The best analyses of Obama's speech, morning after edition
Picks from a handful of analysis pieces on Obama's speech this morning. Writing for the Times, Peter Baker does a good job of overall framing. I think Slate's John Dickerson best distills the weakness of the speech in the conclusion of his "Obama 2.0" piece:
The State of the Union speech was intended, at least in part, to remind voters that the president is the same guy they elected 14 months ago. It's another similarity the speech shares with the iPad: They were seen as possibly reviving troubled enterprises (the publishing industry and the Obama brand). The president's speech was another of his good ones. But like the iPad and publishing, it's not clear how much the good packaging really will help the venture.
As usual, Jonathan Cohn (The New Republic) nails it on the Health Care angle:
He acknowledged, explicitly and with a sense of humor, his administration's failure to explain the plan--and noted that few people understand exactly what it would do. He also reminded people, in simple terms, of the reasons he took up the challenge. He talked about people suffering because they had no insurance or their insurance was inadequate--and he talked about the economic importance of controlling health care costs....On the other hand, Obama didn't offer a procedural roadmap. He didn't give a new deadline or indicate his preference for one bill or the other.
Also in The New Republic, Jonathan Chait points out how stylistically, the speech was intellectually compromised. A unique (and correct) assessment.
