ASIDE FROM THE WORDS

There is an abundance of opportunity for you to read the words of President Obama's State of the Union Address on the web, in the papers, and elsewhere today. I won't duplicate those opportunities here.

Rather, I thought I'd share a few "asides" which caught my attention. Please bear with me.

+ It always bothers me to have to watch the VP and the Speaker reacting. Very distracting.

+ Just once I'd love to hear a President say something like: "Look, folks, this annual event has become a circus. Let's hold the applause until after the speech and can the standing and sitting for the sake of the cameras. It makes this into a political ping pong match, and this stuff is too serious for that."

+ I know the rules don't allow the Supreme Court to react to the words of the President, but if that's the case, move them away from the front row and can the robes. Incidentally, I don't remember hearing a President take a jab at the SC before. They deserved his comment.

+ Bill Livingood,Sergeant-at-Arms of the House, who announces the presence of the President and then acts as his guide through the crowd, is a friend of mine. He never seems to age.

+ Humor (sometimes cutting as it was) found a home in the speech last night. At times it was more like a fireside chat than a State of the Union Address. That's not all bad.

+ I have never appreciated the "Response" from the other party after the Address. It signals a partisan flavor which I feel is over the top. Having said that, I thought Gov. McDonnell did a decent job of it.

+ We are getting much better at reading lips these days. Side comments by those attending aren't nearly as private as the whisperer thinks.

+ Watching last night made me wonder if maybe more progress would be made in the Congress if Members and Senators were seated by seniority instead of by party. Maybe the days of the other side of the aisle should be relegated to history. Wouldn't it be better if elected people had to talk on a daily basis with those from the other party rather than constantly reinforcing their opinions with colleagues from the same party? Chumminess can go only so far before it becomes a distraction and an excuse for stubbornness.

+ What's with the autograph session at the end? Aren't these people who see the President all the time? Don't they have plenty of opportunity to ask for his signature away from the State of the Union Address?

+ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is looking particularly frail these days. I suspect her recent illnesses have taken more of a toll than we have been told.

+ Wouldn't it be strange to have an unmarried President? To whom would the cameras point at those staged moments in a speech when everyone stands and turns (awkwardly) toward the First Lady?

+ Last night I rushed home from a basketball game (where Providence College drubbed Connecticut) to watch the Address. It helped my mood. I was anxious throughout the day anticipating the speech. My basketball euphoria gave the speech a lighter finish.


So...that's my semi-serious take on it for the day after the 2010 State of the Union Address by President Obama. Overall, I think he scored well in a troubled year. I'm curious to see how his expressed plans, hopes, and commitments will fly away from the television extravaganza.

POLITICAL IDEALISM: the belief that election will bring an opportunity to be an unencumbered change agent

Photo: AP/Nati Harnik

There is not a politician alive (or recently deceased) who has not believed, upon agreeing to run for office, that she or he could make a difference. In spite of the cynicism of some who think that candidates have various greedy, nefarious motivations, the cost is too great, the energy required is too massive, and the pressure is too unrelenting. Without political idealism a potential candidate is too raw to be successful in getting to the first level of competition for a position.

I know personally of what I speak! Once, on a local level, I was successful in being elected only to discover that the obligations of holding a public office were too great, conflicting with the expectations of my profession. It became necessary for me to resign the elected position before the end of my term.

Another time I ran for a high risk state-wide position against a two-term Republican incumbent with deep pockets in a primarily-Republican district. I lost the election, but not without achieving a huge success in gaining cross-over votes. The margin of votes was less than 10%.

In both cases the learning curve was huge, and the disillusion I experienced was massive...more in the state-wide race than the local one. My political idealism was raging; my reality check was too late in arriving in the mail.

Political parties are in the business (and it is a business) of getting candidates elected. From the beginning, the party machine extracts promises and defines boundaries. In return for party support ($) there are expectations which are established. With raging idealism it seems as if a candidate can walk the thin line between accepting necessary support and being true to one's goals and aspirations. First Mistake! The people at the party level are professionals who have dealt with novices before...many times. They know what the potential candidate is thinking, and they know that it's only a matter of time before the candidate will cave.

The power of money in today's political scene is obscene. My race in a fairly low-profile state district cost over $250,000 and it would have been much more if we hadn't gone our separate ways at the last minute. I worked my tail off to raise a good chunk of money, but the party money effectively financed my campaign.

That meant that the party expected its own philosophy and rules to prevail. No agreement...no check in the mail. Much of what the party did for me was good and provided me with materials and opportunities I would not have experienced on my own. But there was a constant awareness of the cost of those support gifts, and it became clear that the cost was more than I was willing to expend. I became rebellious on small things, and the party became less than enthusiastic with my campaign, eventually pulling further financial support. A couple of mis-steps along the way on my part didn't help.

I think about this scenario when I watch what is happening to President Obama. He is filled with the kind of idealism a nation craves. Clearly, he is someone who has the ability to bring about great change. But to get there, there are all kinds of people out there expecting him to jump through their hoops. The power of lobbies is far greater than the public perception.

In spite of his popularity among the voting public he requires political support...and came into this presidency expecting some of that support to come from people on the other side of the aisle who share some of his idealism. The cost of following his idealism has turned out to be too great for some members of his own party who face mid-term elections later this year. And a concerted effort to destroy the potential of his re-election in 2012 has brought about a vicious campaign to discredit him by the Republican Party. Political reality has set in. Unexpected twists, like the death of Ted Kennedy, have cost him dearly.

My own idealism is still rampant with regard to President Obama. I still believe that the American people want to see his agenda achieved. But I am not so politically naive as to think that he can achieve it without the strong support of his own party. I don't see that concerted support out there. The secret for President Obama is to draw a line in the sand as to how far he is willing to concede his idealism without losing it altogether.