Skip to main content

About last night....

... and trying to digest President Obama's un-SOTU address to Congress.

Here are my initial reactions, for what it's worth:

1) The speech as performance: I honestly did not think it was among his best. Obama impressed me tremendously on the campaign trail, but this one left me a bit flat emotionally. I think that's because as President he felt obligated to touch some bases that he doesn't feel particularly passionate about. I know he was trying for FDR or even Reagan, but it just didn't seem to connect as well as he usually does....

At that, it was better than any speech but one (right after 9/11) that Dubya gave in eight years, and better than a lot of Bubba's early efforts.

2) The issues within the speech: not surprisingly, little focus on foreign affairs, but I didn't really expect one. The real question is whether the three themes of education, health care, and energy will actually be the touchstones of his administration or disappear like Whip Inflation Now. I'm not thinking in terms of the particulars of any plan Obama might have (I'll probably disagree with him on many if not most of the details), but on the larger general perception of whether he is reacting to events or imposing his will on them. That's in large measure why FDR and Reagan were perceived as successful, when LBJ--despite all of his genuine accomplishment--wasn't. Obama's first big act was to respond to an economic crisis forced on him by circumstances; most of his foreign policy choices over the next year are likely to be reactive rather than pro-active. I think the intent of this speech was to lay out his agenda as opposed to his reactions to situations.

His three signature issues are traditional political issues; the question here will be what he proposes that is new, and the extent to which he can control the narrative (God, I hate writing that) on each of those issues for the next year. Clinton essentially handed the GOP the Congress in 1994 by losing the narrative on health care; that's the political challenge for Obama.

Of the three, I thought his rhetoric on health care was weakest in terms of emotional connection, that his words on education were effective but not necessarily memorable, and that his performance on energy was the best of the lot. But in all of that I don't think--though I may certainly be proven wrong--I heard a really effective battle cry. The line about dropping out being contextualized as giving up on your country was a pretty good sound bite, but I have to wonder seriously if drop-outs give a rat's butt about giving up on their country. I think it was pitched to the wrong audience.

All that being said, as a politician I give the President full points on two issues: he wasn't the first African-American President in front of Congress last night. He was just the President. And that's to the good.

Second point; he obviously understands the need for people to see him out front, in charge, and talking about the issues. He's so far evidenced a politician's innate understanding of the bully pulpit.

Here's the question that bedeviled Bubba for eight years, however: Will he know when it's time to shut up?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...