SOTU: The Social Speech

President Barack Obama Tuesday night identified the issues that most and divide the United States government and constituents in his State of the Union Address.

In the beginning of a previous column I suggested bipartisanship and unity would be strong themes in this year’s address.  That prediction was correct.   In fact, Obama’s speech led with mention of the Tucson shootings and how bipartisanship as just as important as ever, if not more so.

Simply mentioning unity – as if ticking a checkmark on a list of things to do – will not do the trick though, Obama said.

“What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow,” Obama said Tuesday.

One of the topics Obama seemed likely to mention was clean energy and that prediction was certainly realized, but he did not speak of it in the way I expected.  Obama said there is a great need for new energy sources such as wind and solar, but he also said the country will continue to need coal and natural gas.

Obama asked congress to cut down on millions of dollars given to oil companies and proposed that 80 percent of U.S. power should come from clean energy sources by the year 2035.  He also said the budget he will soon present to Congress will include money to be invested in that goal.

Whether Obama would mention “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a bit up in the air before the State of the Union, but I thought it seemed likely because Obama often mentions his own weak points.  In fact, his ability to call himself out may be one of his strongest – if not, most unusual – traits as president.  Perhaps it is all strategy.  Either way the move shows credibility and willingness to re-work problems or reconsider issues.  

In the case of “don’t ask, don’t tell” Obama’s main issue was that critics said some members of the Republican party moved faster to repeal than the Democratic president himself.  He had the opportunity to address that accusation.

My prediction was incorrect in this instance.  Obama did mention “don’t ask, don’t tell,” however, he mentioned it in passing.  The president praised the nation for allowing people of all sorts to serve their country.

Obama addressed education in his address, again mentioning the fact that he aimed to put the United States back at the top of the list of nations with the highest percentage of citizens with some form of secondary education.  All year he spoke of the fall to number nine in that statistic.  He said he plans to replace “no child left behind” with his “race to the top” initiative.  The president did not simply settle with the progress over the last year, as I wrote in a previous column.

Obama said “race to the top” is supposed to provide incentives to improve teachers rather than train students for test-taking.  As such, he said, as baby-boomers retire, the need for teachers is as great as ever.

“Your country needs you,” Obama said, imploring students wishing to make a difference to consider degrees in education as one might expect a president to ask for military service.

One might say I should have predicted that Obama would mention jobs and the economy.  It seemed so predictable that I did not even think to guess what he might say.   The economy is still the driving force behind civilization and jobs are the driving force behind the economy.  The United States cannot exist without either and the game has changed significantly in the past year – which is why both were and will always main points of the address.

One subject Obama mentioned was not the main topic of the speech – but it was certainly one this writer did not expect – social media.   I believe this is the first time a president has ever mentioned Facebook in his State of the Union Address.  He used the website to encourage innovation in all sectors.

“We’re the nation that puts cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook,” Obama said.

Perhaps inventions such as Google and Facebook do not equate to flight and the discovery of electricity in the average person’s eyes, but Obama raises a great point in comparing them.  Who thought any of those things would be possible before they were actualized?  I certainly would not have.

Overall, Obama spoke well as he usually does.  The seemingly-endless applause was present as always, and the president got some laughs too.  His jokes were on-topic, appropriate and did not detract from the address.  He hit all the predictable points, and more impressively, surprised with many others.  

The crowd at the “prom” – as much of the mainstream media titled the temporarily-united VIPs – received the speech well; however, the length of time they will stay united, as questioned in Obama’s address, remains to be seen.

State of the Union Address Predictions

President Barack Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address Tuesday will likely focus largely on one of the first goals he addressed as president -- bipartisanship.  The subject seemed like a lot of fluff, particularly each time Obama plugged the fact that Democrats had a majority before the last election.

It is hard to believe bipartisanship is particularly important as the man who tells you so still actively seeks to give his own party the one up.

Now, however, the idea of bipartisanship seems to make a lot more sense.

In the wake of the recent shootings in Tucson, Ariz. the nation’s leaders appear to have opened their eyes to the instability a lack of instability can feed

Looking back on Obama’s 2010 address to the nation his message of unity is a bit haunting.  He said government leaders think saying anything about the other side is just a part of the game regardless of accuracy or potential harm

“It’s precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people.  Worse yet, it’s sowing further division among the citizens, further distrust in the government,” Obama said

Obama has advocated mutual respect from the beginning, but his seemingly soft platform point is now poignant.  Now the wounding words have helped cause tangible damage in the form of six citizens killed and 18 shot – including a representative, a judge and an eight-year-old little girl with an interest in politics.

Issues Obama obviously cannot ignore include the health care bill and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Significant developments (or perhaps non-developments) on these subjects have filled headlines since the last address.  The health care bill was passed shortly after last year’s, so there is much to talk about on that front.  Republicans have vowed to repeal the health care act.  

Additionally, plenty of misconceptions about the health care bill are going around, particularly in the strange political climate that exists in Appalachia.  Obama will address concerns about health care, dispel rumors and emphasize the difficulties republicans face in trying to repeal it.

Obama will have to mention war, though I am certain he would like to avoid the subject.  As with any major project (perhaps more so) war takes time.  Change takes time, reform takes time and withdrawing from war zones nearly a decade old takes time – particularly when the U.S. is trying to avoid leaving complete instability behind.  He will have to cover this issue not only because of political disappointment, but because those loved ones on the home front are wondering when their family and friends will come home to stay.

The president will most likely boast of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and he may give some alibi for not doing so as quickly as expected.  Speculation that some republicans were more behind the move than the president was pervasive in cable media the day of the vote.   It certainly does not look good to those who voted him in for his liberal tendencies.

Obama could mention the Upper Big Branch mine disaster in a call for clean energy.  He is extremely likely to mention energy as he did last year when he said the nation that leads the world in clean energy is the nation that leads the world.  The controversy surrounding mine safety and the call for stronger, earlier intervention on behalf of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (M.S.H.A.) seems to be appropriate – not only to mention the strides the nation needs to take in safety regulation, but also to advocate for other forms of energy.  The connection may not win him friends in the coalfields of West Virginia, but it is one that may be a persuasive point for other states. 

A strong topic for Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address was education.  Obama said he would work on cutting the cost of education and making it possible for the literacy rate in the United States to grow.  The American Opportunity Tax Credit, the idea of universities finding ways to cap costs and the DREAM Act are just some of the steps Obama has taken in the past year.  This could be a strong selling point for what Obama has done.

The president is comparable to the nation’s leaders past through both the situations he took on when he took office and his way of reaching people. 

Obama is similar to President Franklin D. Roosevelt through situation and because they seem to think similarly.  Roosevelt entered office during the Great Depression, which was one of the largest national crises to that date.  His platform, much like Obama’s, included help from the government. They both entered office after presidents who emphasized small government, and good ol’ Americans going out and getting jobs on their own without undue competition from those who might be too lazy or unqualified without government help.  People in Roosevelt’s time thought his ideas were radical much like people think Obama’s ideas are the beginnings of socialism today.

Another past leader who was similar to Obama is President John F. Kennedy.  Both tried to lead the nation on hope and change.  Both were firsts as Kennedy was the first Catholic president (which seemed radical at the time) and Obama is the first African-American president.  All presidents have all eyes on them, but these two in particular.  To break these barriers both men had to be eloquent speakers, forceful enough to make a point and gain a following, but soft enough to make opponents listen without full disdain.  Both lead campaigns and presidencies based on what is new and what innovation can bring to a nation founded on new ideas.

Finally, Obama is much like President Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln loved and believed in the strength of words.  Lincoln chose rhetoric over a big stick.  If Lincoln had been alive to run for the 2008 election he probably would have employed the same campaign methods as Obama.  Just as Obama’s platform grew almost overnight because of his endeavors in social media, his young campaign and the discovery of his memoirs, Lincoln used early forms of this method in his campaign and presidency.  

A CBS news piece comparing the two presidents mentions that Lincoln had verbatim copies of his speeches printed and distributed.  Harold Holzer, an author cited in the article, said the two paralleled with their personal tough in the spoken word. He said Lincoln grew up in a culture where presidential candidates did not speak – meaning Lincoln’s writings were just as vital as Obama’s in creating an image that could win the most votes.

Obama’s ability to put mind over matter, sense of humor and ability to speak well in any circumstance will propel him to success (and likely a few laughs) in the State of the Union Address, whether or not it leads him to success in the coming years.

Smarmy Style

I chose to write about Maureen Dowd because of her style.  She can write about nearly anything.  She's covered major political scandals (most notably the Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton's), but she can also write on more subtle subjects such as women in society.  She's also not afraid to cover sports.

Best of all, she can be just as fun writing about sedentary politicians and corrupt Chief Justices as she can writing about Keith Richards' surprising chivalry.  Everything is a joke, albeit one of those jokes that makes everyone in the room just a little uncomfortable because it's true and leaves a little pain in one's side.  Her jabs are pungent, and she can illustrate them in a video-less John Stuart style or more traditionally, depending on what's needed for the situation.

I do not agree with everything Dowd has ever written.  I do not agree with all of her points.  I do not,by any means, think she is the most effective sports writer on the planet.  I do not like to drown myself in women's studies with every other column.  But Dowd has many redeeming qualities to make up for that: most of which is style.

A little trick Dowd uses that I like: effective teasing.  She titles the blog appropriately, gives a synopsis that is slightly misleading, starts out with that synopsis, goes into a specific story, rounds the story out into a greater issue, and goes back to the specific example - tying it them together to end in a snarky comment.

Dowd's experience makes her credible for the most part, but her smarmy style makes her readable.

On "The Lede"

The Lede is fascinating because the blog is a world-wide analysis, but it's not too inclusive.  It covers major world conflicts, most seeming to be based on what could be called injustices and issues of national security.    Much of the content focuses on happenings in the Middle East, but it is not limited to that region. Several articles detail not only Julian Assange's battles with several governments, but also his quest to solicit readers for his "WikiLeaks" book due later in the year.

On "The Quad"

The Quad is a New York Times blog about college sports.  My favorite thing about it is this: if you think blog serves no further purpose than a regular column - you are mistaken.

The blog is, of course, even more conversational than a regular column, but that is not the only difference.  The blog allows writers to comment on the lifestyle of a sports fan without directly doing so.  It questions all things related to the sports world.  That includes things that are not necessarily related to actual sports action.  Writers mention the things that you might notice during a game or when feeding your sports diet.  It finds tidbits to make for fascinating entries, but would make any sports fan angry if published in the actual paper.

One of those tidbits was the Aflac duck's take on the National Title game.  Another included the fact that Auburn flags are rumored to fly (or at least reside) on the moon.  My favorite, however, suggested fans get a football fix by playing a "fantasy non-football" during the off-season.  The blogger essentially wrote that because an athlete is an athlete their skills can transcend multiple sports, therefore those who miss feeling like they can out-coach even the legends during fantasy football season may let off some steam by playing "scout" during college basketball season. After all, the blogger mentioned, several players have done both.

So which players do you think could make the leap?

On "The Cityroom"

The Cityroom blog deals with the New York City and its surrounding metro area, tackling municipal issues of all sorts.  The biggest issue writers have covered lately is the condition of the roads.  The blog has written about that in several different ways - each writer using a different take.  One writer scribed the unfortunate facts about how the streets would be cleared.  Another showed what happens when children are refused a show day they feel should be a "gimme," suggesting that kids today may have a newfound sense of entitlement.  Yet another told of speculation over a possible Christmas visit to Bermuda from a man with considerable winter responsibilities: Mayor Bloomberg.

A few days ago the New York times used the blog to solicit first-hand accounts of road conditions (including pictures) to aid in reporting.  This is one of the reasons I believe professional news organizations need blogs.  They need a way to make the reader feel more in-touch with the journalists (and the help they get from those eager to help in the news-gathering process does not detract from the idea).  

These blogs are a undoubtedly a place to hold a mirror to, ask questions of and interact with society at large; however, blogs also do something that a traditional article cannot do directly.  Blogs can call out society or those elected to take responsibility for it.