Since there will be plenty of (vital) analysis on the policy and public option aspects of the speech, I'll eschew that, and highlight the ending, which I was extremely pleased to hear from a powerful American elected official.
I think he sets it up well by mentioning "liberalism" in connection to Ted Kennedy (thus allowing an excuse for the dreaded "l" word to be spoken aloud), and tying that to the fear of big government:
For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.
After a couple paragraphs extolling Kennedy and his work with various Republicans (which I will omit for brevity), he pivots from the specific to the general, and despite just praising Kennedy for his ideological flexibility, launches into a full bore defence of liberalism as a universal value:
That large-heartedness - that concern and regard for the plight of others - is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.
This is not being vague. I frequent the comments sections of non-partisan news sources, and right wingers frequently use the pejorative term "bleeding hearts" to disparage liberals, so opening with "large-heartedness" is a direct assault on the selfishness of conservativism.
Having set up liberalism a virtue, and a universal one, he ties it to specific government programs Americans approve of strongly:
This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
He also neatly manages to inform the audience that the right wing hyperventilators have been making the same always wrong predications about "socialism" in connection to every government program for 80 years or more.
And finally, the underlying necessity of government in liberalism, and its keen awareness of the limits therein:
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
This is the bold philosophical rationale for health care reform that steps outside the specific arguments for Obama's plan. This is the foundation for so many other needed reforms, and goes beyond wonkery which is so very issue specific to the broad principles which endure. Liberalism has been functioning very well in America for decades, and I'm glad a powerful and prominent Democrat finally got around to using liberalism's past successes to advertise for more of it.
STATE BLOGS
