No, but I've been listening to the Democrats talk about it for the past few days.
They were very impressed and crowed about how smart he is, what a good speaker he is, how he has command over all the minutae of policy from health care to trade tariffs.....and how when they look at Bush they feel like crying about the moron who's in the Oval Office now.
I have to admit, I dont like listening to Bush speak. His speech is stilted and doesn't flow well. He mispronounces words in an annoying way. He doesn't have a quick keen mind like Clinton's, and it really shows when there isn't a teleprompter in front of him. You can't deny that. But I dont approve or disapprove of presidents solely on their oratory and rhetoric.
I judge presidents on what they get done. And for all Clinton's charisma and brilliance, his entire presidency was in service to short-term political points for him and his party. Not to the nation, its interests, its security. What was Clinton's vision for America? It was all this hazy BS about a bridge to the 21st century. What was his foreign policy to assure the US's status in the world? Who knows, because Clinton just reacted clumsily to whatever came across his desk.
I mean, sit back and ask yourself, WTF did Clinton actually accomplish in his 8 years as president? His biggest score was welfare reform (which he co-opted from the GOP to the horror of liberals).
He waged a pointless war on Serbia, in a country where we had no national interest, to stop a genocide that wasn't happening. Meanwhile, he totally ignored a REAL genocide in Rwanda in 1994. No national interest there, but stopping genocides is generally a nice thing to do.
His work on the Oslo agreements was a complete waste of time.
He never went after the terrorists in any serious manner. He pardoned some Puerto Rican terrorists, because he thought it would help Hillary get elected in NY.
In short, Clinton's very very good at talking. No one can doubt that.