I haven't yet watched the State of the Union address, because I was shouldering a rather large workload at the time, and other kinds of work awaited me at home in the hours afterward.
But I do know this: lefty contrarians thought he was selling out his promises once again to the corporatists; New Orleanians thought he betrayed them by not mentioning the oil spill; conservatives thought his compromise isn't really a compromise because it would involve compromise from them; and most people in between thought it was a pretty decent speech.
And, from what I hear, Michele Bachmann can't see straight. But her rhetoric suggested that already.
I did get to watch just long enough to see how strange John Boehner looks in the speaker's chair. And how strange he looks in general.
Afterward, while editing our newspaper, I did manage to glean some insight onto what was said, and the reactions thereto. And I made the remark to a concurring co-worker that, for some of these politicians, interviews were barely necessary.
Seriously. About the only thing that makes these events interesting in the Obama age is Obama himself, who is a rhetorical giant. You can count on him for flourishes of phrase that, despite the criticism, I think can make a difference. Everything else — partisan reactions, standing ovations, even Obama's policy decisions — are far too predictable. We know the president will call for compromise and that Michele Bachmann and Billy Long will find any way to discredit him as a result. We know that far-left liberals will convey a similar (or perhaps even angrier) strain of hatred because Obama is no different than Bush or something. And libertarians will continue to promote a false equivalency between both parties and urge the dismantling of our current do-nothing government in favor of a do-nothing government that does nothing the way they want nothing to be done. And that's kind of entertaining in its own right.
I'll probably catch the speech anyway.