A Different Kind Of Speech
[Program Note: I haven't done one of these "snap reaction" columns in a while, so I thought I'd try again tonight. It's not exactly "live-blogging," more "just after-the-fact" blogging, I guess. In any case, I'm not going to be examining the transcript of the speech itself here, but rather my general impressions after watching it. I like to write these before reading what others had to say about the speech, so I'm not influenced by what others think. I did watch some of the network responses tonight, and the Paul Ryan "Day of Reckoning" response speech (shudder), but not the Michele Bachmann Tea Party response (double-shudder). I'll get to examining the speech itself in detail later in the week, I promise.]
I'd have to sum up my immediate reaction to tonight's State Of The Union speech with the old Monty Python line: ".... and now, for something completely different ..."
President Barack Obama gave his second official State Of The Union speech tonight (it's really his third, but only his second "official" SOTU speech). It was a very different speech not only from the previous two he has given, but also from other presidents' SOTU speeches as well. There were a few various reasons for this: the new seating arrangement, the somber atmosphere so soon after the Tucson tragedy, and the speech itself.
The mixed seating arrangement was likely the biggest factor. Enough Republicans and Democrats decided to sit with members of the opposite party -- all over the chamber -- that it simply was not visible on the television screen who was applauding and who wasn't. This deflated the "pep rally" or "circus" atmosphere which had become the norm for such presidential addresses. Instead of watching a see-saw of one party jumping up, then the other (as their agenda items were addressed), what was on display instead was a crowd applauding and occasionally giving a standing ovation. A non-descript crowd. A crowd not divided by partisanship. Some people sneered at this beforehand as nothing more than empty symbolism that wouldn't change anything, but they were proven wrong tonight. The atmosphere in the chamber was much, much different than in years past, and a lot of that change can be ascribed to the idea of both parties sitting together, instead of on either side of the central aisle.
Not all of this atmospheric change was due to the seating arrangement. Some of it was due to the empty chair in the room of Representative Giffords, who watched the speech from her hospital bed, with her husband by her side. Obama spent a good part of his speech's opening on the shooting tragedy, in a mini-reprise of his recent speech in Tucson. This set a somber tone for the beginning of the speech, and the tone lingered for a while (I heard one commentator tonight note that it was something like seventeen minutes into the speech before the first standing ovation happened). This was also an improvement from years past. I would wager that there were less total applause lines in the speech (yes, the mainstream media keeps stats of this sort) than in most others from the past thirty years or so. What the net result was, though, was that more attention was drawn to the actual words Obama was speaking, rather than the audience's reaction. Obama realized this early on, and hit a fast-moving pace he would keep up throughout much of the rest of the speech. When you aren't interrupted every ten seconds by applause, the speech is more coherent and it flows a lot better.
But the third reason the atmosphere was so different in the room was the content of the speech itself. Instead of applause lines crafted to engender an enthusiastic response from one half of the room or the other, most of the applause came on subjects on which both parties could agree. There were probably fewer purely partisan offerings in tonight's speech than in most SOTU addresses. And, just as likely, more things which both parties could applaud together. In other words, even if the seating arrangements had been the traditional left/right divide, Obama may have gotten the whole crowd on their feet more often than just one side of the aisle or the other. I was struck by this, which followed a quotable line from early on in the speech about how "we will move forward together or not at all."
Obama looked comfortable and confident throughout much of the speech. There were a few dull moments, a few boring parts where even my attention drifted off, but these exist in just about every SOTU, so that's really not saying much. The speech, designed as it was to appeal to both parties, didn't offer much in the way of hard, concrete specifics; but Obama has always shied away from the "laundry list" aspect of these big speeches, so even that wasn't all that unusual. The SOTU is always just the beginning of the White House trying to sell their budget ideas on Capitol Hill, and specifics are always added in the next few weeks, so I take a "wait and see" approach to what comes out of Obama's more vague suggestions tonight.
The underlying theme of Obama's speech tonight wasn't just "jobs, jobs, jobs" (as I expected) but rather a more sweeping challenge to look into America's future and make it brighter -- to "win the future" as he put it. The "Sputnik moment" wasn't as heavy-handed as I expected, but Obama did paint the picture of America's competition with places like India and China very effectively.
Obama did a pretty good job of interspersing all his talk of the bright future with a few pats on the back for things accomplished, as well. Without being openly partisan about it, he did a fairly good job of pointing out what Democrats managed to achieve in the past two years. The toughest of these was on healthcare reform, but I thought Obama struck exactly the right tone, especially with his lead-off joke ("I have heard rumors..."). Obama quite plainly made the case for not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and once again reached out to Republicans to come to him with ideas for improvement. He issued a backhanded veto threat by listing all the good things in the bill which are not negotiable for him, as well, without being overly confrontative about it.
But I'm getting into analyzing the speech itself a bit too much (again, I'll get to that in a later column). I'll just finish by saying Obama closed the speech well, hitting the oratory high points he was known for on the campaign trail.
About the worst thing that could be said about Obama's speech tonight was that it had a bit of the flavor of "trying to be everything to everyone" to it, or at the very least, "trying not to be objectionable to anyone." All SOTU speeches have some degree or another of this streak to them, but tonight it was a little more evident than other Obama speeches I've watched. But this is excusable, seeing as it could also be described as "reality-based." Obama has a Republican House to work with for the next two years, and he didn't want to start this period by antagonizing them overtly in such a setting.
My final take on the speech: long after the content of this speech is forgotten by most, what will be remembered was the changed nature of the speech and of the atmosphere in the chamber. The mixed seating will hopefully set a new State Of The Union tradition, and will "change the way Washington works" in the future, not just for Barack Obama but for his successors as well. Even if it doesn't -- in fact, more so if it doesn't -- this speech will be remembered for being the first speech to defuse the pep rally "applaud for the cameras" spectacle it had become. The absence of the "competitive clap-offs" changed the speech's tone, it changed the speech's setting, and it changed the speech's presentation to the American public. Not everyone will agree with me -- a lot of people like the duelling standing ovations -- but to me, at least, it was a welcome change which focused the attention where it should always have been in the first place -- on the president's actual words in his speech, and not on the audience listening to it.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
if the president was trying not to be objectionable to anyone, he didn't succeed, because i for one was seething. there was absolutely zero acknowledgment of any disagreement on Race to the Top, possibly the worst legislation of his administration.
The underlying theme of Obama's speech tonight wasn't just "jobs, jobs, jobs" (as I expected) but rather a more sweeping challenge to look into America's future and make it brighter -- to "win the future" as he put it.
Ironically enough, it's the GOP that owns the "rights" to the "Win The Future" meme..
Much to the Administration's chagrin, I am sure... :D
Michale.....
What's "reality-based" about saying the Republicans are suddenly going to sign on to a bunch of stuff they're implacably opposed to?
Chris, a good general run down of the speech.
You wrote" it had a bit of the flavor of "trying to be everything to everyone" to it, "
I agree with you but that just sent mixed messages which will come out in the details. As a conservative, my heart beat faster when he talked about American exceptionalism, reorganizing Gov, reducing spending but then he called for raising taxes, raising gasoline prices DRASTICALLY over the current $3 a gal and more spending and my whole body started twitching.
The speech itself was well delivered and had a good tone and pace with one exception. After the Tucson shooting thing I felt he went a bit professorial for a bit, like he was lecturing us and that was a turn off for me, but then he hit a stride and delivered well.
But by trying to be everything to everyone. when we sit down and go over the details it will be very contradictory.
Oh and the tie was definitely a mix of blue and red (purple) or the CSPAN camera was off lol!
{carrying over from the previous commentary}
What's the big deal about Boehner shedding a tear or two now and again?
I thought you liberals were all about sensitive guys that are not afraid to show their feelings???
Another difference between today's liberals and the liberals of yesteryear... :D
Michale......
Interesting FACT Check to Obama's speech..
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FACT-CHECK-Obama-and-his-apf-989878074.html?x=0&.v=2
Michale.....
Michale, I have no problem with him doing it. I just knew the media would zoom in on it to embarrass him.
There are times when my love of country, my sense of gratitude that I was born here, the feeling of overwhelming history and the sacrifices of so many that went before me, make me emotional about my country.
I remember the feeling I had on 8/28/2010, standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, looking out over the mall towards the Washington monument just as the sun was coming up, and as I write this I can still get choked up with the emotion of the feeling.
I can only imagine the sense of HONOR of being the Speaker of the House Of the United States of America and the feeling of the sacredness of the job. The feeling of your ancestors looking down on you, so proud of what you were able to accomplish with your life. The knowledge of your tremendous RESPONSIBILITY to so many and the hope that you can live up to their expectations and you can do what needs to be done for future generations.
How can anyone NOT get emotional in that position?
tinsldr2 and Michale -
You guys are missing the point. It's about POLITICIANS crying. I wrote about this previously (probably when Hillary Clinton won the NH primary in'08...). The press (and the public) has historically frowned on politicians crying. Even when they're not. Ed Muskie appeared when it was snowing, and the press decided he was crying... and his electoral chances tanked (it was kind of the "Dean Scream" of the day). Hillary didn't cry either, but the press decided she had, and everyone was astonished when the NH voters did something the polls didn't predict and backed her in the primary.
Here's an honest question for both of you: what, exactly, would you have said two years ago if Nancy Pelosi had leaked tears EVEN ONCE in a similar situation? C'mon, be honest. That is the difference.
Boehner's tears are one of those political distractions the press loves to focus on, mostly because he seems to tear up pretty frequently. By doing so, however, he risks becoming the butt of political jokes and late night TV humor -- which has already begun happening. Whether it turns out in the long run to be a political asset or liability for him can't really be foreseen now, but the risks are pretty high if you look at how men crying in politics is usually seen historically.
-CW
CW,
You guys are missing the point. It's about POLITICIANS crying.
OK, I concede that the distinction is relevant...
Michale.....
Here's an honest question for both of you: what, exactly, would you have said two years ago if Nancy Pelosi had leaked tears EVEN ONCE in a similar situation?
Aside from amazement that she had the ability to cry after all the work she had done? ;-)
Situational dependent, a small tear at a moment of emotional pride of gratitude and joy? Ok
Blubbering at an extreme loss like a family member or comrade in arms, maybe ok but I would yell at any Camera or TV that showed it.
Crying in the face of adversity then no.
Do I wish Boehner did Not Cry so readily? yes I do. I think it is something that would hurt his eventual run for higher office.
With Pelosi, I really believe I have enough other things to attack her about that unless she broke down crying because she was being picked on, I would not mind to much. it would have been fodder for a few jokes but not something to attack about.
Of course I think you are correct then many would USE it, but that would have been the LEAST of the problems I had with her.
And yes i think she denies surgery but c'mon?
Aside from amazement that she had the ability to cry after all the work she had done? ;-)
Good answer... :D
Michale.....
tinsldr2 -
That was acutally a pretty good and honest answer, I have to admit. I liked the situational responses, showing shades of gray.
I really liked the bit about "...maybe ok but I would yell at any Camera or TV that showed it" because I agree wholeheartedly with you on that one. The media is downright insensitive the point of evil in this regard, and I join your sentiment whether the subject on camera was ANYone, politician or not.
-CW
The media is downright insensitive the point of evil in this regard, and I join your sentiment whether the subject on camera was ANYone, politician or not.
And THAT is exactly why I enjoy this blog..
For the most part, people here are human beings first, Americans second and Democrats/Republicans/Conservatives/Liberals/NPAs/Independents third....
Michale.....
I think Boehner's shedding of tears is more a minor version of the conservative that rails against sexual immorality right before being caught with his mistress.
"Bleeding heart liberal" has been used as a derogatory phrase by conservatives for a good half century. Seeing the republican speaker shed tears on a fairly regular basis is less about criticism of the act and more a snigger about it being a minor hypocrisy to this derogatory phrase.
Personally I'm fine with it as long as I can refer to Boehner as a Bleeding heart conservative ;-)
BashiBaxouk,
I am so with you on all of that!
Seeing the republican speaker shed tears on a fairly regular basis
Twice does not a "regular basis" make..
is less about criticism of the act and more a snigger about it being a minor hypocrisy to this derogatory phrase.
So, you love to revel in the hypocrisy of the Right, but consistantly ignore the hypocrisy of the Left which is infinitely more prevalent..
Gotcha... ;)
Michale.....
Bleeding heart liberal ~ Are you aware of what we mean when we say that and that it has nothing to do with shedding a tear in a moment of emotional pride over the greatness of the country?
To me, a bleeding heart liberal is one who see's a Human problem that moves ANYONES heart, then decides that the way to fix that problem is to take the money from others and give it Bureaucrats because THEY are the ones who are smart enough to fix it.
I Don't use that term for people who donate their OWN money and time to working with the poor or other charity and Dont call on Gov force to take others to give to those charities, and I certainly dont use it for people who are filled with an overwhelming sense of patriotism and pride in the goodness of America and the American people.