I found two great pieces on the State of the Union address last night (I read the leaked version but didn't bother finding a TV to watch):
"State of the Union speeches are typically unimpressive and unmemorable. Last night's address by President Obama was in that tradition. While his delivery was fine, the speech itself was mediocre -- flat, undisciplined and unfocused, at times pedestrian and banal, with goals seemingly pulled out of thin air (e.g., by 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean-energy sources)."
"PRESIDENT OBAMA entered office promising to be a different kind of politician - one who would speak honestly with the American people about the hard choices they face and would help make those hard calls. Tuesday night's State of the Union Addresswould have been the moment to make good on that promise. He disappointed.
It's not that everything he said in the speech was wrong; on the contrary, we agree with much of it. To remain competitive in the world, and to reverse the trend of rising inequality at home, the government will have to invest, as Mr. Obama proposed, in scientific research, education and infrastructure. To stay safe abroad, the country can't stint on national defense or foreign aid. Republican visions of dramatically smaller government are unrealistic and potentially dangerous.
But where will the money come from? "We will make sure this is fully paid for," Mr. Obama said as he grandly pledged to "redouble" road and bridge repair. With higher gasoline taxes? Traditionally, that has been the way. Mr. Obama didn't elaborate."
However, I think the best summary, that also is the longest amount of time I want to spend reviewing the speech, goes to a Tweet from Conor Rogers:--------------------------------------------