it brought up flashbacks of SNL sketches :lol: .

A Comparison of Presidents and the Average Length of their State of the Union Messages.

 

Bill Clinton holds the record for a single SOTU speech with 9,190 words in 1995

I'd wish they'd stick to discussing the state of the Union and drop most all the politics and the introduction of this year's hero. I think that's why more people don't tune in anymore. 4000 words and only 25% are worth listening to.

I'd wish they'd stick to discussing the state of the Union and drop most all the politics and the introduction of this year's hero. I think that's why more people don't tune in anymore. 4000 words and only 25% are worth listening to.

 

I disagree. The "heroes" part was the only part that really paid close attention to - all the rest was just talk, until actions back it up.

I disagree. The "heroes" part was the only part that really paid close attention to - all the rest was just talk, until actions back it up.

But what does it have to do with the state of the Union?

Not necessarily anything, unless you consider "people" part of the union and the fact that this country, despite all of its problems, is still made up of people that are selfless, hardworking, and courageous.

 

You commented that that was part of the reason why more people don't tune in - unnecessary words. I think that actions - particularly of these heroes - speak louder than words. To me, the rest is just rhetoric.

 

IMO, the real measure of any President's "State of the Union" address should be made a year later. Go back and examine it then - what actions were taken? What was just "smoke"?