Friday, September 14, 2012

Analyzing rhetorical strategies: comparing versions of the same speech




Analyzing rhetorical strategies: comparing versions of the same speech

Read the speeches below. On Wednesday, September 5 former President of the United States Bill Clinton gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. The first version presented below is the speech as it was originally written. The second version is the speech as delivered with the audience's response included. The third version (like the second) presents what Clinton actually said at the convention, but also shows Clinton’s additions to the written text in italics and his deletions from the written text struck out with a single line. Then at the very end of this post I've added a digital recording (posted by C-SPAN) of Clinton delivering the speech.

First, take notes on the versions of the speech with rhetorical strategies and features in mind.

Pay particular attention to the rhetorical significance of the changes Clinton made while delivering the speech. (The third version will help a lot because it makes the changes explicit.)

Then, on the blog answer the following question by class time on Monday: Which version is more rhetorically effective: the speech as written or the speech as delivered? Convince your peers and me by analyzing specific differences in the two speeches. (If your response is too long to fit in the comment box split it into two or more posts. Use your first name and last initial at the beginning of your response.)

***
VERSION #1
 Written text of former President Bill Clinton's remarks Wednesday night [9/5/12] at the Democratic National Convention, as provided by the Democratic Party:

We're here to nominate a president, and I've got one in mind.
I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. A man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression. A man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and saved, there were still millions more waiting, trying to feed their children and keep their hopes alive.
I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside. A man who believes we can build a new American Dream economy driven by innovation and creativity, education and cooperation. A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.
I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States and I proudly nominate him as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.
In Tampa, we heard a lot of talk about how the president and the Democrats don't believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.
The Republican narrative is that all of us who amount to anything are completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic chairmen, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but it ain't so.
We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."
Who's right? Well, since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million.
It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.
Though I often disagree with Republicans, I never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate President Obama and the Democrats. After all, President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High and built the interstate highway system. And as governor, I worked with President Reagan on welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals. I am grateful to President George W. Bush for PEPFAR, which is saving the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to both Presidents Bush for the work we've done together after the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake.
Through my foundation, in America and around the world, I work with Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are focused on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other.
When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. After all, nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.
One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the army and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008, and trusted him to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. And Joe Biden did a great job with both. He appointed Cabinet members who supported Hillary in the primaries. Heck, he even appointed Hillary. I'm so proud of her and grateful to our entire national security team for all they've done to make us safer and stronger and to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I'm also grateful to the young men and women who serve our country in the military and to Michelle Obama and Jill Biden for supporting military families when their loved ones are overseas and for helping our veterans, when they come home bearing the wounds of war, or needing help with education, housing, and jobs.
President Obama's record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship.
He also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction, and jobs, but that didn't work out so well. Probably because, as the Senate Republican leader, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two years before the election, their No. 1 priority was not to put America back to work, but to put President Obama out of work.
Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep President Obama on the job.
In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.
In order to look like an acceptable alternative to President Obama, they couldn't say much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You see they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: to cut taxes for high income Americans even more than President Bush did; to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; to increase defense spending $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend the money on; to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids. As another president once said- there they go again.
I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.
Are we where we want to be? No. Is the president satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is yes.
I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don't feel it.
I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.
President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No president- not me or any of my predecessors could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the President's contract you will feel it.
I believe that with all my heart.
President Obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America must take to build a 21st century version of the American Dream in a nation of shared opportunities, shared prosperity and shared responsibilities.
So back to the story. In 2010, as the president's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around.
The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the president's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, congressional Republicans zero.
Over that same period, more than more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama- the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.
The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That's why even auto-makers that weren't part of the deal supported it. They needed to save the suppliers too. Like I said, we're all in this together.
Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Gov. Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama 250,000, Romney, zero.
The agreement the administration made with management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage over the next few years is another good deal: it will cut your gas bill in half, make us more energy independent, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and add another 500,000 good jobs.
President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan is helping too- the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20 year low and natural gas production to an all-time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.
We do need more new jobs, lots of them, but there are already more than three million jobs open and unfilled in America today, mostly because the applicants don't have the required skills. We have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are being created in a world fueled by new technology. That's why investments in our people are more important than ever. The president has supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for open jobs in their communities. And, after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the drop-out rate so much that we've fallen to 16th in the world in the percentage of our young adults with college degrees, his student loan reform lowers the cost of federal student loans and even more important, gives students the right to repay the loans as a fixed percentage of their incomes for up to 20 years. That means no one will have to drop-out of college for fear they can't repay their debt, and no one will have to turn down a job, as a teacher, a police officer or a small town doctor because it doesn't pay enough to make the debt payments. This will change the future for young Americans.
I know we're better off because President Obama made these decisions.
That brings me to health care.
The Republicans call it Obamacare and say it's a government takeover of health care that they'll repeal. Are they right? Let's look at what's happened so far. Individuals and businesses have secured more than a billion dollars in refunds from their insurance premiums because the new law requires 80 percent to 85 pecent of your premiums to be spent on health care, not profits or promotion. Other insurance companies have lowered their rates to meet the requirement. More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care including breast cancer screenings and tests for heart problems. Soon the insurance companies, not the government, will have millions of new customers many of them middle class people with pre-existing conditions. And for the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4 pecent, for the first time in 50 years.
So are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are.
There were two other attacks on the president in Tampa that deserve an answer. Both Gov. Romney and congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the president did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.
When congressman Ryan looked into the TV camera and attacked President Obama's "biggest coldest power play" in raiding Medicare, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. You see, that $716 billion is exactly the same amount of Medicare savings congressman Ryan had in his own budget.
At least on this one, Gov. Romney's been consistent. He wants to repeal the savings and give the money back to the insurance companies, re-open the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and reduce the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight years. So now if he's elected and does what he promised Medicare will go broke by 2016. If that happens, you won't have to wait until their voucher program to begins in 2023 to see the end Medicare as we know it.
But it gets worse. They also want to block grant Medicaid and cut it by a third over the coming decade. Of course, that will hurt poor kids, but that's not all. Almost two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for seniors and on people with disabilities, including kids from middle class families, with special needs like, Down syndrome or autism. I don't know how those families are going to deal with it. We can't let it happen
Now let's look at the Republican charge that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work.
Here's what happened. When some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent. You hear that? More work. So the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true. But they keep running ads on it. As their campaign pollster said "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." Now that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself- I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad.
Let's talk about the debt. We have to deal with it or it will deal with us. President Obama has offered a plan with $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with $2 of spending reductions for every $1 of revenue increases, and tight controls on future spending. It's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission.
I think the president's plan is better than the Romney plan, because the Romney plan fails the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers don't add up.
It's supposed to be a debt reduction plan but it begins with $5 trillion in tax cuts over a 10-year period. That makes the debt hole bigger before they even start to dig out. They say they'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. When you ask "which loopholes and how much?" they say, "See me after the election on that."
People ask me all the time how we delivered four surplus budgets. What new ideas did we bring? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. If they stay with a $5 trillion tax cut in a debt reduction plan- the- arithmetic tells us that one of three things will happen:
1) they'll have to eliminate so many deductions like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving that middle class families will see their tax bill go up $2,000 year while people making over $3 million a year get will still get a 250,000 dollar tax cut; or
2) they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for our national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel; or they'll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education and other programs that help middle class families and poor children, not to mention cutting investments in roads, bridges, science, technology and medical research; or
3) they'll do what they've been doing for thirty plus years now- cut taxes more than they cut spending, explode the debt, and weaken the economy. Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down.
President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values, and brightens the future for our children, our families and our nation.
My fellow Americans, you have to decide what kind of country you want to live in. If you want a you're on your own, winner take all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities- a "we're all in it together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think it's wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama.
I love our country- and I know we're coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we've always come out stronger than we went in. And we will again as long as we do it together. We champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor- to form a more perfect union.
If that's what you believe, if that's what you want, we have to re-elect President Barack Obama.
God bless you - God bless America.
© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

***

VERSION #2

Transcript of Bill Clinton's Speech to the Democratic National Convention as delivered with audience reaction included (September 5, 2012)

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Sustained cheers, applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Mayor, fellow Democrats, we are here to nominate a president. (Cheers, applause.) And I've got one in mind. (Cheers, applause.)
I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. I want to nominate a man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before his election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression; a man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs that he saved or created, there'd still be millions more waiting, worried about feeding their own kids, trying to keep their hopes alive.
I want to nominate a man who's cool on the outside - (cheers, applause) - but who burns for America on the inside. (Cheers, applause.)
I want - I want a man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new American Dream economy, driven by innovation and creativity, but education and - yes - by cooperation. (Cheers.)
And by the way, after last night, I want a man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama. (Cheers, applause.)
You know - (cheers, applause). I - (cheers, applause).
I want - I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. (Cheers, applause.) And I proudly nominate him to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party.
Now, folks, in Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk - (laughter) - all about how the president and the Democrats don't really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everybody to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.
This Republican narrative - this alternative universe - (laughter, applause) - says that every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, we're all completely self-made. One of the greatest chairmen the Democratic Party ever had, Bob Strauss - (cheers, applause) - used to say that ever politician wants every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself. (Laughter, applause.) But, as Strauss then admitted, it ain't so. (Laughter.)
We Democrats - we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor folks to work their way into it - (cheers, applause) - with a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly share prosperity. You see, we believe that "we're all in this together" is a far better philosophy than "you're on your own." (Cheers, applause.) It is.
So who's right? (Cheers.) Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats, 24. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs.
So what's the job score? Republicans, 24 million; Democrats, 42 (million). (Cheers, applause.)
Now, there's - (cheers, applause) - there's a reason for this. It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics. (Cheers, applause.) Why? Because poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth. (Cheers, applause.) When you stifle human potential, when you don't invest in new ideas, it doesn't just cut off the people who are affected; it hurts us all. (Cheers, applause.) We know that investments in education and infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase growth. They increase good jobs, and they create new wealth for all the rest of us. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, there's something I've noticed lately. You probably have too. And it's this. Maybe just because I grew up in a different time, but though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats. I - (cheers, applause) - that would be impossible for me because President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High School. (Cheers, applause.) President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system.
When I was a governor, I worked with President Reagan and his White House on the first round of welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals.
(Cheers, applause.) I'm actually very grateful to - if you saw from the film what I do today, I have to be grateful, and you should be, too - that President George W. Bush supported PEPFAR. It saved the lives of millions of people in poor countries. (Cheers, applause.)
And I have been honored to work with both Presidents Bush on natural disasters in the aftermath of the South Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the horrible earthquake in Haiti. Through my foundation, both in America and around the world, I'm working all the time with Democrats, Republicans and independents. Sometimes I couldn't tell you for the life who I'm working with because we focus on solving problems and seizing opportunities and not fighting all the time. (Cheers, applause.)
And so here's what I want to say to you, and here's what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good. But what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation. (Cheers, applause.) What works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities.
Ask the mayors who are here. (Cheers, applause.) Los Angeles is getting green and Chicago is getting an infrastructure bank because Republicans and Democrats are working together to get it. (Cheers, applause.) They didn't check their brains at the door. They didn't stop disagreeing, but their purpose was to get something done.
Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict?
Because nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. (Cheers, applause.)
And every one of us - every one of us and every one of them, we're compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we're never going to be right all the time and hoping we're right more than twice a day. (Laughter.)
Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they're always right, and compromise is weakness. (Boos.) Just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security. (Applause.)
They beat a Republican congressman with almost a hundred percent voting record on every conservative score, because he said he realized he did not have to hate the president to disagree with him. Boy, that was a nonstarter, and they threw him out. (Laughter, applause.)
One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. (Cheers, applause.) Look at his record. Look at his record. (Cheers, applause.) Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the Army and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008. (Laughter, applause.) And he trusted that vice president to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. (Cheers, applause.)
And Joe Biden - Joe Biden did a great job with both. (Sustained cheers, applause.)
He - (sustained cheers, applause) - President Obama - President Obama appointed several members of his Cabinet even though they supported Hillary in the primary. (Applause.) Heck, he even appointed Hillary. (Cheers, applause.)
Wait a minute. I am - (sustained cheers, applause) - I am very proud of her. I am proud of the job she and the national security team have done for America. (Cheers, applause.) I am grateful that they have worked together to make us safer and stronger, to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I'm grateful for the relationship of respect and partnership she and the president have enjoyed and the signal that sends to the rest of the world, that democracy does not have a blood - have to be a blood sport, it can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest. (Cheers, applause.)
Now - (sustained cheers, applause) - besides the national security team, I am very grateful to the men and women who've served our country in uniform through these perilous times. (Cheers, applause.) And I am especially grateful to Michelle Obama and to Joe Biden for supporting those military families while their loved ones were overseas - (cheers, applause) - and for supporting our veterans when they came home, when they came home bearing the wounds of war or needing help to find education or jobs or housing.
President Obama's whole record on national security is a tribute to his strength, to his judgment and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship. We need more if it in Washington, D.C. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, we all know that he also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction and new jobs. And that didn't work out so well. (Laughter.) But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said in a remarkable moment of candor two full years before the election, their number one priority was not to put America back to work; it was to put the president out of work. (Mixed cheers and boos, applause.) (Chuckles.) Well, wait a minute. Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep President Obama on the job. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, are you ready for that? (Cheers, applause.) Are you willing to work for it. Oh, wait a minute.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Chanting.) Four more years! Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: In Tampa -
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Chanting.) Four more years! Four more years!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: In Tampa - in Tampa - did y'all watch their convention?
I did. (Laughter.) In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was actually pretty simple - pretty snappy. It went something like this: We left him a total mess. He hasn't cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in. (Laughter, applause.)
Now - (cheers, applause) - but they did it well. They looked good; the sounded good. They convinced me that - (laughter) - they all love their families and their children and were grateful they'd been born in America and all that - (laughter, applause) - really, I'm not being - they did. (Laughter, applause.)
And this is important, they convinced me they were honorable people who believed what they said and they're going to keep every commitment they've made. We just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are - (cheers, applause) - because in order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to President Obama, they just didn't say very much about the ideas they've offered over the last two years.
They couldn't because they want to the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place. They want to cut taxes for high- income Americans, even more than President Bush did. They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts. They want to actually increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend it on. And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor children.
As another president once said, there they go again.
(Laughter, cheers, applause.)
Now, I like - I like - I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. Here it is. He inherited a deeply damaged economy. He put a floor under the crash. He began the long, hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a modern, more well- balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses and lots of new wealth for innovators. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, are we where we want to be today? No.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Is the president satisfied? Of course not.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: But are we better off than we were when he took office? (Cheers, applause.)
And listen to this. Listen to this. Everybody - (inaudible) - when President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in free fall. It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month.
Are we doing better than that today?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Yes! (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The answer is yes.
Now, look. Here's the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. I get it. I know it. I've been there. A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated about this economy. If you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again. And in a lot of places, housing prices are even beginning to pick up.
But too many people do not feel it yet.
I had the same thing happen in 1994 and early '95. We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing. But most people didn't feel it yet. Thankfully, by 1996 the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in the history of the United States. But - (cheers, applause) - wait, wait. The difference this time is purely in the circumstances. President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me, now. No president - no president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years. (Cheers, applause.)
Now - but - (cheers, applause) - he has - he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity. And if you will renew the president's contract, you will feel it. You will feel it. (Cheers, applause.)
Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, why do I believe it?
I'm fixing to tell you why. I believe it because President Obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas and the direction America has to take to build the 21st-century version of the American Dream: a nation of shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community.
So let's get back to the story. In 2010, as the president's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around. The recovery act saved or created millions of jobs and cut taxes - let me say this again - cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. (Cheers, applause.) And, in the last 29 months, our economy has produced about 4 1/2 million private sector jobs. (Cheers, applause.)
We could have done better, but last year the Republicans blocked the president's job plan, costing the economy more than a million new jobs.
So here's another job score. President Obama: plus 4 1/2 million. Congressional Republicans: zero. (Cheers, applause.)
During this period - (cheers, applause) - during this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama. That's the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s. (Cheers, applause.) And I'll tell you something else. The auto industry restructuring worked. (Cheers, applause.) It saved - it saved more than a million jobs, and not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country.
That's why even the automakers who weren't part of the deal supported it. They needed to save those parts suppliers too. Like I said, we're all in this together. (Applause.)
So what's happened? There are now 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than on the day the companies were restructured. (Cheers, applause.)
So - now, we all know that Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. (Boos.) So here's another job score. (Laughter.) Are you listening in Michigan and Ohio and across the country? (Cheers.) Here - (cheers, applause) - here's another job score: Obama, 250,000; Romney, zero.
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (With speaker.) Zero. (Cheers, applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Now, the agreement the administration made with the management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage, that was a good deal too. It will cut your gas prices in half, your gas bill. No matter what the price is, if you double the mileage of your car, your bill will be half what it would have been. It will make us more energy independent. It will cut greenhouse gas emissions. And according to several analyses, over the next 20 years, it'll bring us another half a million good new jobs into the American economy. (Cheers, applause.)
The president's energy strategy, which he calls "all of the above," is helping too. The boom in oil and gas production, combined with greater energy efficiency, has driven oil imports to a near-20- year low and natural gas production to an all-time high. And renewable energy production has doubled.
(Cheers, applause.)
Of course, we need a lot more new jobs. But there are already more than 3 million jobs open and unfilled in America, mostly because the people who apply for them don't yet have the required skills to do them. So even as we get Americans more jobs, we have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are actually going to be created. The old economy is not coming back. We've got to build a new one and educate people to do those jobs. (Cheers, applause.)
The president - the president and his education secretary have supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for jobs that are actually open in their communities - and even more important after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the dropout rate so much that the percentage of our young people with four-year college degrees has gone down so much that we have dropped to 16th in the world in the percentage of young people with college degrees.
So the president's student loan is more important than ever. Here's what it does - (cheers, applause) - here's what it does. You need to tell every voter where you live about this. It lowers the cost of federal student loans. And even more important, it give students the right to repay those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their income for up to 20 years. (Cheers, applause.)
Now what does this mean? What does this mean? Think of it. It means no one will ever have to drop out of college again for fear they can't repay their debt.
And it means - (cheers, applause) - it means that if someone wants to take a job with a modest income, a teacher, a police officer, if they want to be a small-town doctor in a little rural area, they won't have to turn those jobs down because they don't pay enough to repay they debt. Their debt obligation will be determined by their salary. This will change the future for young America. (Cheers, applause.)
I don't know about you - (cheers, applause) - but on all these issues, I know we're better off because President Obama made the decisions he did.
Now, that brings me to health care. (Cheers, applause.) And the Republicans call it, derisively, "Obamacare." They say it's a government takeover, a disaster, and that if we'll just elect them, they'll repeal it. Well, are they right?
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let's take a look at what's actually happened so far.
First, individuals and businesses have already gotten more than a billion dollars in refunds from insurance companies because the new law requires 80 (percent) to 85 percent of your premium to go to your health care, not profits or promotion. (Cheers, applause.) And the gains are even greater than that because a bunch of insurance companies have applied to lower their rates to comply with the requirement.
Second, more than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents' policies can cover them.
(Cheers, applause.)
Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care, all the way from breast cancer screenings to tests for heart problems and scores of other things. And younger people are getting them, too.
Fourth, soon the insurance companies - not the government, the insurance companies - will have millions of new customers, many of them middle-class people with pre-existing conditions who never could get insurance before. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, finally, listen to this. For the last two years - after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade, for the last two years health care costs have been under 4 percent in both years for the first time in 50 years. (Cheers, applause.)
So let me ask you something. Are we better off because President Obama fought for health care reform? (Cheers, applause.) You bet we are.
Now, there were two other attacks on the president in Tampa I think deserve an answer. First, both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion. That's the same attack they leveled against the Congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. But it's not true. (Applause.)
Look, here's what really happened. You be the judge. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits at all. None. What the president did was to save money by taking the recommendations of a commission of professionals to cut unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that were not making people healthier and were not necessary to get the providers to provide the service.
And instead of raiding Medicare, he used the savings to close the doughnut hole in the Medicare drug program - (cheers, applause) - and - you all got to listen carefully to this; this is really important - and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare trust fund so it is solvent till 2024. (Cheers, applause.)
So - (chuckles) - so President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare; they strengthened Medicare. Now, when Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama's Medicare savings as, quote, the biggest, coldest power play, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry - (laughter) - because that $716 billion is exactly, to the dollar, the same amount of Medicare savings that he has in his own budget. (Cheers, applause.) You got to get one thing - it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did. (Laughter, cheers, applause.)
So - (inaudible) - (sustained cheers, applause) - now, you're having a good time, but this is getting serious, and I want you to listen.
(Laughter.) It's important, because a lot of people believe this stuff.
Now, at least on this issue, on this one issue, Governor Romney has been consistent. (Laughter.) He attacked President Obama too, but he actually wants to repeal those savings and give the money back to the insurance company. (Laughter, boos.)
He wants to go back to the old system, which means we'll reopen the doughnut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and we'll reduce the life of the Medicare trust fund by eight full years. (Boos.)
So if he's elected, and if he does what he promised to do, Medicare will now grow (sic/go) broke in 2016. (Boos.) Think about that. That means, after all, we won't have to wait until their voucher program kicks in 2023 - (laughter) - to see the end of Medicare as we know it. (Applause.) They're going to do it to us sooner than we thought. (Applause.)
Now, folks, this is serious, because it gets worse. (Laughter.) And you won't be laughing when I finish telling you this. They also want to block-grant Medicaid, and cut it by a third over the coming 10 years.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Of course, that's going to really hurt a lot of poor kids. But that's not all. Lot of folks don't know it, but nearly two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for Medicare seniors - (applause) - who are eligible for Medicaid.
(Cheers, applause.) It's going to end Medicare as we know it. And a lot of that money is also spent to help people with disabilities, including - (cheers, applause) - a lot of middle-class families whose kids have Down's syndrome or autism or other severe conditions. (Applause.) And honestly, let's think about it, if that happens, I don't know what those families are going to do.
So I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to do everything I can to see that it doesn't happen. We can't let it happen. (Cheers, applause.) We can't. (Cheers, applause.) Now - wait a minute. (Cheers, applause.) Let's look -
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Four more years! Four more years! Four more years!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let's look at the other big charge the Republicans made. It's a real doozy. (Laughter.) They actually have charged and run ads saying that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work. (Jeers.) Wait, you need to know, here's what happened. (Laughter.) Nobody ever tells you what really happened - here's what happened.
When some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration listened because we all know it's hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge.
And the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment. Now, did I make myself clear? The requirement was for more work, not less. (Cheers, applause.)
So this is personal to me. We moved millions of people off welfare. It was one of the reasons that in the eight years I was president, we had a hundred times as many people move out of poverty into the middle class than happened under the previous 12 years, a hundred times as many. (Cheers, applause.) It's a big deal. But I am telling you the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true. (Applause.)
But they keep on running the ads claiming it. You want to know why? Their campaign pollster said, we are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers. (Jeers, applause.) Now, finally I can say, that is true. (Laughter, cheers, applause.) I - (chuckles) - I couldn't have said it better myself. (Laughter.)
And I hope you and every American within the sound of my voice remembers it every time they see one of those ads, and it turns into an ad to re-elect Barack Obama and keep the fundamental principles of personal empowerment and moving everybody who can get a job into work as soon as we can. (Cheers, applause.)
Now, let's talk about the debt. Today, interest rates are low, lower than the rate of inflation. People are practically paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them.
But it will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest rates start to rise. We've got to deal with this big long- term debt problem or it will deal with us. It will gobble up a bigger and bigger percentage of the federal budget we'd rather spend on education and health care and science and technology. It - we've got to deal with it.
Now, what has the president done? He has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with 2 1/2 trillion (dollars) coming from - for every $2 1/2 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues - 2 1/2-to-1. And he has tight controls on future spending. That's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, a bipartisan commission.
Now, I think this plan is way better than Governor Romney's plan. First, the Romney plan failed the first test of fiscal responsibility. The numbers just don't add up. (Laughter, applause.)
I mean, consider this. What would you do if you had this problem? Somebody says, oh, we've got a big debt problem. We've got to reduce the debt. So what's the first thing you say we're going to do? Well, to reduce the debt, we're going to have another $5 trillion in tax cuts heavily weighted to upper-income people. So we'll make the debt hole bigger before we start to get out of it.
Now, when you say, what are you going to do about this $5 trillion you just added on? They say, oh, we'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.
So then you ask, well, which loopholes, and how much?
You know what they say? See me about that after the election. (Laughter.)
I'm not making it up. That's their position. See me about that after the election.
Now, people ask me all the time how we got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: Arithmetic. (Sustained cheers, applause.)
If - arithmetic! If - (applause) - if they stay with their $5 trillion tax cut plan - in a debt reduction plan? - the arithmetic tells us, no matter what they say, one of three things is about to happen. One, assuming they try to do what they say they'll do, get rid of - pay - cover it by deductions, cutting those deductions, one, they'll have to eliminate so many deductions, like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving, that middle-class families will see their tax bills go up an average of $2,000 while anybody who makes $3 million or more will see their tax bill go down $250,000. (Boos.)
Or, two, they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for the national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel. They'll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education, child nutrition programs, all the programs that help to empower middle-class families and help poor kids. Oh, they'll cut back on investments in roads and bridges and science and technology and biomedical research.
That's what they'll do. They'll hurt the middle class and the poor and put the future on hold to give tax cuts to upper-income people who've been getting it all along.
Or three, in spite of all the rhetoric, they'll just do what they've been doing for more than 30 years. They'll go in and cut the taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they'll just explode the debt and weaken the economy. And they'll destroy the federal government's ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments.
Don't you ever forget when you hear them talking about this that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office - (applause) - and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic. (Laughter, applause.) It was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that I was just a country boy from Arkansas, and I came from a place where people still thought two and two was four. (Laughter, applause.) It's arithmetic.
We simply cannot afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double down on trickle down. (Cheers, applause.) Really. Think about this: President Obama - President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values, brightens the future of our children, our families and our nation. It's a heck of a lot better.
It passes the arithmetic test, and far more important, it passes the values test. (Cheers, applause.)
My fellow Americans, all of us in this grand hall and everybody watching at home, when we vote in this election, we'll be deciding what kind of country we want to live in. If you want a winner-take- all, you're-on-your-own society, you should support the Republican ticket. But if you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibility, a we're-all-in-this-together society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. (Cheers, applause.) If you - if you want -
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: (Chanting.) Four more years! Four more years!
PRESIDENT CLINTON: If you want America - if you want every American to vote and you think it is wrong to change voting procedures - (jeers) - just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters - (jeers) - you should support Barack Obama. (Cheers, applause.)
And if you think - if you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to all those young immigrants brought here when they were young so they can serve in the military or go to college, you must vote for Barack Obama. (Cheers, applause.) If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American dream is really alive and well again and where the United States maintains its leadership as a force for peace and justice and prosperity in this highly competitive world, you have to vote for Barack Obama.
(Cheers, applause.)
Look, I love our country so much. And I know we're coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we've always come back. (Cheers.) People have predicted our demise ever since George Washington was criticized for being a mediocre surveyor with a bad set of wooden false teeth. (Laughter.) And so far, every single person that's bet against America has lost money because we always come back. (Cheers, applause.) We come through ever fire a little stronger and a little better.
And we do it because in the end we decide to champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor - the cause of forming a more perfect union. (Cheers, applause.) My fellow Americans, if that is what you want, if that is what you believe, you must vote and you must re-elect President Barack Obama. (Cheers, applause.) God bless you and God bless America. (Cheers, applause.)
END

***

VERSION #3
a version showing Clinton’s additions to the written text in italics and his deletions from the written text struck out with a single line
Now, Mr. Mayor, fellow Democrats, We're here to nominate a president, and I've got one in mind.
I want to nominate a man whose own life has known its fair share of adversity and uncertainty. I want to nominate A man who ran for president to change the course of an already weak economy and then just six weeks before the election, saw it suffer the biggest collapse since the Great Depression. A man who stopped the slide into depression and put us on the long road to recovery, knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and saved he saved or created, there were still millions more waiting, trying to feed their children and worried about feeding their own kids, trying to keep their hopes alive.
I want to nominate a man cool on the outside but burning who burns for America on the inside. I want A man who believes with no doubt that we can build a new American Dream economy driven by innovation and creativity, but [sic] education and - yes - by cooperation.
And by the way, after last night, I want A man who had the good sense to marry Michelle Obama.
I want Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States and I proudly nominate him as the standard bearer of the Democratic Party.
Now, folks, In Tampa a few days ago, we heard a lot of talk all about how the president and the Democrats don't really believe in free enterprise and individual initiative, how we want everyone to be dependent on the government, how bad we are for the economy.
The Republican narrative - this alternative universe - is says that all of us every one of us in this room who amounts to anything, are we're all completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic chairmen the greatest chairmen the Democratic Party ever had, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but, as Strauss then admitted, it ain't so.
We Democrats, we think the country works better with a strong middle class, with real opportunities for poor people folks to work their way into it and with a relentless focus on the future, with business and government actually working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think You see, we believe that "we're all in this together" is a far better philosophy than "you're on your own." It is.
So Who's right? Well, since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. So What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million.
Now, there's a reason for this. It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, Why? because discrimination, poverty poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth, When you stifle human potential, when you don't invest in new ideas, it doesn't just cut off the people who are affected; it hurts us all. We know that while investments in education, and infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it growthcreating more They increase good jobs and they create new wealth for all the rest of us.
Now, there's something I've noticed lately. You probably have too. And it's this. Maybe just because I grew up in a different time, but Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our President Obama and the a lot of other Democrats. After allthat would be impossible for me because President Eisenhower sent federal troops to my home state to integrate Little Rock Central High and President Eisenhower built the interstate highway system. And as governor When I was a governor, I worked with President Reagan and his White House on the first round of welfare reform and with President George H.W. Bush on national education goals. I am actually grateful to - if you saw from the film what I do today, I have to be grateful, and you should be, too - that President George W. Bush for supported PEPFAR, which is saving It saved the lives of millions of people in poor countries and to And I have been honored to work with both Presidents Bush for the work we've done together after on natural disasters in the aftermath of the South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake. horrible earthquake in Haiti.
Through my foundation, both in America and around the world, I'm work working all the time with Democrats, Republicans and Independents, Sometimes I couldn't tell you for the life who I'm working with because who are focused we focus on solving problems and seizing opportunities, not fighting each other. all the time.
And so here's what I want to say to you, and here's what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough, and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works betterBut what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation. What works in the real world is cooperation, business and government, foundations and universities. Ask the mayors who are here. Los Angeles is getting green and Chicago is getting an infrastructure bank because Republicans and Democrats are working together to get it. They didn't check their brains at the door. They didn't stop disagreeing, but their purpose was to get something done. Now, why is this true? Why does cooperation work better than constant conflict? Because After all, nobody's right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. And every one of us - every one of us and every one of them, we're compelled to spend our fleeting lives between those two extremes, knowing we're never going to be right all the time and hoping we're right more than twice a day.
Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn't see it that way. They think government is always the enemy, they're always right, and compromise is weakness. Just in the last couple of elections, they defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security. They beat a Republican congressman with almost a hundred percent voting record on every conservative score, because he said he realized he did not have to hate the president to disagree with him. Boy, that was a nonstarter, and they threw him out.
One of the main reasons America should we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation. Look at his record. Look at his record. Look at his record. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the army and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008, and he trusted him that vice president to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. And Joe Biden did a great job with both.
He - President Obama - President Obama appointed several members of his Cabinet members who even though they supported Hillary in the primaryies. Heck, he even appointed Hillary. Wait a minute. I am - I am very proud of her. I'm so proud of her and grateful to our entire I am proud of the job she and the national security team have done for America. for all they've donI am grateful that they have worked together to make us safer and stronger and to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies. I'm grateful for the relationship of respect and partnership she and the president have enjoyed and the signal that sends to the rest of the world, that democracy does not have a blood - have to be a blood sport, it can be an honorable enterprise that advances the public interest. 
Now besides the national security team, I'm also very grateful to the young men and women who serve our country in the military who've served our country in uniform through these perilous times and I am especially grateful to Michelle Obama and Jill Joe Biden for supporting those military families when while their loved ones are were overseas and for helping supporting our veterans, when they come home bearing the wounds of war, or needing help with education, housing, and jobs. or jobs or housing.
President Obama's whole record on national security is a tribute to his strength, and to his judgment, and to his preference for inclusion and partnership over partisanship. We need more if it in Washington, D.C.
Now, we all know that He also tried to work with congressional Republicans on health care, debt reduction, and jobs, but And that didn't work out so well. Probably But it could have been because, as the Senate Republican leader said, in a remarkable moment of candor, said two full years before the election, their No. 1 priority was not to put America back to work, but it was to put the President Obama out of work. Well, wait a minute Senator, I hate to break it to you, but we're going to keep President Obama on the job. 
Now, are you ready for that? Are you willing to work for it. Oh, wait a minute. In Tampa - in Tampa - did y'all watch their convention? I did. In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re-election was actually pretty simple pretty snappy: we left him a total mess, he hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in. 
Now - (cheers, applause) - but they did it well. They looked good; the sounded good. They convinced me that they all love their families and their children and were grateful they'd been born in America and all that - really, I'm not being - they did. And this is important, they convinced me they were honorable people who believed what they said and they're going to keep every commitment they've made. We just got to make sure the American people know what those commitments are.
Because In order to look like an acceptable, reasonable, moderate alternative to President Obama, they just didn't couldn't say very much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You see They couldn't because they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: They want to cut taxes for high-income Americans even more than President Bush did; They want to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; They want to actually to increase defense spending over a decade $2 trillion more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they'll spend the money it on; And they want to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids children As another president once said- there they go again.
Now I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. Here it is. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, He put a floor under the crash, He began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators.
Now Are we where we want to be today? No. Is the president satisfied? No Of course not. But Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an And listen to this. Listen to this. Everybody - (inaudible) - when President Barack Obama took office, the economy was in free fall, It had just shrunk 9 full percent of GDP. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month. Are we doing better than that today? The answer is yes.
I understand the challenge we face. Now, look. Here's the challenge he faces and the challenge all of you who support him face. I get it. I know it. I've been there. I know many A lot of Americans are still angry and frustrated with the about this economy. Though If you look at the numbers, you know employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend again. And in a lot of places, and even housing prices are picking up a bit even beginning to pick up, too many people don't feel it. But too many people do not feel it yet.
I experienced had the same thing happen in 1994 and early 1995. We could see that the Our policies were working, that and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. Thankfully, By 1996, the economy was roaring, everybody felt it, and we were halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history the history of the United States. But - wait, wait. The difference this time is purely in the circumstances. President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. Listen to me, now. No president- no president, not me or not any of my predecessors, no one could have repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.
Now - but - he has - he has laid the foundation for a new, modern, successful economy of shared prosperity. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the President's contract you will feel it. I believe that with all my heart. Folks, whether the American people believe what I just said or not may be the whole election. I just want you to know that I believe it. With all my heart, I believe it. Now, why do I believe it?
I'm fixing to tell you why. I believe it because President Obama's approach embodies the values, the ideas, and the direction America must has to take to build a 21st century version of the American Dream in: a nation of shared opportunities, shared prosperity and shared responsibilities. shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense of community.
So let's get back to the story. In 2010, as the president's recovery program kicked in, the job losses stopped and things began to turn around.
The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes - let me say this again - cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. And, In the last 29 months the our economy has produced about 4.5 and one-half million private sector jobs. We could have done better, But last year, the Republicans blocked the president's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 and one-half million, congressional Republicans zero.
Over that same period, During this period - during this period, more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama- That's the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s. And I'll tell you something else. The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, and not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country. That's why even the auto-makers that who weren't part of the deal supported it. They needed to save the those parts suppliers too. Like I said, we're all in this together.
So what's happened? Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than on the day the companies were restructured. So - now, we all know that Gov. Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Are you listening in Michigan and Ohio and across the country? Here's another job score: Obama 250,000, Romney, zero.
Now, The agreement the administration made with management, labor and environmental groups to double car mileage over the next few years is another good deal that was a good deal too: it will cut your gas prices in half, your gas bill in half. No matter what the price is, if you double the mileage of your car, your bill will be half what it would have been. It will make us more energy independent, It will cut greenhouse gas emissions, and add another 500,000 good jobs according to several analyses, over the next 20 years, it'll bring us another half a million good new jobs into the American economy.
President Obama's "all of the above" energy plan The president's energy strategy, which he calls "all of the above," is helping too- the boom in oil and gas production combined with greater energy efficiency has driven oil imports to a near 20-year low and natural gas production to an all-time high. Renewable energy production has also doubled.
We do need more new jobs, lots of them, Of course, we need a lot more new jobs. but there are already more than three million jobs open and unfilled in America today, mostly because the applicants the people who apply for them don't yet have the required skills to do them. We have to prepare more Americans for the new jobs that are being actually going to be created in a world fueled by new technology. The old economy is not coming back. We've got to build a new one and educate people to do those jobs. That's why investments in our people are more important than ever.
The president and his education secretary has have supported community colleges and employers in working together to train people for open jobs that are actually open in their communities. And, even more important after a decade in which exploding college costs have increased the drop-out rate so much that we've fallen to the percentage of our young people with four-year college degrees has gone down so much that we have dropped to 16th in the world in the percentage of young people with college degrees. So the president's student loan is more important than ever. Here's what it does - (cheers, applause) - here's what it does. You need to tell every voter where you live about this. It his student loan reform lowers the cost of federal student loans and even more important, it gives students the right to repay the those loans as a clear, fixed, low percentage of their incomes for up to 20 years.
Now what does this mean? What does this mean? Think of it. It That means no one will ever have to drop-out of college for fear they can't repay their debt, and no one will have to turn down a job, as a teacher, a police officer or a small town doctor because it doesn't pay enough to make the debt payments. And it means that if someone wants to take a job with a modest income, a teacher, a police officer, if they want to be a small-town doctor in a little rural area, they won't have to turn those jobs down because they don't pay enough to repay they debt. Their debt obligation will be determined by their salary. This will change the future for young Americans.
I don't know about you, but on all these issues, I know we're better off because President Obama made these decisions he did.
Now, That brings me to health care.
The Republicans call it derisively Obamacare and They say it's a government takeover of health care that they'll repeal a disaster, and that if we'll just elect them they'll repeal it. Well, Are they right? Let's take a look at what's actually happened so far. First, Individuals and businesses have secured already gotten more than a billion dollars in refunds from their insurance premiums because the new law requires 80 percent to 85 percent of your premiums to be spent on go to your health care, not profits or promotion.
And the gains are even greater than that because a bunch of Other insurance companies have lowered applied to lower their rates to meet comply with the requirement. Second, More than 3 million young people between 19 and 25 are insured for the first time because their parents' policies can cover them can now carry them on family policies. Millions of seniors are receiving preventive care including all the way from breast cancer screenings and to tests for heart problems and scores of other thingsAnd younger people are getting them, too. Fourth, Soon the insurance companies, not the government, the insurance companies, will have millions of new customers many of them middle class people with pre-existing conditions who never could get insurance before.
Now, finally, listen to this. And For the last two years - after going up at three times the rate of inflation for a decade,for the last two years, health care spending has grown costs have been under 4 percent, in both years for the first time in 50 years.
So let me ask you something. Are we all better off because President Obama fought for health care reform it and passed it? You bet we are.
Now, There were two other attacks on the president in Tampa that I think deserve an answer. First, Both Gov. Romney and congressman Ryan attacked the president for allegedly robbing Medicare of $716 billion. That's the same attack they leveled against the Congress in 2010, and they got a lot of votes on it. But it's not true. Look, here's what really happened. You be the judge. Here's what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits at all. None. What the president did was to save money by taking the recommendations of a commission of professionals to cut cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren't making people any healthier and were not necessary to get the providers to provide the service.And instead of raiding Medicare He used the savings to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and - you all got to listen carefully to this; this is really important -and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund so it is solvent till 2024It's now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn't weaken Medicare, they strengthened it Medicare.
Now, When congressman Ryan looked into the that TV camera and attacked President Obama's Medicare savings as, quote "the biggest coldest power play" in raiding Medicare, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. You see, because that $716 billion is exactly to the dollar the same amount of Medicare savings congressman Ryan had he has in his own budget. You got to get one thing - it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did. So ... now, you're having a good time, but this is getting serious, and I want you to listen. It's important, because a lot of people believe this stuff.
Now, At least on this issue, on this one issue, Gov. Romney's been consistent. He attacked President Obama too, but he actually wants to repeal the those savings and give the money back to the insurance companies, He wants to go back to the old system, which means we'll re-open the donut hole and force seniors to pay more for drugs, and we'll reduce the life of the Medicare Trust Fund by eight full years. So now if he's elected and does what he promised to do Medicare will now go grow [sic] broke by 2016. Think about that. If that happens, you That means, after all, we won't have to wait until their voucher program to begins kicks in in 2023 to see the end Medicare as we know it. They're going to do it to us sooner than we thought.
Now, folks, this is serious, But because it gets worse. And you won't be laughing when I finish telling you this. They also want to block grant Medicaid and cut it by a third over the coming decade 10 years. Of course, that will hurt that's going to really hurt a lot of poor kids, but that's not all. Lot of folks don't know it, but nearly Almost two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for Medicare seniors who are eligible for Medicaid. 
It's going to end Medicare as we know it. And a lot of that money is also spent to help and on people with disabilities, including kids from middle class families, with special needs like, Down syndrome or autism a lot of middle-class families whose kids have Down's syndrome or autism or other severe conditions. I don't know how those families are going to deal with it. And honestly, let's think about it, if that happens, I don't know what those families are going to do. So I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to do everything I can to see that it doesn't happen. We can't let it happen. We can't.
Now - wait a minute - let's look at the Republican charge other big charge the Republicans made. It's a real doozy. They actually have charged and run ads saying that President Obama wants to weaken the work requirements in the welfare reform bill I signed that moved millions of people from welfare to work. Wait, you need to know, here's what happened. Nobody ever tells you what really happened - Here's what happened.
When some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration listened because we all know it's hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge. And the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment. You hear that? More workNow, did I make myself clear? The requirement was for more work, not less. So this is personal to me. We moved millions of people off welfare. It was one of the reasons that in the eight years I was president, we had a hundred times as many people move out of poverty into the middle class than happened under the previous 12 years, a hundred times as many. It's a big deal. So But I am telling you the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform's work requirement is just not true.
But they keep on running the ads claiming it running ads on itYou want to know why? As their campaign pollster said "we're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers." Now finally I can say, that is true. I couldn't have said it better myself- I just hope you remember that every time you see the ad. And I hope you and every American within the sound of my voice remembers it every time they see one of those ads and it turns into an ad to re-elect Barack Obama and keep the fundamental principles of personal empowerment and moving everybody who can get a job into work as soon as we can.
Now, Let's talk about the debt. Today, interest rates are low, lower than the rate of inflation. People are practically paying us to borrow money, to hold their money for them. But it will become a big problem when the economy grows and interest rates start to rise. We have to deal with it We've got to deal with this big long- term debt problem or it will deal with us. It will gobble up a bigger and bigger percentage of the federal budget we'd rather spend on education and health care and science and technology. It - we've got to deal with it. Now, what has the president done? President Obama He has offered a reasonable plan with $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade, with $2 of spending reductions for every $1 of revenue increaseswith 2 1/2 trillion (dollars) coming from - for every $2 1/2 trillion in spending cuts, he raises a dollar in new revenues - 2 1/2-to-1 and tight controls on future spending. It's That's the kind of balanced approach proposed by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission, a bipartisan commission.
Now, I think the president's this plan is better than the Governor Romney's plan, because First, the Romney plan failsed the first test of fiscal responsibility: The numbers just don't add up.
It's supposed to be a debt reduction plan but it begins with $5 trillion in tax cuts over a 10-year period. I mean, consider this. What would you do if you had this problem? Somebody says, oh, we've got a big debt problem. We've got to reduce the debt. So what's the first thing you say we're going to do? Well, to reduce the debt, we're going to have another $5 trillion in tax cuts heavily weighted to upper-income people. That makes the debt hole bigger before they even start to dig out. So we'll make the debt hole bigger before we start to get out of it. 
 Now, when you say, what are you going to do about this $5 trillion you just added on? They say they'll oh, we'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code. When So then you ask "well, which loopholes and how much?" You know what they say? "See me about that after the election on that.I'm not making it up. That's their position. See me about that after the election.
Now, People ask me all the time how we delivered got four surplus budgets in a row. What new ideas did we bring to Washington? I always give a one-word answer: arithmetic. If - arithmetic! If they stay with a $5 trillion tax cut plan - in a debt reduction plan? - the arithmetic tells us no matter what they say that one of three things will is about to happen:
1) assuming they try to do what they say they'll do, get rid of - pay - cover it by deductions, cutting those deductions, one, they'll have to eliminate so many deductions like the ones for home mortgages and charitable giving that middle class families will see their tax bill go up an average of $2,000 year while people making over anybody who makes $3 million or more  a year get will still get a 250,000 dollar tax cut see their tax bill go down $250,000; or
2) they'll have to cut so much spending that they'll obliterate the budget for our the national parks, for ensuring clean air, clean water, safe food, safe air travel; or they'll cut way back on Pell Grants, college loans, early childhood education, child nutrition programs, all the and other programs that help to empower middle class families and poor children help poor kids, not to mention cuttinOh, they'll cut back on investments in roads and bridges and science and technology and biomedical research. That's what they'll do. They'll hurt the middle class and the poor and put the future on hold to give tax cuts to upper-income people who've been getting it all along.
Or 3) in spite of all the rhetoric, they'll just do what they've been doing for more than thirty plus years now- They'll go in and cut taxes way more than they cut spending, especially with that big defense increase, and they'll just explode the debt and weaken the economy. And they'll destroy the federal government's ability to help you by letting interest gobble up all your tax payments. Remember, Don't you ever forget when you hear them talking about this that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office, and doubled it after I leftthe debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic. It was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that I was just a country boy from Arkansas, and I came from a place where people still thought two and two was four. It's arithmetic. We simply can't afford to give the reins of government to someone who will double-down on trickle-down.
Really. Think about this: President Obama's plan cuts the debt, honors our values, and brightens the future for of our children, our families and our nation. It's a heck of a lot better. It passes the arithmetic test, and far more important, it passes the values test. 
My fellow Americans, all of us in this grand hall and everybody watching at home, when we vote in this election, you have to decidewe'll be deciding what kind of country you we want to live in. If you want a you're on your own, winner take all winner-take- all, you're-on-your-own society you should support the Republican ticket. But If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities- a "we're all in it this together" society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
If you want every American to vote and you think it's wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. And If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to all those young immigrants brought here as children when they were young so they can serve in the military or go to college who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should must vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is really alive and well again, and where the United States remains the leading maintains its leadership as a force for peace and prosperity in this a highly competitive world, you should have to vote for Barack Obama.
Look, I love our country so much.- and I know we're coming back. For more than 200 years, through every crisis, we've always come back we've always come out stronger than we went in. People have predicted our demise ever since George Washington was criticized for being a mediocre surveyor with a bad set of wooden false teeth. And so far, every single person that's bet against America has lost money because we always come back. We come through every fire a little stronger and a little better. And we will again as long as we do it together. We And we do it because in the end we decide to champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor- to form the cause of forming a more perfect union.
If that's what you believe, if that's what you want, we have to re-elect President Barack Obama. My fellow Americans, if that is what you want, if that is what you believe, you must vote and you must re-elect President Barack Obama.
God bless you - God bless America.

***
 VERSION #4
C-SPAN's Digital recording of Bill Clinton delivering the speech on September 5, 2012 at the Democratic National Convention

26 comments:

  1. I think the altered speech Bill Clinton had was more efficient in getting his point across. The way he worded many parts of the new speech connected more to the people. When he said things like folks, instead of people, he was speaking more like anyone else and seemed to be like everyone else, not a past president of the United States. The second speech seemed to flow together a lot better than the first and emphasize crucial aspects more. “And instead of raiding Medicare He used the savings to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and - you all got to listen carefully to this; this is really important -and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund so it is solvent till 2024. It's now solvent until 2024.” The way he worded this part the second time flowed better together and gave more information than it did the first time. To me the second speech was the most efficient, but either speech would have gotten his point across sufficiently.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The speech as delivered seems to have more of an effect on the audience. He subtly gives the speech more of a homey feeling by replacing words like “people” with “folks” and “should” with “Ought to”, and since he’s emphasizing community and cooperation, ads in “we” to bring home the point, as in “One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama…”

    This puts the audience more at ease, wanting to listen to what he has to say. They can understand the speech since it’s not completely stiff and political. Clinton loosens up the seriousness of the speech to make his audience see feel more comfortable with his argument.

    Though at some points what he added in might seem a little wordy, and he loses the point, whereas if he stuck with how it was written, it would have gotten straight to the point; “And so here's what I want to say to you, and here's what I want the people at home to think about. When times are tough, and people are frustrated and angry and hurting and uncertain, the politics of constant conflict may be good. But what is good politics does not necessarily work in the real world. What works in the real world is cooperation.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. The speech Bill Clinton changed seems to be more effective on the crowd. The alterations made, drew in a response from the crowd that was more than positive. The cheers and laughter represented the positive affect of the speech. When The former president got up to the podium, and faced the crowd, the choices he made instantly brought the attention towards him. Opening with greeting to the 'fellow Democrats' and saying he has a president in mind, stated the view in his eyes. The addition of the words "I want," made the difference. The ones in the audience who approved of Clinton in the past, really will take into what he is saying into mind. The former president's opinion matter to them. By adding, "no matter how many jobs he saved or created," instead of saying, "no matter how many jobs were created or saved," it created a vision of Obama's identity and work done. New formations of sentences created more of a realistic setting, with different situations that more people can have in common with. In the statement, " That means no one will ever have to turn down a job, as a teacher, a police officer or a small town doctor because it doesn't pay enough to make the debt payments," he reworded it to be," It means no one will have to drop-out of college for fear they can't repay their debt." The way Clinton created the speech out to be, made the crowd connect more, and have their views be based on an opinion that matters to them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bill Clinton delivered a message to all Americans and made sure to make his message strong and powerful. With the use of different rhetorical strategies, he achieved to deliver his influential speech by delivering a message, in which he believed was appropriate. Bill Clinton decided to override various word choices and phrases in the original speech. To begin with, the initiation of the written speech did not specify a direct audience and began with, “We’re here to nominate a president, and I’ve got one in mind.” However, Bill Clinton made the change by beginning with, “Now, Mr. Mayor, fellow Democrats, We’re here to nominate a president, and I’ve got one in mind.” Here Bill Clinton evidently stated his speech directly to a particular audience. He made the same indications in his speech when referred to republicans, governors, the middle class, voters etc. Furthermore, at times Bill Clinton identified President Barack Obama more boldly than the written speech. For instance instead of stating “no matter how many jobs were created or saved” he said “no matter how many jobs he saved or created,” which made the statement more dominant by using “he” implying that “he,” Barack Obama made it possible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. He additionally incorporated his style and voice in his speech by stating “Folks” “ain’t, or “ought to” so the audience would view him as a comrade and not as a refined politician. When he identified Bob Strauss, he changed the phrase to ‘the greatest chairmen the Democratic Party ever had, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you every voter to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but, as Strauss then admitted, it ain't so,” in which he referred to all voters not just Democrats. Moreover, Bill Clinton made his statements upfront so the audience is aware to whom the message was delivered. For instance, he stated “We think You see, we believe that ‘we're all in this together’ is a far better philosophy than ‘you're on your own.’ It is.” This makes his statement clear and direct and engages the audience to cheer or applaud because he reflects on cooperation and not solitariness. Bill Clinton persuaded his audiences with engagement and knowledge. He informed the audience of statistics, realities, consequences, and benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In his finishing statement, he makes sure to include words such as “cooperation, opportunity, or prosperity” all meaning the same thing, companionship. He changed it so the message be delivered strongly to the audience. For instance he stated, “And If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to all those young immigrants brought here as children when they were young so they can serve in the military or go to college who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should must vote for Barack Obama. “ He changed “should” to “must.” Every little change encouraged the audience to cheer or applaud to his speech because it was delivered by an American just like them since he wants a “we’re all in this together policy.”

    ReplyDelete
  7. Former President Bill Clinton is famous for his charismatic and personal style of speech. Many times he addresses his audience to include himself and not isolate them from his plan. His written speech is much less critical of the Republican Party then his live speech. As a politician this makes much more sense than if you are a person of independent voting style. Clinton has an almost condescending tone about his speech and refers to the republican’s economic style as “an alternate reality”. Of course, he is at the democratic convention with people who will agree, laugh and cheer with him about degrading comments. He does make good points about the Presidents work in office. President Obama did try to work with both democrats and republicans and brought many republicans into power within his office. Once Clinton neared the end of his speech, he shifted his meaning of “we”. It no long meant the democrats (or republicans) at the convention, but Americans as a whole. It was a subtle way of enveloping his speech and intent of his speech to include not just his own party but everyone.
    -Elizabeth M.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michael Jaksland

    Bill Clinton's speech still retains its seriousness, whilst being slightly less formal - and it works. He improves the speech by making it more personal and hard-hitting. The way Clinton goes about this is addressing the audience, as well as his usage of personal pronouns. When he addresses the audience in the modified speech (a great technique), he makes a point to reach out and include them into the issues and solutions so they feel as if they're part of the entire ordeal (which, of course, they are), and it makes the speech much more relatable in the end. Clinton also put much more emphasis into topics in the modified speech. Specifically, these include "the cooperation between Democrats and Republicans" portion. Clinton adds his own touch of experiences and reasons as to why he is grateful for both parties, instead of just flat out stating it, like in the original version of the speech. In his closing statement, he adds a touch of humor by mentioning George Washington; he also dives into the "comeback of America," another great technique to hype up and excite the audience.

    I believe that the modified speech is much better than the original. The modified version offers personal experiences, more specification of certain details, better reasons, and a touch of humor. In rhetoric, this, in turn, raises the speech's ethos and pathos. The original seemed much more dry and devoid of personality compared to the edited speech.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In my opinion, the speech Clinton personalized and delivered to the crowd was more rhetorically effective. After reading the two speeches, and then watching the YouTube video, I was able to get a clear understanding of the point Clinton was trying to make: it is a must that President Obama gets re-elected.
    Within the two speeches, while reading the third version, I noticed that many of the changes were simply of former President Clinton putting a more personable effect to it. Making it not seem so uptight and rehearsed, but approachable and accepting. Instead of using the words "people" he used "folks," and instead of saying "A man who's ..." he used "I want to nominate a man who's..." Making his speech relaxing, but clear and right on point. Although I did notice, his speeches were not completely altered to the point that he was giving other information, he just switched around the language and played with the words, giving his audience something to relate to. When saying, "He - President Obama - President Obama appointed several members of his Cabinet members who even though they supported Hillary in the primaryies. Heck, he even appointed Hillary. Wait a minute. I am - I am very proud of her. I'm so proud of her and grateful to our entire I am proud of the job she and the national security team have done for America. for all they've done I am grateful that they have worked together to make us safer and stronger and to build a world with more partners and fewer enemies" it gave the crowd a humorous approach also, that let them sink deeper into Clinton's speech.
    Lastly, his live speech, compared to his pre-written speech gave the audience a much more belittling tone and let them truly know his feelings against the Republicans, even though he made it clear he does not hate them. He just wanted to make it clear that if they want an "all in this together" country, then electing President Obama is the right thing to do, and I believe his personalized speech was very effective to his audience, and viewers from home.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The part of the speech that the ex-president delivered was better than the one written because he was able to change the parts that were awkward. He was also able to connect to the people in the crowd better with than the written speech. The speech also did not contain updated information such as the speech of Michelle Obama had not been given when this speech was written. The speech that had been written attacks the republicans but when Clinton spoke he didn't try to explain how the other party wanted to do and what the Democrats wanted to do and showed what would happen with each option.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Clinton did a very good job in engaging his audience. First he did found ways to say that he really is for the democrats without just saying I want Obama as our next president. He gave reasons to why Obama was a good candidate not why Romney is not a good candidate. Second, he often used “we” instead of saying “you” when addressing the democrats. He talked like a common American citizen not former president. I think the main reason of him doing this was that he wanted to reassure the public that he felt how they felt and he was with them, supporting what they supported. The overall style of his second speech worked very well because he included all this things that the public really cared about.

    ReplyDelete
  13. E. Murray
    While going through the speech that Former President Clinton made on September 5, I couldn’t help but notice his personalized speech was more rhetorically effective than the prewritten one. I couldn’t help but to understand his point of view, and understand his worries in the altered speech. He made a connection with his audience that day, and also with the audience at home. I couldn’t help but notice how much simpler version number two was. Clinton seemed to really want the aspect of simplicity, and also the aspect of friendliness. One part of his speech that stuck out to me personally was in beginning, when he brought republicans into the , that he was trying to persuade us on, he showed respect for them, and not a brutal hate. “Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our President” This part gave me a sense of respect for Clinton, for admitting to not hating republicans and showing respect for them. It made me see him as “the bigger person” compared to republicans. When Clinton sounded most personal in his speech was when he said “And so here's what I want to say to you,” He did not say “to America” or “to the public”, he was personal and friendly and made it seem like he wanted every person listening to him and reading his speech, to be able to feel important to him, and I like the approach he took with this. Another part of his speech where he took this more personal approach, was when he said “One of the main reasons America should we ought to re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to constructive cooperation.” He again could have said “America”, but instead said “we”. He was friendly. He made me personally feel like an important piece to President Obama’s puzzle, and that we all need to help President Obama to be able to achieve the goals he has for our country. Also another aspect I admire about the speech Clinton gave was his organization. Instead of indirectly skipping from one argument to another, he said things like “Now, That brings me to health care.” and “One of the main reasons we ought to re-elect President Obama is...” he was clear and precise, and was very easy to understand. It was not another boring political reading. It was simple, well thought out, and organized, in a way I was able to relate to. Looking at both versions of the speech, version number two was the more down to earth version was more relatable to me. It was more rhetorically effective as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The speech written by former president Clinton was very impressive as written and was brought to a whole new level with the spoken adaptations. These changes made Clinton a more down to earth and accessible character. These are great characteristics to be displaying as they reflect well on the party. Another thing about the edits that Clinton made was that the written words seemed more aggressive against the republicans while the speech made it smoother and more of a subliminal message. This allows the message to stick better with the audience. These things work together to provide a great and powerful speech that the Democratic party used to their advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Clinton's revised speech was more effective on the audience rhetorically because it was more inclusive and relatable than the pre-written speech. Clinton's tone was not as formal and serious as it would have been if he had read directly from the script. He used terms such as "y'all" and "folks". Talking like one of us makes him one of us. It is much easier to trust someone that you are familiar with, and who is not intimidating. Sometimes politicians can seem stuck up and dry. Clinton successfully became one one with the crowd which helped portray his image of constructive cooperation and togetherness. One of his main arguments was that the Democrats, and President Obama, believe in working alongside the Republicans and achieving a common goal. Since the current Republicans no longer support this idea, he says its not productive to elect them into office. Uniting the nation creates a stronger country that is much more effective than a few individuals. Clinton stresses the fact that Obama believes in this unity. He improvises a lot when he describes who Obama brought into positions of power. Old rivals and Democrats and Republicans alike are part of Obama's team because working together is more effective overall. Another thing I noticed was the repetition of who did what. Clinton made sure to emphasize that all of the achievements that have happened were because of President Obama, and the bad things were because of choices made by Republican figures. Looking at version 2, it's obvious that Clinton had total attention of the audience at the convention, and everyone responded to his ideas. His changes to the speech were beneficial in persuading the crowd to reelect Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bill Clinton’s improvised speech was much more effective than his prewritten one. This is mostly due to the fact that he found ways to include the audience. He added phrases that related to the specific occasion, such as “after last night” and “a few days ago.” This makes it seem like he’s really invested in the moment and not just methodically reading from a teleprompter. He also used words that weren’t as refined so that the audience could connect with him, such as “folks” and “doozy.” Instead of referring to Barack Obama as “President Obama,” Bill Clinton said “our president.” He was able to make everything seem more real and important by specifically including the audience as Americans. A lot of his revisions added emphasis either by repeating his point or by saying things like “actually” and “of course not.” Bill Clinton added a lot of back story for audience members who weren’t familiar with particular events, like the speeches given at the Republican National Convention or the economic problems he faced when he was president. This speech really helped Bill Clinton get his message across and make a lot of Americans really think about the upcoming presidential election.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kacie Q.

    After reviewing the differences between the two speeches, I believe that the one that Bill Clinton ultimately delivered was the strongest. First, he emphasizes President Obama's role in the successes of the country by saying (about jobs) "he created and saved..." rather than "were created and saved." He also continuously adds "folks" in his delivered speech. This decision made Clinton more relateable as person. It made him seem much less stiff and disconnected. In addition, Clinton also talks about Republicans, and how he doesn't hate them. Instead of saying that the Republican narrative "is" a certain way, he changed his speech to say that it "says" a certain thing. It gives listeners a hope for change, if they weren't happy with the Republicans. Clinton also changes his line about "all of us" to "every one of us." This puts more focus on personal responsibilty, rather than the responsibilty of an entire group. Clinton also adds "You see" every so often in the speech that he ended up delivering. This decision reels listeners back into what Clinton is saying, because he seems to be addressing them specifically by saying "you." When talking about a certain amount of time that passed, Clinton added the actual number of years in his speech. This stops people from mentally doing math in their heads, which might cause them to miss what he had to say next. In his delivered speech, Clinton also focuses a lot on common people's impact. He addresses them as "voters" instead of just "you." He also calls Obama "our President" even though he knows him personally. This makes Clinton seem less intimidating. By not calling President Obama "Obama," he closes the gap between the everyday person and himself. Clinton also changes his speech according to the reaction of the audience. When he brings up Hillary Clinton, many people in the audience cheered and laughed and he stated "wait a minute, I'm proud of her," in response. It made him seem as if he was actually holding a conversation, and makes people forget that his speech was one that was written out ahead of time. When talking about military men, Clinton also scratches out the adjective "young" about the men and women serving our country. This was an important decision because, by taking out the adjective, many more people, like war veterans, are included in his speech. Clinton also adresses Michigan and Ohio in his delivered speech. This makes his speech appeal to a wider audience, rather than just the people at the convention. Finally, Clinton mentions his own successes toward the end of his speech. This makes people trust him more, because they are reminded of everything he did as President. All in all, I think that the decisions Clinton made in his delivered speech was a huge improvement to what was originally written.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I thoroughly believe that Clinton's live delivery of the speech was much more convincing and rhetorically effective than his original draft. I felt that his version was more clear, and spoke more to the every-day person, rather than to other politicians. One of the first things I noticed that Bill Clinton had changed was his emphasis on what good things President Obama had already done for our country. In the very first paragraph of his speech, Clinton changes the sentence “Knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs were created and saved, there were still millions more waiting,” to “Knowing all the while that no matter how many jobs he saved or created, there were still millions more waiting.” Bill Clinton is clearly trying to point out that it was President Obama who was the cause of these job creations, and that they didn't just appear by themselves. He this again later on in his speech saying: “He inherited a deeply damaged economy, he put a floor under the crash, he began the long road to recover.” As can be seen by all the added (italicized) “he”s, Clinton is once again blatantly giving President Obama credit for the success of his presidency so far. Another place where Clinton diverged from the written speech is when he is talking about the Democratic views versus the Republican views. His original speech went like this, “We think 'we're all in this together' is a better philosophy than 'you're on your own.'” When actually speaking, though, Clinton said, “You see, we believe that 'we're all in this together' is a far better philosophy than 'you're on your own.'” I personally appreciate how he changed the word “we think” to “we believe.” The word “believe” sounds a but more promising, and a nit more true. Anyone can think that a certain way is better, but if you believe it, it's like your promising people that you will also live by it. Throughout his speech, Bill Clinton makes little changes like this to demonstrate that democrats aren't all talk, that they believe in what they are saying and promise to govern by it. The list of changes could go on and on, but there is one more that I'd like to point out. In the spoken version, Bill Clinton appeals to each listener as an individual in order to convince his audience. By changing words like “all of us,” to “everyone of us,” he makes the speech a bit more personal for the audience. He singles out each audience member with this technique, and makes them feel that not only is he campaigning to you, but now it is your responsibility to make the right decision. He also instill a certain sense of pride in the listeners, by making the feel that it is their America, and that if everyone works together, it will get better. At the end of his speech, Clinton adds: “People have predicted our demise ever since George Washington was criticized for being a mediocre surveyor with a bad set of wooden false teeth. And so far, every single person that's bet against America has lost money because we always come back. We come through every fire a little stronger and a little better.” This is a prime example of how Clinton makes the voter feel like they're fighting for “their America.” All in all, I think former president Clinton did an excellent job with his speech, and that his quick editing and addition only helped his argument.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Diana D.

    The revised version of Bill Clinton’s speech was more effective than the original speech would have been for multiple reasons. In the revised speech he used phrases such as “fellow Democrats” and “my fellow Americans” to allow the audience connect to him, to let them know that he was one of them. The repetition of certain phrases, “I want to nominate” and “I want a man who-” for example, was used to catch the audience’s attention. The language in the revised speech was much more natural sounding than the language of the original. It was not overly formal yet it was not overly casual, a perfect blend of the two that created a more personal tone throughout the entire speech. Comparing the recent achievements of the two parties and the two candidates was used as a tactic to persuade the audience that Obama was indeed improving the nation. His description of his positive experiences with the Republican Party and how “impossible it was” to hate the party because of President Eisenhower was used to prevent himself from being seen as completely biased. Regarding this, his added use of past tense alludes to the fact this former glory of the Republican Party is no longer present with Romney representing the party. He even had a strategy for those who did not care much for Obama; he the highlighted Romney’s faults to create the notion that Romney was the worse of the two candidates. Overall, the speech given at the DNC was more personal and was something the audience could easily relate to, yet powerful all the same.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I believe that the speech that Clinton actually delivered is more rhetorically effective. I believe this because in the delivered speech Clinton was able to be connected with his audience, saying things like we or I in place of are or a. by doing this he makes the speech much more engaging and personal, almost comforting at times. Although the written speech may be more direct and easily get the point across the improved speech makes a more lasting impression and in politics that’s the key piece in winning an election (or in this case nomination). In some sections Clinton changed the wording of the written speech to aim more towards Barack Obama and make the speech as a whole less general. An example of this would be when it was written “no matter how many jobs were created or saved” the “were” was transformed into a “he” instantly putting a face to what he was saying and who he was talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Former president Bill Clinton's speech for the democratic convention was awe-inspiring. Actually reading his revised version was so impressive, it was hard to tell that it was the same speech just by the sudden tone change that he created by switching a few words. Rhetorically and without even analyzing the speech, Clinton's revised version is no doubt more effective. The more homey town Clinton uses, and the less thought-filled word choices make the speech sound like it just came off of the top of his head; making the listener or reader more apt to really listen and believe in what he is saying. In the previous versions of the speech he sounded so formal that it was almost overbearing , but in revising his tone he was able to sound even more clever, relatable even. It was really simple things that he altered in the speech delivered, but it made all the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The adlibbed version is a lot better, and I didn’t have to fall asleep like in the written one (it’s past 12). The tone (?) is colloquial and is more like a chat than a speech, which is the customary format for something televised. In contrast, the prepared speech offers no humor or digression of the least, and would’ve of lost a lot of viewers if not for Clinton’s quick improvisation skills. His way was stylish where the original was formal to the point of lacking and amusing where the other was lifeless.
    He speaks to you as the audience and emphasizes this point by adding ‘we, us, you’ in every sentence. He cleverly guides the audience by instructing them where his key points are e.g-“this is important.” “Listen to this.” When he’s on a roll he fills in for us by asking himself rhetorical (lol) questions as if that was the question we all had in mind. His theme is ‘we’re in this together,’ which actually he repeats several times. I noticed he uses a lot of transition phrases like “There’s a reason for this.” Or “Now, look.” And I suppose that’s to capture the attention of the people.
    The moral of the story is-to be a good speaker, you can’t just follow the lines on a paper; you have to go off on random tangents. Call it comic relief for those of us with short attention spans.
    He’s pretty entertaining, now that I think of it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bill Clinton appears much more approachable and reasonable when reading his improvised speech and listening to him talk than when reading the original transcript of what Clinton had planned to say. His prepared speech is very monotone and robotic; without Bill Clinton speaking it the words would not have any meaning. It would be dull, and it would seem too fake and too planned. His speech was merely a draft to him, words to remind him of what to say next; words that do not have any meaning to the reader until the real draft, when Clinton has actually thought about the words, bringing them meaning. When Clinton added in his own parts, he seemed like an average, ordinary person. It is easier to listen to and to agree to someone who is talking to you with his pure opinion, not someone reading a pre-written essay. And yes, other people and politicians sound believable and understandable when reading their speeches, because they know to add in emphasis. Clinton knows how to do more than just that. He adds and drops words and sentences while he is speaking, making you really want to follow what he is saying. When Clinton changes his words, it shows that he really knows what he is talking about, and really means it, like when he adds in information; “Just in the last couple of elections, they [the Republican party] defeated two distinguished Republican senators because they dared to cooperate with Democrats on issues important to the future of the country, even national security.” Clinton knows what he is talking about; he knows every angle, every event. It also means that Clinton really means what he says, and really wants to convey his meaning in the best way possible. Anybody can read what is written on a piece of paper, but Clinton says his true opinions without any cue cards. That is what true passion for a subject looks like.
    Clinton’s pauses create more meaning to the words; “working together”, pause; “to train people” emphasizes the importance of cooperation in today’s economy. Clinton brings up the point of cooperation several times in his essay, and you definitely get the point if you are reading his first draft, but when you read his final, meaningful draft you not only get the point, but you rally behind him. He is not just telling you about cooperation, he is convincing you to agree with his emotions. Clinton also emphasizes certain words, which gathers even more enthusiasm from the crowd, who is waiting in anticipation to hear what Bill Clinton wants to say so ferociously. “This. Will change. The future. For young. Americans.” That is a pure rally cry; emphasis and pauses like that gather crowd support and demonstrates how much this subject means to you. You can feel Clinton’s excitement towards the election and disbelief at the Republicans. That is the best way to convince someone-to show them the strength of your feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  24. N.B.
    Clinton’s add-ins are also primarily better versions of the grammar of the original speech; “And, by the way, after last night…” statements like that connect different subjects together, and help to continue to keep the audience following what Clinton is saying, as well as keep Clinton relatable and make it seem as if he is talking to his friend. Clinton also uses phrases such as “I want” (“I want to nominate this man…” etc.) to connect the speech to himself, and to connect himself to the public. Now he is not just convincing us to side with the Democrats, he is asking. He is letting you see his emotions. “Who burns for America on the inside…” (Referring to Obama’s support of the American Dream economy) This is an emotional statement that Clinton must mean it. You cannot just change wording like that (original: “burning for America on the inside.”) The meaning changes so much when you change a verb like that. The live version seems so much more personal, using “burning” is very abrupt. Clinton wants to be personal with the crowd; make it the least bit uncomfortable and boring. However the original speech it is a bit boring, and reading it is as confusing and not very comfortable. The original does not yet have enthusiasm.
    You might be able to fake enthusiasm, but you will never be able to fake improvisation. People will trust the one who seems real and relatable.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I feel that the speech that was most rhetorically effective, all things considered, was the speech that President Clinton delivered, though there were good and bad things about both speeches. The thing that I liked best about Clinton’s delivered speech as opposed to his written speech was that some of the words weren’t as “official” sounding. Replacing “people” with “folks” and saying things like “doozy” makes Clinton sound more relatable, more guy-next-door like. That would, personally, make what he has to say more important to me, and I would probably vote for President Obama, because Bill Clinton is making his party seem more down to Earth and relatable than the opposing party. I also like how he makes things that are important to him stand out more then the speech allows him. The speech writers don’t necessarily know what is extremely important to Clinton, so he makes it known to the public by saying things like “listen to me, this is important”. And, go figure, it actually makes the audience listen. It also gives the audience a sense of what is meaningful and what isn’t to the politician, making him seem more human. Things that I didn’t like were few, but they are worth pointing out. First of all, he addresses the audience as “My fellow Democrats”. I feel that he should have said “My fellow Americans”, as he is trying to appeal to the Republicans to, to help persuade them to change their vote. If they were planning on having an open mind and listening to Clinton, they may have been turned off by the fact that they weren’t acknowledged. Also, at times he seemed to downplay Obama in some parts. He says “the president” when it is written, “President Obama”, and that may some how make the speech less about Obama and more about the general title of the President. All in all, though, I feel that the way Clinton’s speech is more relatable and human in the way he speaks then he would have been if he were to say the word for word speech that he was given.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Former president, Bill Clinton delivered a riveting speech at this year’s democratic convention, but the speech he delivered is very different from the one he wrote (or had written for him). Personally I believe the speech he gave live was more powerful, rhetorically, in persuading his audience. First of all I believe if he were to have delivered the speech exactly the way it had been written he would have came of as fake or emotionless to the audience losing their trust. Gaining the audience’s trust (Democrats at the convention, as well as TV audience) is very important in getting his point across (which is to vote for Obama). He gains the audience’s trust by adding his own words into his speech making him seem more believable and relatable, therefore gaining people’s trust. Clinton added words like “y’all”, “folks” and “snappy” in order to relate to the general public’s vocabulary more. He also adds his own little sides notes to his speech like the one about George Washington’s wooden teeth to relate even more to the audience, once again gaining there trust. Also in his live speech when Clinton is supposed to say “You should vote for Barrack Obama” he changes the word “should” with “have to” or “must.” I know changing one word of a speech doesn’t seem like a big deal but in this case it really is. His tone changes from being suggestive and relaxed to being more serious or important as well as demanding. I think by doing this his point of voting for Obama comes across more effectively because he makes it seem more important to the American public. If he had used the word “should” then people would have felt least inclined to get up and vote for Obama over using the word “must.” The speech Bill Clinton delivered at this years Democratic Convention was better, rhetorically, in getting his point across to the American audience compared to his written version.

    ReplyDelete