I'm not sure what to say about Obama's State of the Union Address. It was very reasonable. It was funny in places. He supplied nothing for the Republicans to exploit. Someone on CNN's panel described it as 'feisty'. Goldy Hawn is feisty, not Barack Obama. As always, Jon Stewart described it best: a sort of unspoken "fuck you" to everyone but the American People. That's the Democrats, the Republicans, the Media, the Supreme Court, himself for not doing as much as he wanted. His criticisms were clearly expressed. They weren't partisan. He pointed out that no one there, Republican or Democrat, had been elected to politic for the next election. They were there to solve problems, and should got on with the business of doing so. It was a very good-tempered speech.

My choice of sound bite from the speech: "At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door."

        He also pointed out that the Republican solution - tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for the financial services, was what got the US into the mess in the first place. If it didn't work then, why should it work now?

        He focused on jobs rather than wars, security, the environment or health service reform. This probably disappointed Progressives. (Apparently, Liberal is still a non-word to the American left of center.) Something he did do was tie education, health and the environment to job creation. That, I think, was very clever.

        The NY Times reported an 80% approval rating for the speech compared to 62% who had expected to approve of the speech. I think The NY Times plays fair with polls - they don't try to skew the questions or respondents to get a preferred outcome. (Statistics don't lie; statisticians do.) It wasn't a blood and thunder speech, an eloquent call to the faithful. He was more like a headmaster, calling down a class of unruly teenagers for driving out the temporary supply teacher.

        Something Obama is very good at is framing the discourse: simple, understandable statements that can appeal to a large part of the population. An example is his comparison of the state of the union when Bush became president and how Bush left the country. I think a major part of this speech is simply a declaration that he's going to establish the terms of the debate. If he does that, I think he's got a good chance of accomplishing what his election manifesto promised..