One striking moment was when Obama tackled the recent Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and called out what he saw as a bad decision.  I’m not sure to the precedent of telling the Court they are wrong to their face, but it seemed really unexpected (and Justice Alito seemed to agree–CNN saying he said “No, that’s not true”).

That said, I loved his introduction,

It’s tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable – that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements; our hesitations and our fears; America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, and one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.

As he continued, I loved the way he framed the need to address global warming.  It also seems to have been off script or a last minute addition, as it’s not in the prepared remarks.  He nicely shift it from a science discussion (while saying it was nearly irrefutable) to an issue of jobs.  Paraphrasing, he said that ‘Even if you doubt the overwhelming science behind it, you can’t doubt that the nation that has the leading clean energy economy will lead the global economy.’

Health care was fascinating, and seemed to me to be a very honest plea to not walk away.  I think he could have more effectively laid out the exact things that reform would do for families.  He did to some extent, but I don’t think he did it enough. Pre-existing conditions seem to me to be something no one could oppose–especially when given some of the absurd reasons insurance companies find.  This should have been fleshed out a bit more so that people could have understood the details, not the messy process.

He obviously drove home the jobs issue and I think did a pretty good job of explaining what has been done so far to slow the bleeding, so to speak.

On the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I think we got a solid shout out that will provide a needed boost and sent a clear signal to the leadership of the armed forces from the Commander-in-Chief.  It certainly wasn’t a necessary, and there was interestingly quite a vocal response in support.  I fear the sentence before may be lost, but he also highlighted the success of hate crimes legislation–an often overlooked success that is shared among many parties.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

Finally, jumping back to the issue of the partisanship.  I maintain that some of the digs could have been left out, as this passage quite effectively summed it up.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

Your thoughts?

I immediately had three thoughts:

1. His argument boils down to the fact that we should keep people smoking for the tax revenue.  Is this really the country we want to be?  Yes, it’s your choice to smoke, but should we want more people to live shorter and unhealthier lives simply for a revenue stream?
2. I don’t feel bad for people who will have to pay more for their cigarettes.  As far as I’m concerned, by purchasing cigarettes, you are accepting the tax burden—I don’t consider this raising taxes on the poor, I consider it an investment in the future health care of smokers. Especially if such a high percentage of these people are low income, we’ll (as a nation) likely be paying for their health care.
3. He seems to be saying that they smoke because they are lower income, when in fact we could have a case of chicken and the egg.  One could argue that both a lower income and a tendency to smoke may come from another common factor like level of education (this is a statistical fact, I’m in no way saying if you smoke you’re unintelligent–even Obama was[is?] a smoker).  Or perhaps they are lower income because they spend massive amounts of money on their habit.  One article cites $5 as the average cost for a pack of cigarettes.  If you smoke a pack a day, that’s $1,825 per year for just the cigarettes, not including any indirect expenses (see this article for a fuller picture of the cost of smoking).  For a little perspective, 20% of Americans made under $19,000 in 2006.  A smoker in that 20% of Americans is spending 10% of their annual income on cigarettes.

Or there is this clip, where she praises Michael Steele as “da man.” because he “be the man.” (Sorry for the misquote).

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage…

…Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states…

…“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

I’m not sure what to make of this.  It doesn’t seem like it has much political appeal to voters who aren’t extremely fiscally conservative.  It’s one thing to say that you don’t like “government hand outs,” but  entirely different to actually turn one down when you need it.  I tend to look at everything Jindal does through the lens of a potential future Presidential candidate.  This seems like another republican bet against the stimulus, or a move based in a deep belief in conservative philosophy that could make him wildly unpopular.

If you know more about LA politics and can offer some insights into how this will be received, please leave a comment and let me know…

As a side note, I like Schwarzeneggar’s position on the governors who might turn down stimulus funding:

“Everyone has their own way of thinking.  I just hope they give me their funding.”

Update: NYT covers more reaction from Governors

Update 2: Ben Smith agrees this is indicative (in some way) of Jindal’s future plans…

“The presidency requires leadership… There are times when the president does something that the group of experts, quote unquote, does not agree with.”

This somehow reminds me of a President who went forward with a war in Iraq despite what many experts thought. Admittedly, this is a harsh and even unfair comparison, but bullheaded leadership that experts oppose isn’t always the solution–even if it will score you political points in an upcoming election.