How'd he do?

There was no way Obama could hit a grand slam that would excite and please even half of the people, no matter which side he took. Progressives will be unhappy because of what he didn't address (climate, gun control, etc.); conservatives will be unhappy because he depends on "investments" rather than spending cuts, though he did propose those too.

But what Obama needed to do -- at this particular moment -- was to: (1) create some semblance of unity (the Congress members helped by their seating plans; and, no, that was not just meaningless symbolism. It did make a difference in the tone and added to my second point; (2) he needed to show that there really are adults in charge, himself being the first and maybe congress too; and (3) he needed to project a sense of bold purpose going forward, instead of playing defense.

I think he did all three of those things splendidly.

Most of our Georgia delegation got into the bipartisan spirit of pairing up with members of the opposite party. However, one notably played the willful, oppositional child, Rep. Paul Braun. As he has done in the past, he did not attend the speech in person but watched from his congressional office and sent out running twitter messages critical of what Obama was saying. Braun, who in the past has called Obama a "Nazi-like Marxist dictator," wrote during the SOTUS, "Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism."

And then there was also child Michele Bachman, who decided to give her own SOTUS rebuttal, and did. Her remarks included her clueless rewriting of history with the ludicrous claim, which sent Chris Matthews into a fit of apoplexy, that our Founding Fathers worked tirelessly until slavery had been eliminated. Ask Mr. Lincoln about that, Michele.

I guess it's progress. At least there seemed to be a higher percentage of adults in the House chamber last night, even though a few children still ran loose.

Ralph