Some individual polls, such as Gallup, have shown President Obama enjoying a smallish, 3% bounce from his State of the Union speech. However, Pollster.com's wide view of the entire polling universe shows the bounce to be even smaller--only 0.4%.
Explanatory charts and numbers in the extended entry.
One of the toughest decisions to make in politics is figuring out the right time to compromise and the right time to pick a fight and see the fight through. As that great verse from Ecclesiastes says so well, there is a time for every season under heaven. Being willing to make modest compromises has resulted in some of the greatest legislation in American history, but it has also been a fiasco at times. Knowing the right time to pick a fight (think Bill Clinton during the 1995 government shutdown fight with Gingrich) can be absolutely transformative for a politician.
The whole legacy thing sometimes clouds the judgment of even the best politicians on when to compromise and when to stand tall. My all-time favorite Senator, the best and most effective in history in my opinion, was Teddy Kennedy, but toward the end of his career he got snookered by the Republicans twice, in part because I think he was thinking a little too much about his legacy: on No Child Left Behind, where Bush promised him a lot for money for education and then broke his promise after the bill was passed; and on the Medicare drug bill a couple of years later, where the decent compromise he forged in the Senate got rolled in the Republican controlled conference committee, and they passed a bill that was a pure giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.
Unfortunately, another fine Senator, Chris Dodd, is letting the legacy thing cloud his judgment. Dodd is complaining about President Obama's strong new push for a more progressive financial reform policy. Yesterday, in a committee hearing, Dodd said that the new proposals are "adding to the problems of trying to get a bill done...I don't want to be in a position where we end up doing nothing because we tried to do too much at a critical time." Dodd has been working closely with Republicans on the Finance Committee in the hopes of getting a compromise that can get 60 votes, and all of a sudden the White House is upsetting the applecart by pushing for more. Dodd knows that he needs Republican support to pass a bill in the Senate, and that to get Republican support he has to have a bill acceptable to the big banks. With him retiring, he wants one final legislative feather in his cap, so if he needs to cut a deal with the big banks, he'll do it.
Now I admire Chris Dodd a great deal. He has spent a career on the frontlines fighting for poor kids and families, and against stupid wars. But on this issue he is dead wrong. His legacy is just fine without adding a watered down and ultimately ineffectual financial reform bill to his list of legislative accomplishments. What is needed now, both for Democratic political prospects in general and to make the policy effective in reining in the power and excesses of Wall Street, is to pick the fight with the Republicans and bank lobbyists. As President Bush might have said, bring it on.
There are two dimensions to this, one on the policy side and one on the political. It is a simple fact that the longer this issue stews, and the more high-profile pressure is placed on the big bank lobbyists, the better the policy we are going to get in terms of doing things that really matter in terms of financial reform. If you tell the Republicans on the committee that we are only going to do this in a bipartisan way and we want to make you comfortable with signing off on the legislation, it puts them in the catbird seat, and the legislative language we get becomes gruel real fast. If on the other hand we raise the stakes, say (like the President in the State of the Union) that we're only going to do financial reform if we can do it right, and really start banging the Republicans for doing Wall Street's bidding, I think that after a few weeks on the grill will make at least a couple of them far more likely to agree to something real. Once it gets to the floor: if the Republicans threaten filibuster, tell them to go ahead and make our day. Bring the bill up, debate really popular amendments, and let them keep blocking a vote on the issue. I suspect that it wouldn't take very long for the Republicans to decide that we ought to let this bill pass rather than face week after week of getting public heat for being the big bankers' best buddies.
On the politics of this, Democrats have nothing but upside in picking a fight and letting it cook for a while. Every day that Democrats are seen as trying to pass the strongest possible bill to hold the banks accountable, and every day that Republicans are seen as helping Wall Street block it, is a good day for the Democrats in terms of the 2010 elections. Democrats have the political high ground here, and they damn well ought to use it to get a better bill.
Senator Dodd, I love ya like a brother. You already have a great legacy. Don't tarnish that legacy by having the final act of your long and distinguished Senatorial career being giving the big banks and their Republican allies everything they want in order to get easy passage of a watered down bank bill, hurting both the economy and your party in the process. It's time to pick a fight.
Update: Check out this article from WSJ that talks about how Republicans are running to Wall Street donors, telling them it's the Republicans who will save them from any financial reform legislation that would actually do anything to them. All the more reason to raise the stakes on this fight and go for it. Wall Street is going into high whine mode about mean old Democrats attacking them. Good. Now let's go the mat, and win the fight both on policy and politically.
President Barack Obama gave a solid speech last night, carefully explaining his policies and proposing new plans for helping the middle class.
The trouble is that nobody will remember it in a month.
Presidential speeches come in two types: those few that are enduring, and those many that do little more than fill a news cycle. The enduring ones have several things in common: they are generally made in a time of crisis, and they outline themes that constitute a hallmark of the presidency. For instance, in March 1947 President Harry Truman summarized the strategy of containment against the Soviet Union, which would guide U.S. policy for decades to come.
State of the Union addresses almost never fit either condition. One exception was in 2002, when President George W. Bush coined the term "Axis of Evil" - which for better or worse came to symbolize his administration's policies. But other than that lone exception, not a single address (out of the hundreds given) has made any impression upon history.
Mr. Obama's speech was not particularly memorable, either. It was not meant to be. The speech focused primarily on domestic issues like jobs and education; stuff like this a great speech does not make. There are probably at least fivespeechesthe presidenthas madewhich overshadow this one (funny how most of them were written by Obama himself). Indeed, I doubt that half the people at my college even knew that there was the State of the Union address yesterday.
Like last year's address, this year's will probably be quickly overshadowed by other news. Its likely that even the most politically passionate can't recall a word of the 2009 quasi-State of the Union. And as for the 2008 address - most people probably don't even remember Mr. Bush making it.
In his first State of the Union address, President Barack Obama touched on climate issues only briefly. He called on the Senate to pass a climate bill, but did not give Congress a deadline or promise to veto weak legislation. Nor did he mention the Copenhagen climate conference, where international negotiators struggled to produce an agreement on limiting global carbon emissions.
The Obama administration's attitude towards climate change still represents a remarkable shift from the Bush years, when global warming was treated as little more than a fairy tale. But in the past year, Congressional squabbling has stalled climate legislation, and international negotiators nearly gridlocked in talks over carbon admissions at the multinational Copenhagen conference. Without strong leadership from the president, work to prevent this looming environmental crisis will stall.
Obama did address global warming skeptics, saying that they should support investment in clean energy, "because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy."
Despite his combative language, the president did not challenge Congress to push for real solutions to ballooning carbon emissions and energy consumption. As Forrest Wilder of The Texas Observer notes, Obama "uttered the phrase 'climate change' precisely once."
The Senate has already wait-listed the climate bill: Health care came first. With health care reform now in line behind work on jobs and bank regulation, climate legislation has little chance of passing the Senate in the coming months, let alone making it to the president's desk.
If Congress lets this work wait until after the midterm elections, the United States will show up at international negotiations in December 2010 as a leader in carbon emissions yet again, but with little in hand to show a way forward.
Clean energy, not renewable energy
When the president did bring up climate issues, he focused on their connection between climate reform and potential job creation. Obama highlighted areas for growth, not in renewable energy fields like wind or solar power, but in nuclear power, natural gas, and clean coal.
Yes, these fuel sources could decrease the country's carbon emissions. But they are not solutions that will revolutionize energy production. Grist's David Roberts was floored that the speech omitted renewable energy entirely and kowtowed to a more conservative litany of energy projects. "I suppose it was done to flatter conservative Senators that will have to vote for the bill Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are working on," he writes. (The three Senators are working on a version of the climate bill designed to appeal to Republicans.)
"But the SOTU is not a policy negotiation," Roberts says. "It's a bully pulpit, a chance to shape rather than respond to existing narratives."
Roberts argues that progressive supporters would benefit from a stronger message. If activists knew that the White House stands behind a real shift in America's energy policy, they could use that prompt to drive action on climate change.
What was missing
While touting the virtues of off-shore drilling, Obama overlooked other policies that could broker real change. Although he admonished Congress to pass a climate bill, he did not pressure the legislature on what he'd like that bill to include. He did not mention cap-and-trade, the mechanism the House bill relies on to tamp down emissions and dirty energy use.
President Obama did touch on transportation reforms that could decrease the country's use of fossil fuels.
"There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains," Obama said. He cited a high-speed rail project that broke ground on Tuesday in Tampa, FL, as evidence that America could best the rest of the world in creating new energy-efficient technology.
But one or two high-profile projects won't be enough to challenge Europe's network of high-speed trains or China's investments in solar power. The White House could put the country at the forefront of sustainable technologies, but it'll take more money than the president has committed. In AlterNet's ideal state of the union, projects like the railway would merit sustained attention and funding. Funding for the high-speed train came from this year's stimulus bill, and there's no guarantee that similar projects will find federal funding in the future.
"Continued support is still needed" for green jobs and clean energy, Alternet's editorial staff argues. "It's unclear yet how Obama's new proposal for a three-year spending freeze will apply to this sector, but a boost is what is needed, not cuts."
Green jobs
Michelle Chen argues for In These Times that the president is right to subordinate climate issues to economic policy. "The jobs angle is more than sugar-coating," she says. A recent Pew Research Center poll put climate change at the end of Americans' long list of cares, and a Brookings Institution study found that they're no longer willing to pay as much for greener products.
Jobless workers need green in their pockets most of all, and so far politicians' promises haven't made up for the slack economy.
"No matter how slick the marketing, confidence in green jobs may wilt even further absent real investments in the beleaguered blue-collar workforce," Chen writes.
Copenhagen accord losing momentum
The small role that climate change played in the state of the union address only emphasized the downward momentum of the issue since the United Nations conference on global warming in Copenhagen. Grist's Jonathan Hiskes talked to six leaders in climate change activism, and none of them offered a different strategy than they had last year.
That same stasis is showing up in Europe, as well. Spain, which currently leads the European Union, proposed that the European Union's negotiating position should remain the same as its position before the Copenhagen conference, according to Inter Press Service.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who's working on climate change legislation in the Senate, offered advice to climate activists at a clean energy forum in Washington, DC on Wednesday. Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reports that Sen. Kerry encouraged his audience to get angrier, louder, and more active, in the mode of the conservative Tea Partiers, who have earned plenty of attention. After his speech, he also recalled the tactics that pushed landmark legislation like the Clean Air Act through Congress.
If climate change is going to play a larger role in the next state of the union, the citizens and groups concerned about this issue need to do something to put it on the agenda. Otherwise, next year, the president may find it just as easy to skim over it again.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Tonight, in his State of the Union Speech, President Obama said, "Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future - for America and the world." While his administration has made progress over the past year toward realigning our national security policy with our laws and values, additional steps must be taken to reform U.S. detention policy. The following are steps the Administration should take to put last night's words into practice:
Close Guantanamo
The Obama administration continues to hold 198 men in prolonged detention without charge at Guantanamo and it will not meet the one year deadline it set for closing the detention facility. Further steps need to be taken to ensure prompt closure of Guantanamo and to bring the number of Guantánamo detainees held without charge down to zero. These steps include:
•Bring Guantánamo prisoners suspected of crimes to justice in federal civilian courts. On November 13, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would prosecute five Guantánamo detainees suspected of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks in federal courts of New York. These suspects and other detainees for whom there is sufficient admissible evidence that they have committed crimes should be promptly transferred for prosecution before federal civilian courts.
•Abandon the flawed military commissions. The military commissions, revamped for the third time in 2009, continue to fail to achieve justice or provide due process and have resulted in only three convictions in over seven years. This process should be abandoned in favor of the proven federal criminal justice system that has convicted over 145 terrorism suspects since the 9/11 attacks.
•Increase efforts to repatriate & transfer Guantánamo detainees to third countries. The Obama administration must intensify efforts to repatriate detainees not suspected of crimes or otherwise cleared for release and to find homes in third countries for detainees that cannot be repatriated for fear of persecution or torture.
The Administration must work closely with Yemeni officials to address current security concerns and to minimize potential risk before reinstating transfers there. With all transfers the administration can and should take steps to mitigate risk by focusing on expanding risk assessment efforts, monitoring, and other security programs, including allotting sufficient resources to successfully reintegrate former detainees into society.
Prevent Torture and Promote Humane Treatment
•Ensure that all detention and interrogations continue be governed by a clear standard of humane treatment. Very little has been made public about the standards that will govern the High Value Interrogation Group (HIG) established pursuant to the recommendations of the Special Interagency Task Force on Lawful Interrogation. The administration must ensure that the HIG has the clear guidance it needs to conduct its interrogations effectively and humanely and must make clear that cruel and coercive interrogation techniques, such as sleep and sensory deprivation and extreme isolation, are off the table. Apart from interrogation, conditions of detention must also be humane, and in compliance with applicable provisions of the Geneva Conventions.
•Provide the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) with access to all armed conflict and security detainees. Holding prisoners incommunicado increases the risk of torture and abusive detention and interrogation practices. The administration should ensure that the ICRC has prompt notice of all detentions and timely access to all prisoners in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and to all Guantanamo detainees that remain in U.S. custody, wherever that may be, including those that will face prosecution in U.S. federal courts.
•Provide all U.S. interrogators with the tools they need to fulfill their responsibilities legally and effectively. Ensure that U.S. interrogators have the education, training, and support, they need to conduct lawful and effective interrogations. This should include resources for research and professional developments as well as a review of existing interrogation protocols-such as those in Appendix M of the Army's field manual on interrogation-that have questionable utility and are particularly vulnerable to abuse.
Ensure Accountability for Past and Future Abuses
•Hold perpetrators to account for crimes of torture and prisoner abuse. Attorney General Holder announced in August that he was launching a preliminary review into the whether federal laws were violated in connection with overseas interrogations. This review needs to be expanded to examine the architects of the system of prison abuse, not only those who implemented it or engaged in conduct beyond the bounds of unlawful guidance and orders.
•Make public the results of Justice Department investigation of the role of government lawyers in authorizing torture and other abuse. In 2005 the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility began investigating the role of key lawyers from the Office of Legal Counsel in authorizing cruel interrogations. In mid-November 2009 Attorney General Holder told the Senate that the report was finally completed, in the last stages of review, and would be issued by the end of the month. It is far past time for the results of this investigation to be made public.
•Establish a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. It is not enough to put an end to unlawful practices. To ensure avoiding their repetition, they must also be thoroughly renounced. A nonpartisan commission should be established to ensure the U.S. government learns from past mistakes and effectively prevents future abuse. Such a review is needed to identify the systematic failures that lead to widespread prisoner abuse and to evaluate the impact of those policies on U.S. national security.
•Provide victims of torture and other abuse with access to remedies. The United States government has a legal obligation to provide victims of torture and other human rights abuses with access to enforceable remedies. The administration should cease attempting to block victims of torture, lesser forms of abuse, and arbitrary detention from having their day in court through invocation of doctrines such as the state secrets privilege and immunities that violate international law.
•Promptly investigate and prosecute all instances of arbitrary detention and detainee mistreatment by military and civilian personnel, including private contractors. Changes in policy are necessary but insufficient to ensure lawful detention. Detention policies and practices must be transparent. Where violations of the law are suspected, prompt investigation must ensue and individuals reasonably suspected of violations must be held accountable.
In the case of private contractors, a mandatory code of conduct should be established to ensure compliance with the law. Authorities must ensure that legal mechanisms are in place to hold contractors and their employees accountable for abuses. Where contract personnel violate the code of conduct and the law, prompt and transparent investigations leading to civil and criminal accountability, where warranted, must follow.
Those are the words used in Article II Section 3 of the US Constitution. The president is also to "recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." Why does this not come up in Article I with all the other supreme powers of our Commander in Chief? Well, because only the military has one of those, and Article I is devoted to the most powerful branch of our government, the Congress.
The full text of the State of the Union speech can be found in the extended entry.
Initial reactions:
Needed more villains. President Obama declared that he was not interested in punishing banks. Why? He should be interested in punishing banks. They are the great villains of our time--crashing the economy, taking huge amounts of public money, refusing to make new loans anyway, and handing out huge bonuses while the rest of the country still suffers. If there is anyone who he should be punishing, it is banks.
Attaching the Bush administration and levying a tax on banks to recoup the bailout money is not enough. Turn the rhetorical dogs on the villain that everyone hates and everyone blames--the banks, the insurance companies, the student loan companies. Hit the large financial institutions hard.
Lacking grand vision. There were lots of policy tweaks suggested to our problems, but no grand vision of what went wrong and how it can get better. This is partially connected to the lack of villains--who are we fighting, and what are we fighting for? I still don't know after the speech
While there is nothing wrong with detail or with quoting plucky letters the President received from Americans, there was no unifying core behind it all.
Funnier than the average speech. While certainly not side-splitting, the speech had a not insignificant amount of decent jokes. Much funnier than the average speech by a politician.
Longer than the average speech. I would like to look this up, but at over an hour, I am pretty sure it was longer than the average State of the Union speech. That is actually a good thing--suck up all the free media time you can get, especially when you can script it. Should have gone even longer, now that corporations will be able to buy all the airtime they like to run ads against you.
Nice honesty and frankness at the end. At the end of the speech President Obama talked about the failures of his administration to deliver sweeping change, about how many people might be growing cynical at the prospect of change, and how difficult change can be. Those who watched the speech all the way through could have felt a strong sense of connection with President Obama there. We are all struggling, and hearing President Obama talk about his struggles, and his willingness to keep fighting, probably sounded both familiar and encouraging to many people.
Expect a bump. On a more objective level, the speech will probably give him a small, temporary bump. While this is not the typical pattern after State of the Union speeches, it has been the pattern after speeches made by President Obama. He got a bump after his speech on health care, and after his speech on Afghanistan (see here and here). President Obama has a demonstrated ability to move numbers with major speeches like these, and it is a good bet he will do it again.
From podiums around the globe, President Obama has eloquently articulated his commitment to advancing human rights and securing global peace and prosperity by protecting the inherent rights and dignity of all people. On his second day in office, he put his words into action as he unequivocally renounced torture and set about the symbolically important task of closing the Guantanamo detention center. The world welcomed these important steps and the Obama Administration began its efforts to restore America's status as an international human rights leader.
Even so, one year later, human rights conditions in many parts of the world are deteriorating, including in a number countries that are viewed as important strategic partners of the United States. For example, in Russia, the North Caucasus threatens to explode and human rights defenders continue to be murdered with impunity. China is sentencing prominent dissidents to jail terms and extending its Great Internet Firewall. On Iran, even if rhetorical restraint by the U.S. may have been prudent, it left beleaguered Iranians struggling for their basic rights worried about American commitment to that cause. In other global problem areas like Africa and the Middle East, there is still no clearly stated U.S. human rights agenda.
What can the President and his administration do to arrest this disturbing global trend? Here are four things that the President could say in his State of the Union Address that would demonstrate how his Administration intends to advance human rights and democracy around the world:
The President should send an unequivocal message that human rights promotion will be raised consistently in bi-lateral relationships with key strategic partners with human rights problems, including China, Pakistan, Russia, Colombia and Egypt. He should reiterate that he will assess his Administration's strategy on the basis of concrete progress and results that are achieved in these and other places confronting human rights challenges.
The President should state clearly that he stands behind human rights and democracy advocates when they are threatened or attacked by governments and others who want to silence and put them out of business. He should direct administration officials at all levels to support change from within societies by doing the same. He should state the importance of freedom on the Internet and his intention to stand with technology companies that defend free expression and privacy.
The President should articulate a commitment to create opportunities for human rights advocates by providing financial and other support to non-governmental organizations and regional institutions in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. This support would empower multilateral efforts to advance rights at the regional level. The President should also direct his aid agencies to develop and implement a long-term strategy to strengthen regional human rights institutions, while ensuring that U.S. security and other assistance is not facilitating human rights abuses.
The President should demonstrate his resolve to advance reform at the UN Human Rights Council by upgrading the U.S. diplomatic presence in Geneva and adding cooperation at the Human Rights Council to the mix of bi-lateral issues raised with all allies, especially those in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Promoting human rights and democracy around the world is challenging; it requires patience, sustained attention and consistency in the face of pushback and hostility. In today's interconnected world, America's national security and the peace of the world is fundamentally interwoven with the advancement of human rights and democracy everywhere. This does not mean that the United States has an obligation to create fully-functioning democracies everywhere - Afghanistan is not Switzerland, and will not become so in the term of this administration. Nonetheless, human rights promotion is central to a more stable Afghanistan; just as it is to a less threatening Iran or North Korea; or to a Middle East and Africa that creates hope for their people.
Tonight, as President Obama stands behind yet another podium and speaks to the world, he has an opportunity to advance the understanding that, amidst the many challenge we face at home, the well-being of Americans is inextricably tied up with the progress of freedom abroad. He should use this opportunity to reiterate the message that advancing human rights remains a cornerstone of his Administration's foreign policy and that America will not tolerate the silencing of dissidents through oppression and violence. He must not remain silent about these important issues. The world is listening.
President Obama will give his first State of the Union address on Wednesday night at 9 p.m. Eastern. Brave New Foundation's Rethink Afghanistan campaign wants to make sure this isn't just a time to sit and watch, but a time to get together with our friends and push back against the expanding Afghanistan war.
In his address to Congress last night, which DMI analyzed in a late-night report, President Obama addressed budget hawks head on. But his most important riff on budgeting wasn't his pledge to reduce the federal deficit - "another responsibility we have to our children...is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay" - which drew loud cheers from Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.
In fact, his most important statement about the federal budget and the federal deficit came during a rebuke of budget hawks:
I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't. Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited - I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That's why I pushed for quick action.
Here, President Obama is acknowledging the forgotten point of the stimulus debate: running a high deficit can actually drive future economic success. Put simply, future generations - such as, for instance, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's four boys - would be worse off without the stimulus package, even if government debt balloons. Of course, the catch is that the government must spend on policies that provide a return to the future generations that will pay the future interest on current debt- the government must invest.
What should we expect from President Obama's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night? Probably talk of our economic difficulties, but talk of how we are going to fix them through more public spending (especially on health care), less military spending (especially in Iraq), and eliminating the Bush tax cuts. And bi-partisanship. And hope. And by getting past ideology.
But I have to ask: why are State of the Union speeches a big deal? Presidents deliver speeches all the time, but these speeches are rarely covered lived on by all major television, Internet and radio news outlets. Within the professional political world of D.C., the SOTU not only is worthy of an acronym, but its annual parties are second only to changes of partisan power in Congress and / or the White House in terms of celebratory atmosphere. What is it about the SOTU that generates such intense coverage from major political and media institutions?
The answer, I'm pretty certain, is that over one-quarter of Americans actually watch the SOTU (possibly because many have no other choice). This makes it second only to Election Day in terms of popular engagement in politics. So, of course, it is a big deal in political and media circles. For all the cynicism and snide comments made about politics, the word derives from the Greek polis, which pretty much just means "place where many people live together." In other words, politics is simply the business of figuring out how people should live together. It is also why politics remains just about the only highly esteemed, creative class profession for which no real qualifications are required. In the final analysis, almost anyone is qualified to hold an opinion on how people should live together--and on how to convince them they should live together. So, of course, people in politics and media take this event seriously.
But this begs a more fundamental question: why do so many people watch the SOTU? (More in the extended entry)
11:00am - Ted Kennedy endorses Obama at American University. Caroline Kennedy announced her endorsement for Obama over the previous weekend. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, daughter of the late Robert Kennedy endorsed Hillary over the weekend but due to the fact that she doesn't have the star power that Teddy and Caroline have, it just might not mean as much in the public eye as Obama's endorsements.
9:00pm - Sporting a foxy blood-red suit, the New York Senator sat behind Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (also wearing a red suit). The difference between the two women? Landrieu mustered up a fake smile for the cameras when Bush talked about New Orleans. The close-up on Clinton's face, after a remark from Bush, said "I just want to steal Cheney's gun and shoot your balls off."
Take this clip from the 2006 State of the Union Address. Bush talks about what he calls the 'terrorist surveillance program,' what others may call 'domestic spying.' At the 26 sec mark, we see Hillary's reaction.
This year, it wasn't a laughing matter. At 2008's address, Hil managed to muster up a clap, but a smile, even one of disapproval, disappointment, and everlasting disbelief that Bush actually won the election, wasn't on her radar. This year, she looked worn out, angry, and painfully bored. (Watch after 2:23 mark)
Throughout the whole broadcast, it became apparent that news directors on every station were interested in the reaction of one person - Hillary Clinton. It must have been hard for her to seem interested - we know she's nowhere near the Bush camp nor does she care anymore what Bush has to say. The short, unenthusiastic claps were probably an attempt to make sure she didn't alienate those with low IQ scores, who usually vote for the Republican candidate that has convinced them that he shares their values; those whose votes she's going to need in November if she wins the nomination.
Maybe she was deep in thought. Maybe she pictured herself up there next year. Maybe she pictured another woman sitting next to Nancy, in the probably-permanently-dented seat that Cheney occupied on Monday night. Three women, at the head of a country where 100 years ago women couldn't even vote? Heck of a prospect and Hil knew it. Maybe she wanted to check her watch, but resisted in fear that footage of the event would end up in a Mitt Romney commercial in Florida.
All this came two days before Hil won the Democratic primary in Florida. Even though those votes don't matter, I hope Tuesday proved to be a better day for her. She has 6 days left until the biggest day of her life, which on one hand might be a good day, but on the other, could turn out to be worse than Monday.
Just wondering, what do you think Hillary was thinking when Bush said nuc-alur (2nd video, 2:39)?
The State of the Union is that peculiar time of year when President Bush's advisors get "creative": Mars! Human-animal hybrids! Hydrogen-powered cars! And could forget the classic uranium-from-Niger?
What will Bush's contribution be this year? A distraction or a deception? A lie or a laugh? While we can't know everything he'll say, we know some of it: which is what allows our friends to create the ever-dependable "State of the Union Drinking Game."
Whether you're sipping at "Freedom," taking a shot at references to Middle East peace, or gulping when the camera shows Ted Kennedy, drinking is just about the only way to watch Bush's Last Dance.
And if you want to watch with friends, check out whether your local Drinking Liberally chapters is hosting a watch party (in New York, we'll be at DCTV in Chinatown).
Make your predictions in the comments, download the game, and get good and liquored up for an evening that recognizes all good things come to an end...and so will the Bush Administration.
Plus, enjoy a cartoonish observation from Laughing Liberally's Lee Camp:
