State of the Union

I didn't get to watch the entire address, and if you chose to miss it entirely who can blame you?

But I did get a chance to see a few minutes and read the prepared transcript, but it seems to me a commenter from the WaPo's post-speech discussion best summed it up:

All week we were told the president was going to do this SOTU address differently, that it would be an acknowledgment of his tough political situation and not a laundry list of legislative initiatives. How exactly was this a different State of the Union? I am reminded of your comment last week about the President's seeming lack of a relationship with reality--this speech could have happened in any year of his presidency.

How was it different?

Not in content particularly. The difference this year is in the eyes and ears of the public who have, at long last, figured out what some of us new long ago, that whatever the words that come out of his mouth, they will as likely as not have little impact on his actions.

He may not be lying, but then again he may well be.

All in all I enjoyed the Democratic response from Jim Webb a good deal more than the president's: no laundry list, actual logic used, plus it was short.

And what ever happened to last year's manimal threat?

[UPDATE: For cogent analysis plus an extensive look at blogosphere reaction I highly recommend Joe Gandelman's post over at The Moderate Voice.]