Obama's Speech Raises Hopes -- and Doubts

(Jan. 28) -- President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address is getting generally favorable reviews from all but his most partisan critics. His performance moved some commentators more than others, but many who've weighed in online wonder whether Obama's words will lead to any real changes.

"It was better and tougher than I expected," said Salon's Joan Walsh. "Obama showed more spine and fire than he has of late, mainly using humor to turn the GOP's dourness back on itself. It was a strong address, but it will take more than words for Obama to get his agenda back on track."

Health care reform, which had been the centerpiece of the president's agenda, took a back seat Wednesday night. Although Obama pledged not to give up on health care, he declared jobs his "No. 1 focus in 2010."


The speech struck Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein as "effort to set the narrative on Obama's first year, not respond to it."

"And it's hard to imagine voters buying Obama's narrative of progress and achievement unless they see, well, some progress and some achievements," he said. "Success here will be measured not in reactions to the speech, but in the outcome of the effort." For Klein, that means passing a health care reform bill.

Slate's John Dickerson thought the speech "had a feel of a relaunch" -- with Obama reviving themes from the presidential campaign.

"The question is whether, a year after Obama was elected on that message of hope, people still believe he can do anything about Washington gridlock and partisanship. At some point his inability to bring about results will make people less hopeful," warned Dickerson.

A strategist who has worked for many Republican candidates also heard echoes from the campaign trail in Wednesday's address. But Mark McKinnon was hoping Obama would acknowledge that the world he faces now is "vastly different than the world he saw as a candidate." In his Daily Beast column, McKinnon praised the president for embracing "some conservative ideas like a spending freeze, a commission on deficit reduction" -- but concluded that the speech was "not a game-changer" because Obama's agenda is much the same as it was a year ago.

Critics faulted Obama for talking again about the problems he inherited from his predecessor. "On at least three occasions, Obama referenced the previous administration to explain the problems left to him and the country," which drew "some catcalls" from Republican lawmakers, noted The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza.

At one point, John McCain could be seen mouthing the words "blame it on Bush" and laughing with fellow Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.

But it was another lip-reading moment that created the most buzz around the blogosphere. With the justices sitting right in front of him, the president criticized last week's Supreme Court decision that allows unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns. When Obama charged that the ruling "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests," Justice Samuel Alito shook his head and appeared to say "not true." (More on that below.) It wasn't exactly a "You Lie!" moment -- although RedState's Erick Erickson did accuse Obama of lying about keeping lobbyists out of policy decisions.

The emotional high point came at the end of the lengthy speech. Several bloggers pointed out how quiet and attentive the audience became as Obama spoke about Americans' strength and resilience in the face of adversity.

"We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit."

"That was an awesome finish to a speech that started strong, stayed strong, went flat a bit, and then recovered," said The Reaction's Michael J.W. Stickings.

But what wowed a liberal blogger disgusted a conservative.

"It was more like a lecture that combined a chest-beating tone that he is doing the tough work of saving the nation and he expects Congress and the nation to follow him. And it was all made awkward for his audience by his repeated insistence that he does not quit," Dan Perrin said on RedState. The real message in the president's vow not to "walk away" from tough problems such as health care reform, as Perrin sees it, is that Obama is not listening to Americans and will do whatever he wants.

Most pundits weren't as harsh as Perrin in their reviews.

"The substance of the speech wasn't spectacular. The new proposals were modest," observed Time's Joe Klein. But he also called it "a terrific performance ... easily digestible, user-friendly ... but it was also a fighting speech." The "I won't quit" finale was "Obama at his best," said Klein.

The Daily Beast's Christopher Buckley agreed: "Even discounting the perhaps 40 percent of the speech that consisted of the usual bromides and platitudes, even the most hardened skeptic must admit - the son of gun gives one hell of a speech."

Here's a breakdown of reactions from around the Web to the major topics President Obama addressed in his State of the Union speech.

"Jobs, Jobs, Jobs"
-Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo

This was Obama's chance to show Americans -- and Democrats -- that he "gets it." With the unemployment rate over 10 percent and some Democrats squirming in their seats, the president had to explain how he would help create jobs.

And talk about jobs he did. "It begins with our economy," the president said just minutes into the speech, to great applause from both parties. He then went on to demand a "jobs bill" and propose that money repaid to the government from big banks who received bailouts go to helping small businesses. John McCormack of the conservative Weekly Standard counted 51 uses of "jobs" or "tax cuts" in Obama's address. But how successful was he? On jobs, pundits seemed to give Obama an "A for effort," but they were far more cynical about the president's ability to get it done.

Stephen Spruiell , The National Review Online: "A new jobs bill? What happened to the spending freeze? Global warming?"

Gov. Bob McConnell (R-VA), in the Republican response: "1 in 10 American workers is unemployed. That is unacceptable."

Megan McArdle, The Atlantic: "The jobs bill is coming! What the jobs bill might actually look like, however, is depressingly vague. Obama wants a jobs bill on his desk without delay . . . but what will be in it? We can't all develop lucrative new businesses designing windmills or insulating homes. All presidents keep these things to broad outlines, of course, but Obama seems to be delegating any actual details to Congress. That didn't turn out to be a winning strategy with the health care bill, and I'm not sure it will with jobs, either."

Alex Koppelman, Salon: One interesting little tidbit, part of the theater that are the standing ovations during this speech -- when Obama called upon the Senate to pass the jobs bill already approved by the House, he got a big round of applause from the Democratic side of the aisle. A good bit of that seemed to be directed by House Democrats at their Senate counterparts. There's been more than a little tension between the two groups of late over the difficulty of passing bills through the upper chamber."

Mike Tomasky, The Guardian: "He had to speak in real specifics about the economy. He did that reasonably well. He laid out a jobs program with some specificity."

"For Liberals, Obama Saved the Best for Last"
-Eleanor Clift, Newsweek

The verdict is in: President Obama does not want to leave his health care reform for dead, and he doesn't think Congress should either. "I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber," he said. Unlike job creation, though, the president's stalled health care overhaul is a fiercely partisan issue, and so Obama worked hard in his speech to tie reform to the economy. "It is precisely to reduce the burden on middle class families that we still need health insurance reform," Obama said.

Predictably, reaction broke down along ideological lines as Obama vowed to keep pushing his increasingly unpopular health care initiative. But the president's renewed commitment to action on health care was met with a strikingly muted reaction by some on the left. They seemed unconvinced Wednesday night that Obama has the grit to fight for the extensive reforms many liberals want.

Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic (via Twitter): "LIke that he started #healthreform #hcr discussion by reminding people of human costs of status quo, why he pursued it."

Tom Schaller, FiveThirtyEight: "I still think he has not properly explained [why] any healthcare reform needs to happen simultaneously, no less before, doing jobs and stimulus."

Steve Chapman, RealClearPolitics: "It's the economy, stupid."

Peter Suderman, Reason Magazine: "His section on health care, which drew one of the night's most sustained periods of applause, was hardly revolutionary: He reiterated his support for the same policies he's supported all along, but declined to demand that Congress follow through on them. That's probably reasonable, considering the chances, but it's unlikely to have much of an effect on the final outcome."

Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard: "He said his health care legislation would actually reduce the deficit. Please! Everyone knows this is the result of transparent accounting tricks and, in truth, ObamaCare would increase the deficit by hundreds of billions."

"Alito's 'You Lie!' Moment"
-Blake Hounshell, Foreign Policy

You could read his lips: Justice Samuel Alito was not happy with Obama on Wednesday night, when the president urged Congress to subvert last week's ruling by the Supreme Court that essentially gutted campaign finance reform. "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The president had publicly scolded the Supreme Court as though they were students in his constitutional law class. But before the pundits could weigh, Justice Alito beat them to it:


"Not true," Alito mouthed quite clearly in the middle of the speech, the displeasure on his face rather palpable. An intrepid few have suggested that the justice was actually objecting to a more technical aspect of the president's criticism. But just like that, Obama's call for continued campaign finance reform was entirely eclipsed by the supreme court justice. For the rest of the night, bloggers went to town parsing the clip of what some called Justice Alito's 'Joe Wilson' or 'You Lie!' moment.

Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times: "This was a populist night and the target was irresistible."

Kevin Mooney, The American Spectator: "Has a president ever attacked The U.S. Supreme Court like that in such an august setting?"

Jeffrey Rosen, The New Republic: It's a relief to see former Professor Obama having the nerve to stand up for judicial restraint and to criticize the conservative justices to their faces. If the justices don't take the criticism to heart, they're headed toward a full-blown confrontation with the White House and Congress that won't end well for the Court."

Don't Ask, Don't Tell
On the left, some of the most bitter disappointment with Obama is on gay rights. Americans eager to see Obama follow through with his promise to end the military's current, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy have become increasingly frustrated with the president. "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," he said. Last night, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to ending DADT, which many argue is discriminatory against gays. Here was the reaction from some bloggers, some of whom, like The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, have fought to see DADT repealed for years:

Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic: "he has committed only to working with Congress and the military to end the ban this year. If he achieves it, I will stand up and cheer. But I have experienced enough crushing disappointments to believe it will actually happen."

Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic: "Most remarkable: Secretary of Defense Bob Gates applauded Obama's words. And Americans saw him applauding, thanks to the director's cut-aways. Which means that, for the most part, the military is on notice: the policy is ending, and ending very soon."

Allahpundit, Hot Air: "If they don't repeal this soon, they may not have the votes to try again for a long time."

Andy Towle, Towleroad: "Obama has called for a repeal time and time again. What is needed is action, not more rhetoric."

Education
"No one should go broke because they chose to go to college," Obama said Wednesday night. The president's proposed spending freeze didn't seem to dampen his enthusiasm for supporting education reforms. In his speech Wednesday, it was no surprise that he touted his Race to the Top program, which allows schools to compete for more federal funding and encourages the growth of charter schools. But he also vowed to increase Pell grants, and create a government program that would forgive college loans after 10 years for graduates who choose to work in public service.

Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic: "His education record has been seriously underrated so far. It's a strength and again, it's good to see him focus on it."

Gov. Bob McDonnell, in the Republican response: "All Americans agree, that a young person needs a world-class education to compete in the global economy. As a kid my dad told me, "Son, to get a good job, you need a good education." That's even more true today."

Dan Lips, The Heritage Foundation: "the President is choosing the wrong responses, following failed paths that will put our country deeper in debt, expand dependence on government, and increase burdens on taxpayers -- all while rejecting some of the most promising reforms."

Thers, Firedoglake: "The student loan proposal really would be a radical improvement over the current [horrible] state of affairs as far as paying for higher education goes."

Defending the Freeze
On Tuesday, the news leaked that Obama would be using the State of the Union to propose a contentious idea to help curb the massive $1.35 trillion federal budget deficit: freezing all discretionary spending by the government for 3 years, with the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Members of Obama's own party and political affiliation were utterly appalled by the suggestion, arguing that such a move would stall the nation's climb out of economic recession. Obama attempted to counter these claims in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, saying:

"I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger. But understand -- if we do not take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery ..."

Pundits were by and large unswayed by his defense, however:

David Harsanyi, Townhall: "Not to worry, true believers, Barack Obama only sounds as if he's making sense. The proposed three-year freeze sham accounts for less than a measly one-sixth of the federal budget, and the deficit panel already has been voted down in the Senate ..."

Howard Fineman, Newsweek: "His proposed spending freeze is more flashy than fiscally powerful -- it would exempt much more than it would include -- but Obama ventured boldly onto GOP turf by promising to tackle the debt head on, and by reminding voters that it was W who started the avalanche."

Fred Kaplan, Slate: "$382 billion [in Defense spending] has nothing directly to do with the wars we're fighting right now. That doesn't mean it's unnecessary or unjustified; maybe some of it is, maybe some of it isn't. But it's not the stuff of life and death, like the other parts of the budget -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- that Obama wants to exclude from the freeze. It should be subject to the same discipline -- the same line-by-line, page-by-page analysis -- as the rest of the budget."

Michael Gerson, Washington Post: "The president's trial balloon of a limited, discretionary spending freeze has quickly deflated. Conservatives dismiss it as pathetic symbolism. Liberals attack it as Hooverism. And the policy conflicts with Obama's campaign criticism of spending freezes. It is a policy disaster."

Wall St. vs Main St.
In the wake of the global financial collapse, it was inevitable that Wall Street and its "Too Big to Fail" banks would become a target of massive populist resentment by the American people. But the Obama administration itself ended up taking flak after following through on his predecessor's plans and bailing out the offending institutions with some $700 billion in taxpayer money.

Yet the bad P.R. didn't stop there: firms that received the TARP funds dolled some of it out in bonuses to their employees and spent another part on pricey vacations. Obama's own chief economic operators -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke -- have since been accused of complacency, incompetence and, in the case of the former, a deliberate conflict of interest. So going into the State of the Union, Obama had a lot of explaining to do to the American people regarding comprehensive financial reform, which made some of his initial remarks all the more shocking to commentators.

"Look," Obama said, speaking about the House financial reform bill, "I am not interested in punishing banks, I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs."

Doug Henwood, Institute for Public Accuracy: "I'm not interested in punishing banks." Why not? How can you prevent a rerun without punishing these maniacs?

Jennifer Rubin, Commentary: Obama says he's not giving up his big dreams. Again, was he notpresident this year? He wants to get "serious" about our problems. Hesays he's not interested in punishing banks. Wait. Didn't he say he wasgoing to sock them with a big tax? Oh, well. Yes. So he's railingagainst the "lobbyists" ( like those sitting with Nancy Pelosi?) to getfinancial reform "right."

Later in the speech, Obama introduced the notion of new tax-relief for middle-income households, prompting an unflattering comparison to his Democratic predecessor:

Arianna Huffington, The Huffington Post: The president's Pander-palooza continued with the middle class-friendly initiatives he announced on Monday and touched on again during the SOTFG (State of the Focus Group). As I wrote earlier this week, these modest tax credits and subsidies "are all very good ideas, but hardly commensurate with the deep crisis America's middle class is in..."

They are also incredibly similar to the "middle class bill of rights" Bill Clinton rolled out in the wake of the mid-term shellacking Democrats took in 1994. Obama has apparently decided that he'll cut to the chase and preemptively follow Clinton's third-way strategies.

Chuck Donovan, The Heritage Foundation: President Obama's State of the Union proposals tonight to expand the Child and Dependent Care Credit by increasing its size for middle-income Americans goes about tax relief for a limited number of U.S. families in a thoroughly unacceptable way. The credit discriminates among families with comparable incomes and work effort – simply on the basis of their decision to use or not to use paid day care providers. President Obama's proposal is similar to one advanced in 1998 by President Clinton, and similar criticisms apply.

Energy and Environment
Among the most surprising of Obama's plans outlined in the address were those relating to energy and the environment. The President reiterated his support for the House climate-change bill passed last year. But in making the case for the bill in the Senate, he maintained that even those who "disagreed with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change," should support investment in renewable fuels. This turned out to be even more perplexing when later in the speech, Obama seemed to be advocating an "all-above approach" to the energy problem, naming offshore drilling and the construction of new nuclear power plants as viable alternative sources of fuel. The blogosphere took special interest in Obama's change of heart:

Christopher Buckley, The Daily Beast: My personal takeaway was his endorsement of nuclear power. So many of our problems -- specifically, our 70 percent importation of oil from horrid desert regimes -- could be eliminated if we embraced the atom. I can hardly wait to hear Senator Harry Reid's reaction, coming as he does from a state that adamantly refuses to store nuclear waste, lest it cause gamblers in Las Vegas to glow in the dark.

Katie Fehrenbacher, Earth2Tech: Obama specifically gave a nod to building a new generation of nuclear power plants, "making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development," (that will no doubt get boos from environmentalists), and more investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. Some will see the mentions of nuclear and offshore oil as "Republican talking points," but I am heartened that Obama took the opportunity to back the energy bill, despite the recent disappointment in Copenhagen.

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online: This half-hearted pivoting was quite transparent: Obama made these about-faces without acknowledging that the Obama of 2010 is now and then rejecting the Obama of 2009, much less that the partisanship and bickering of the past year stemmed largely from the hubris of having both houses of Congress and an obsequious press ... Likewise, after ignoring or negating his campaign promises about coal, gas, and nuclear power in his first year, suddenly Obama announces that we're going to develop them!

Homeland Security
Arguably the worst incident for the White House during the past year occurred quite recently with the fortuitously failed bombing of Northwest Airlines 254 on Christmas. The intelligence community in particular was lambasted left and right for its inability to stop the bomb-rigged suspect from boarding the plane, and Obama was quickly put on the spot to explain what had happened, which he did to the satisfaction of few. Yet as of just over a week ago, a majority of Americans still said they trusted the president when it comes to keeping the country safe. How did Obama walk the national security tightrope during the speech? Clumsily, according to most pundits.

Marc Thiessen, The Washington Post: "The president's brief discussion of terrorism focused not on what he was doing to defend the country but was, rather, a vigorous defense of himself. His first words on the subject were a chastisement of those who would dare criticize his handling of terrorism, declaring that "all of us love this country" and warning his Republican critics to "put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough." It's all about him. No acknowledgment of how close we came to disaster or praise for the brave passengers who subdued the terrorist. No, only this message for his critics: If you question the wisdom of telling a captured terrorist "you have the right to remain silent," you are really questioning the president's patriotism and engaging in childish taunts."

Heather Hurlburt, Democracy Arsenal: "So, what's the core national security message here? Team Obama is not giving up on its national security agenda. A blend of toughness -- more Al Qaeda operatives captured or killed in 2009 than 2008 -- and engagement that he's betting he can make work and get Americans to support. And, remember, the poll numbers suggest that they do support him."

Foreign Policy
Political analysts expected Obama to devote much of his time of the State of the Union to domestic issues, and he did not disappoint. Although the President mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Haiti, he spoke only of each for a comparatively limited time, and without going into great detail about the state of international relations going forward. American forces, he noted, are scheduled to withdraw completely from Iraq by August this year. Meanwhile, the President maintained the hope to begin a pullback from Afghanistan in July 2011, where just last month he ordered an additional 30,000 troops to be deployed to quell the insurgency. Again, many pundits were unhappy that Obama had not spent more time addressing the hotbeds of American conflict around the world.

Nile Gardiner, The Telegraph: "the scant attention paid in the State of the Union speech to US leadership was pitiful and frankly rather pathetic. The war in Afghanistan, which will soon involve a hundred thousand American troops, merited barely a paragraph. There was no mention of victory over the enemy, just a reiteration of the president's pledge to begin a withdrawal in July 2011. Needless to say there was nothing in the speech about the importance of international alliances, and no recognition whatsoever of the sacrifices made by Great Britain and other NATO allies alongside the United States on the battlefields of Afghanistan. For Barack Obama the Special Relationship means nothing, and tonight's address further confirmed this."

However, one critical foreign policy goal Obama did stress was that of nuclear non-proliferation. He continues to favor working within the U.N. to handle rogue states thought to be pursuing nuclear weapons:

Diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons. That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions -- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.

Most commentators disagreed with his analysis and future plans, but at least one supporter emerged on the left:

Jennifer Rubin, Commentary: "Does he believe this? Does he thing that the international community is more united or that Iran has gotten another year under its belt? His 'face growing consequences' formulation could not, if he tried, be a lamer statement of our intentions to deprive the mullahs of nukes. I think we know how unserious he is on this topic. And the mullahs do too."

Juan Cole, Informed Comment: "Washington's tightening of sanctions may make it harder for Obama to engage the regime in serious negotiations, as he had earlier pledged to do. This speech is essentially a capitulation to Neoconservative themes on Iran, rather than retaining Obama's central plank of keeping negotiating lines open to Tehran."

Anne Bayefsky, National Review Online: The Corner: "According to President Obama, only by weakening America can we hope to convince our enemies to stand down. "

Kelsey Hartigan, Democracy Arsenal: "Aware of the growing threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, President Obama reminded Americans of the dangers nuclear weapons present. The response? A standing ovation ... from both sides of the aisle. I hope Senator Kyl had a chance to stretch ... "

Finally, Newly Elected Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell's Official GOP Response to the State of the Union proved to be the sleeper hit of the night according to commentators across the political spectrum. A few took it upon themselves to point out the theatricality of the event -- interpreting it as an amusing, endearingly ironic bit of overcompensation designed to erase memories of La. Gov. Bobby Jindal's tepid response last year. Most agreed it was the among the best 10-minute retorts that could be hoped for by an opposition speaker.

Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic: "The staging for McDonnell's speech is quite unusual. Distracting. Looks like an SNL mock up of a SOTU set."

Ana Marie Cox: "Bob McDonnell is giving the SOTU address from The King of Comedy."

Matthew Yglesias, Think Progress: "I think Bob McDonnell gave arguably the best SOTU response I've ever seen -- the choice to go with an audience is a big win. It still wasn't a good speech, per se, but it didn't suck. And that's a triumph."

Katie Connelly, Newsweek: "The biggest news out of the official Republican response to the State of the Union, ably delivered by newly-inaugurated Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, was that is was a marked improvement over last year's Kenneth the Page inspired number from Bobby Jindal."

Quin Hillyer, The American Spectator: The substance was solid, and the delivery was quite good. He seemed approachable, likeable, serious, upbeat, affable, thoughtful ... and, on substance, very much in tune with the general leanings of the majority of the American public. I entered tonight a moderate fan of McDonnell's. Now count me a solid fan, and very interested in watching him serve in office.

Walter Shapiro, Politics Daily: In recorded human history, no votes have ever been swayed by the loyal opposition's version of the State of the Union address. But lasting reputations have often been made by a politician's first big-time TV performance. Recall, if you will, a certain obscure Illinois Senate candidate giving the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention.