An uninspiring performance

Wholeheartedly agreed. I even liked most of the content, and thought there were some good lines. Thought it struck just the right tone, without mention of the parties. It was just dull.

There have been reports out of the White House that Obama's close advisors have given up hope of cooperation with Bibi Netanyahu and are sceptical of Mahmoud Abbas' ability to make the Palestinians adhere to any potential agreement, anyway. The storyline never changes; the Palestinians will not settle for Gaza and the West Bank, and the Israelis will not settle for an existence under the constant threat of annihilation. This fool's errand is better left alone without another fool like Obama getting involved.

Even the Associated Press is doubtful of Obama's dumb claims. Calvin Woodard notes Obama argued that his new health-care plan lowers the deficit, and that repealing it would add “a quarter of a trillion dollars” to it. Woodward points out that this argument depends on deep cuts to Medicare payments to doctors, which Obama and his fellow Democrats later reversed. It’s also worth noting that the reason it works on paper is because it hikes taxes more than it cuts spending. Obama has been vowing to stop earmark-laden bills from becoming law since he first started running for office in 2007, but Woodward recalls that Obama has not only signed every earmarked bill he’s received into law, he also praised earmarks in 2009. Obama also offered to work on malpractice and tort reform, which Woodward referred to as a Lucy-with-the-football moment. Obama keeps endorsing the idea publicly in concept, but refusing to endorse any actual reform proposals.

Why would the AP go so negative on our young, handsome, articulate African-American president?

Racism!

This state of the union address should have been labeled "STATE OF THE UNION FOR DUMMIES!" The American people proved in the recent congressional elections that have had enough of Obama's phony rhetoric. The Wall Street executives that have driven us into poverty and despair have gotten $ millions bonuses to steer our economy into the rocks, and $ millions of bonuses from the U.S. Treasury to re-float it. And, like John Dillinger, they know where the money is, "and how to take it out" - but legally! And even though almost nothing has changed since 2008, Obama sees progress and a promised land ahead - but he keeps the supposed big gains ahead as collateral for his 2012 re-election.

On the other side, the republicans are bound to tear his passed reforms, and scrap or stall any future plan that may help him re-elected. It is a tag-of-war, and the average Americans are the rope that is stretched to the limits of tolerance, a.ka. unemployment, foreclosures, a catatonic market economy, and promises made by Obama two years ago that they still don't see in the horizon. And I am sure, as they watched more of the same promises by Obama last night, and all those standing ovations for his "empty rhetoric," they all probably wondered: I have heard that before -quite a few times, Haven't I?

Yes America, you have. And you will hear it again, and again. And you should expect your suffering to continue, while those politicos { I use the Greek word here} who are responsible for your misery will keep receiving "standing ovations!" And they will continue to do that because "State of the Union For Dummies" addresses have proved to be an effective hypnotic for the population that works for them, not for you! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Possibly because it was written by a committee. Obama's best speeches seem to have been written by - Obama.

It is hard to know about the middle east; whatever anyone does the Israelis, as yesterday's revelations confirm, have no desire to negotiate. Perhaps progress is impossible without political change in Israel.

Close your eyes, and it could have been Gerald Ford. Pleasant, aimless platitudes. The US Press acts as though nothing has happened, but I think he is holed several feet below the waterline, and has very little time to do anything about it.

Ultimately, the problem with the address was its focus on green energy and education, two exceedingly important investments that democrats have lukewarm support for, and republican claim can't be made, especially if the US wants to continue with 25% of the budget spent of "defense". I can't imagine either of those causes having champions in the legislature who could weather the attacks that will be made by oil and energy lobbyists or by tea party, anti-union, anti-elite (hence anti-education) advocates. America is determined to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so long as it can keeps its knives sharp.

A lame speech, overloaded with populist remarks, and no substance. On domestic economic issues: the number of McJobs created are no match for the millions that left and are never coming back: No steps to punish outsourcing of jobs to China or India, and no rewards for those factories that keep them here. Foreign policy: More empty promises. Will visit the whole of Latin America: Chile, Brazil and El Salvador. I cry for the people of those nations as they consider the visit of a US president as a "reward for being good boys". I think otherwise. Iran, N. Korea, Iraq - more bull-manure. Healthcare - more government spending. R&D/Education - Promises that will end up nowhere. Infrastructure: Roads and bridges, school buildings desperately need rebuilding/repairs... Possibly the only solid commitment as they have been criminally neglected for decades. Unfortunately if roadbuilding follows the NYC model: These projects are guaranteed to cost trillions and take at least 20 years to complete. Much porkbarrel, corruption and waste is foreseen. Illegal Immigration - Obama will fail where George W Bush crash landed. It's Germany in the late 1930's all over again. Educate the foreigners, then expel them so that they can build and invent better than US engineers. What people need NOW are JOBS. And this country's policy of rewarding profit at the expense of domestic jobs and production is a sure recipe for the disaster that the UK is experiencing right now. The United Kingdom is broke! And we are NEXT!

Thought it struck just the right tone, without mention of the parties. It was just dull.

But the right tone, especially given the state of political discourse the last couple of years, is dull. We need more dull, calm, rational analysis of what our problems are and what it might be possible to do to address them.

Rhetorical fireworks are, in general and when talking about a broad range of issues, exactly what we don't need. No doubt there will be specific events and specific issues where the right course will be an impassioned speech. But the State of the Union wasn't the place.

Ordinarily it wouldn't much matter that a politician made a boring speech. The meat grinder that churns out today's mainstream candidates does not produce Daniel Websters or Williams Jennings Bryans.

In this case, however, "Obama Speech Boring" is a bit of a "Man Bites Dog" headline, because Mr. Obama's acknowledged greatest skill is his ability to make a rousing speech. He won an uphill battle for the Democratic nomination by saying nothing of substance extremely well. He's a master of the political rally, and until now he's pushed his agenda largely by rallying one group of Americans against another. Has he lost the fire in his belly? Is he already reduced to being a figurehead puppet of the Clintons? Did he simply defer to much to his speech-writing committee? Mr Obama has always seemed like a one-trick pony to me, but that one trick took him clear to the top. I hope he hasn't lost it.

I actually thought he had some excellent proposals, most of which will probably die on the floor of the house. The ending of oil subsidies and diverting of that money into green energy initiatives, and even a (bound to be broken) effort to have EIGHTY percent of our energy come from renewable sources by 2035 are ambitious goals. And the speech I thought had at least one interesting moment - when he mentioned that the budget couldn't be balanced by focusing on the 12% of the budget which is domestic discrecionary spending...but then his handlers must have told him to dial it back a notch and not actually mention any of the programs which would need cuts by name. FOR GODS SAKE!!! DON"T MENTION SOCIAL SECURITY OR DEFENCE CUTS, that would be mature and responsible, and the republicans hate nothing more than mature and responsible discussions about budgetary restraint. So yeah, in the end it was a pretty lukewarm speech, with no obvious handholds for the republicans to use to tear him down, but nothing either for supporters to latch onto and say he really differentiated himself from the other side.

Political Theater! This will be forgotten soon!

The country will cut spending (a wee little bit) but keep increasing defense and security spending? Spending borrowed money (or newly printed funny money) on security will not lead to the answer for Obama's "Sputnik Moment".

How can you say things are getting better because "the stock market is rocking". What a contrived fantasy - Hollywood at its' best - be happy because the Dow Jones is in bubble territory again!

Obama chose to tell people what he thought they wanted to hear/might accept - not what they need to hear. It is time for leadership that is prepared to tell people the bad news - then get them to work together to overcome the challenges.

Why is it that "Tunisian Springs" are only possible or limited to the Arab world?

It is time to put the talking of bipartisanship into action so that what the things wished for can be carried out. The sore point about the Obama regime rhetoric is that it is business as usual for the Banksters after all the fuss about hugemongous bonuses for their big bets which had brought the US economy to its knee.

What do you expect from a politician, exactly? ...it's either mild centrist tap-dancing or bold, empty claims. Either way, it's all BS (I don't like politics, btw). Half-way through I told my wife to turn on Real Housewives.

Looking at the US right now, we haven't much exciting going on: same issues with ongoing wars, same issues with nuclear powers, same issues with Mideast peace, a slow economic recovery... The big deficit, that's the issue. But then again, that's not so imminent for everyday folks. Boring, dull, hence the speech.

@jouris

I think you're right on the purpose of the SOTU, and that responsible tone is probably the right political move. It shows that he's taking a big step to the middle as a challenge for the GOP to compromise. Congress will still be deadlocked and do nothing, but at least he'll look better in the eyes of the public.

However, the substance of the speech clashed with that tone. Radical goals like 80% clean energy and a call to arms to win Futureball necessitate passion. In end the, though, the SOTU is there just to lay an ideal agenda, and the rhetoric will soon be forgotten. Here's hoping that dull and reasonable is preferable to Bachmannism in the eyes of the voters.

@ happyfish18: "The sore point about the *Obama regime* [emphasis mine] rhetoric [...]"

Strange, I thought I remembered there being a democratic election involved when he became President...

@ jouris: "But the right tone, especially given the state of political discourse the last couple of years, is dull. We need more dull, calm, rational analysis of what our problems are and what it might be possible to do to address them."

Well said; our hearts might be good at telling us what our values are, but ultimately we need to put them aside and use our heads to figure out how best to fulfill our values. It often seems to me like too many people believe that we need to look into our hearts to find the solutions to the problems that we face, when hearts were never designed to be used in that way and are likely to give the wrong answer.

I like boring. Politics doesn't have to be theater. The state of the union address shouldn't be designed to employ analysts and talking heads. It should lay out the pathway for this country for the coming year. Partisan bickering hasn't gotten this country very far so I'm grateful Obama did not use his platform to bait the other side.

American investment funds have been supporting dictatorships and unfriendly nations, which openly support terrorist-supporting countries, as the current case with Brazil. The White House said nothing about the defrauded presidential elections Brazil had last year and Mr. Obama evenplans to visit Brazil, despite it now being a worst dictatorship than Venezuela - with a straw person as its president - and of its foreign policy being frankly antagonic to US interests. Should the White House not take a firm position in heavily taxing US investment funds that go to countries like Brazil seeking for an easy buck, after all, it is the American Taxpayer's money which ultimately fuels those dictators and serve to destroy democracy in the World, either by defrauding elections in Brazil, or by killing the opposition, as in Iran.

Obama may be many things but he is definitely no dummy. Americans, however, prefer dummies. George W. Bush joked at his inauguration: "This proves you can be President with a C minus",
and Americans cheered. Well, now we know what you get for a C minus. Obama had an A plus from Harvard, so there!

If an inspired orator as brilliant as Obama chose to deliver this particular speech in a flat tone, he must therefore have had a very specific reason. Presumably he deliberately avoided his famous rabble-rousing campaign style to appear calm, businesslike, and in full control. I am not surprised that some Americans didn't get it.

The same stupid mistakes as in the past: If the USA must send jobs overseas due to labor costs, then it should send them to Latin America, where at least it would raise the living standards of those people, cut down on illegal immigration, increase trade and demand for US goods and services, and improve bilateral ties as well as put real pressure on governments to clamp down on drug trafficking, as well as insure the supply of crucial minerals and fuels. Instead, US companies shoot for the ultra cheap, the cheapest of the cheap labor, and the quickest buck possible. The perpetual lame excuse?: To increase profits for their shareholders, and "all the other countries and companies are doing it too" {outsourcing to China, now drowning in Dollars}. The blame goes to Wall Street, the submissive republicans who obey their WS masters "in the name of freedom", and the spineless coward and corrupt Democrats, too lame and inept when they win, and even worse when they lose. The next election will be won by whoever opposes abortion, supports State/Religion ties, and promises to expand US military might, while cutting funds for education, bowing to banks' demands for "freedom" to screw their own citizens, and cut corporate taxes to the bone. The bible thumpers and the chickenhawks will win in 2012. Cry for America!