Reagan: It's been said earlier; he had an avunular/paternal quality when he spoke, along the lines of FDR, as if he were imparting a fable or even a bedtime story.
Clinton: His strength was in seeming like a good buddy of each and every person in his audience(s). A good 'ol boy you'd be happy to have a beer (or two) with.
A 'pick 'em'.

Either one is a fun impression with the right comedian.

Both were folksy, although Reagan was more of a storyteller type of an orator. He relied on traditional techniques to get his message out. Both he and FDR used oratory in similar ways. Clinton was more down home. He was a good speaker, but different than Reagan.

Reagan though was far more polished in his presentation, he wins this matchup.

Hard to say which accomplished liar was better at it.

Both sweet talked the nation whilst accelerating her rapid decline.

Ronald Reagan versus Bill Clinton as orators? Too close to call. Reagan was the master of the media, and often used his grandfatherly-like image and soothing voice (honed by his years as an actor and sports broadcaster) to deliver his speeches to audiences. Good-natured, thoughtful and rarely prone to bouts of anger or frustration (never one to hold a grudge with others, despite political and personal differences), Reagan appealed to middle America and most Americans.

Bill Clinton was actually very similar to Ronald Reagan, but used more his vast intellectuality to convey his message to audiences. At the end, however, Clinton, like Reagan, was both a master showman and a master manipulator (like any good politician). And Clinton, very much like Reagan, could calm a grief-stricken nation with his words and genuine grief for national tragedies (Oklahoma City domestic terrorist bombing and the Challenger disaster, respectively) or make his audiences laugh with self-deprecating humor- rendering himself human to people.

However, if I had to decide between the two, I would give the nod to Reagan as Clinton himself has admitted many times that he has tried to pattern himself in being the orator that Reagan was. In any case, both are masters of the speech.

Reagan was at his best in the formal setting, a classical orator who excelled on the stage. His best moments were the grand keynote addresses appealing to reason and noble notions like patriotism.

Clinton was probably his polar opposite, an orator of the modern electronic age, intimate and at his best in the interview setting, or answering questions. His appeals were very personal, he'd look you in the eye and make contact, relating to you as an individual not as the President of the United States.

Interestingly, I'd say that the current President leans more to the Reagan podium style than the Clinton one-on-one style.

I think the case for Ronald Reagan as one of the all-time great orators is self-explanatory. A bit more tricky with Clinton, in that one has to remember that, as his impeachment progressed and criticism of him mounted, his approval ratings actually went up.
To varying degrees, both men were masters of the bully pulpit. When they could not win their political enemies over, they were masters of verbal manipulation.