THE STATE OF THE UNION SEGÚN DAN KENNEDY

Is this Obama's comeback?

Barack Obama's first state of the union speech divided the pundits but could play well with a hopeful American public

• Comments (…)
• Buzz up!
• Digg it

• 
• • Dan Kennedy
  • guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 January 2010 16.00 GMT
  • larger | smaller
  • Article history

There is a certain banality to any state of the union address. No matter how gifted an orator a particular president may be, there are cliches and aphorisms that must be indulged. Barack Obama last night didn't actually say "the state of the union is strong". Taken as a whole, though, Obama's speech felt like a long string of hoary chestnuts, tied together by a demeanour that combined relaxed self-confidence with a combativeness not seen since his election.

If we remember this state of the union at all, it will be not for what Obama said but for the way he said it. This cloud-style analysis shows the words that most frequently came tumbling out of the presidential mouth were "Americans" and "people" – not exactly Pericles, or Lincoln for that matter. And when Obama stooped to say, "I do not accept second place for the United States of America," writes the New Republic's Jonathan Chait, "I thought I was listening to Otter." Chait helpfully posts a video clip from Animal House of Tim Matheson defending the honor of Delta House with indignant patriotism of the sort that would do a tea-party rally proud.

The pundit class doesn't quite know what to make of last night's speech. As always, the partisan divide has a lot to do with that. This time, though, it runs deeper, as commentators wrestle with what exactly Obama was trying to accomplish. "He sounded determined, patient, forceful, good-humored, at times even mischievous. He looked relaxed and in control," says Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a liberal. Counters conservative Matthew Continetti in the Weekly Standard: "What a disappointing presidential address. What a bad omen for the Democrats in November."

If a snap poll conducted by CBS News is any indication, the speech played well with the public: 83% approved, just two points below the mark George Bush reached in his post-9/11 state of the union. That doesn't mean much. But it does mean a large majority of the public still hopes Obama will deliver on the promise of his historic election. Despite what you may hear on the Sunday-morning talk shows, few outside the extreme right see this as a failed presidency.

If Obama's rhetoric may prove forgettable, the visuals will linger. The witless Republicans stayed entirely in character, refusing to stand up and applaud for much of anything beyond the proposition that, you know, America is number one. Given that the "party of no" is likely to be a major theme for the Democrats heading into this year's congressional campaigns, it was curious that the Republicans would willingly provide them with so much material.

Salon's Joan Walsh writes that "throughout the speech, House Minority Leader John Boehner and his sidekick Eric Cantor sat together smirking like pissy little schoolboys, while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chuckled at the notion 'Just say no' might be bad for the country." Supreme court justice Samuel Alito's Joe Wilson moment may work to Obama's advantage, too. Free-speech merits aside (Harvey Silverglate explains those merits in the Boston Phoenix), Obama has nothing to lose politically in taking a stand against corporate election-buying.

Needless to say, conservatives are fuming over much of what Obama said and didn't say. "According to President Obama, only by weakening America can we hope to convince our enemies to stand down," writes Anne Bayefsky in National Review. (No doubt you were in the bathroom when Obama said that.) "In terms of tone, I thought Obama got it right for a while, but then drifted into the kind of borderline nastiness, rank hypocrisy, and excessive self-references that have started to grate on those who once viewed him as post-partisan," adds Paul Mirengoff in the Power Line blog.

Reaction among Obama's putative allies on the left is more interesting. In the Nation, John Nichols criticises Obama for being "tone-deaf" by continuing to reach out to the opposition. Nichols fumes that Obama's attempts at bipartisanship were "dashed at every turn in 2009 – either with outright rejection by the 'party of "no"' or, worse yet, via compromises that handed ultimate authority over policy-making to Republican senators."

But David Corn of Mother Jones takes a more sanguine view, saying that, appearances to the contrary, Obama was not offering an outstretched hand to the Republicans. Corn writes that "the speech seemed designed not to convince recalcitrant Republicans to provide Obama a Kumbaya-like do-over – White House strategists are not naive – but to prompt independent voters to reconsider the president."

Given the absurd media outburst of a week ago, you could be forgiven if you believed former president Obama was about to hand over the reins of power to the new president-elect, Scott Brown. In terms of re-establishing Obama's authority, the state of the union was timed perfectly. Obama was able to remind Americans that, however disappointing his presidency may have been thus far, he's still accomplished quite a bit, and that the country may well have plunged into an economic depression were it not for the actions he took. Obama remains the dominant figure on the political landscape. "The speech had a feel of a relaunch," writes Slate's John Dickerson. If Obama is somehow able to get past congressional deadlock and deliver, then last night may have been the start of his political comeback.