Kerry's comments on the SOTU

[karynnj]

4. Both the President and Kerry have said BOTH

There are Kerry comments that were as strong as anyone's outlining that the Republicans were not willing to work with the Democrats. He was the Democrat who was most prominently out in the media after the supercommittee failed- calling Norquist the 13th member and contrasting the pledge to Norquist to the pledge he took to the Constitution. The Democrats won the spin on why the committee failed - in spite, of the media being more on the Republican side. Kerry was not the only one out then, but he was perhaps the one who framed it best.

Part of his success at that is that he coupled those concise sharp attacks with the idealistic comments on why it was important to work together to deal with the serious deficit problem. These were outlined seriously with a voice that sounded both saddened and weary from having fought hard to do what was best for the country and a look that was choir boy earnest. The latter allowed the former to not sound like nasty partisan soundbites - while letting them work as soundbites making Norquist a bad word.

Look back at Obama's SOTU, he did a similar balancing act - calling for the idealistic possibility of the two sides working together to put bills on his desk - something he called for in at least 5 instances. In his case, with the power of the Presidency, in addition to defining areas where the Republicans did not help - he, with considerable bluster, listed things he would do unilaterally. The combination showed a buoyant, positive, masterful leader - working for the country - any way he possibly could.

Obama's brilliance in this speech was the positive tone and the proactive things that he listed that he can do (or that the Congress can do). The interesting thing is how much his team identified that he can do with very little help (if any) from Congress. His coupling companies and community colleges was one of those areas. More can be done if there is funding, but the example was a case where I think there was no funding. Why I think it is brilliant is that there are many things that he will have future successes on - because he does not need Congress. On the ones that need Congress, one of two things will happen - either the Republicans continue to obstruct or they change course. Either way, it is a win for Obama. If they obstruct, the positive, likable, hard working Obama runs against the sour Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell - as well as their unlikable Presidential nominee. If they work together, it is a HUGE Obama victory in that OTHERS can claim that he is now succeeding in healing and bringing the country together. I wonder if it was a recognition of that that led to the increasingly hard, angry, sad looks on the faces of the Republican leaders.

Don't listen to the message board extremists. They will extravagantly praise Obama when he attacks the Republicans, but will then the very next day exorcise him for caving - saying he always gives in. In fact, it is a balancing act - and part theatre. In some ways the amazing thing is how badly the Republicans have played it since the 2010 election. The more people see them acting just to obstruct for political reasons, the less they like them. The fact though is both parties are forced to obstruct when they are the party out of power. Kerry led an obstruction when he successfully filibustered drilling in ANWR in the early Bush years. In 2008, he spoke of the future saying that he and others got into politics to make good things happen, not just to stop bad things. The difference between then and now is that the reasons and principles behind stopping things were seen as the reason why Democrats were fighting. I don't remember anyone on the right writing about the Democrats obstructing just to obstruct.

What I hope the Republicans face is a tough decision. Either they continue to obstruct and very likely face the anger of the voters in many swing districts. The House is totally re-elected each election, they face the real danger of losing the House and not being able to take the Senate in a year where the Senate could easily swing to them because 2006, when this class was last elected, was so incredibly good for us. But, there alternative is to work with Obama - which will given all Obama has already done - insure not just Obama's reelection, but his very likely inclusion in the list of all time great Presidents. This might also lead to Democrats doing well down ticket - though the Republican House candidates may face a lot less anger.

Think of what this could give the Democrats. The Republicans mythologize Reagan and he is someone they rally around. The Democrats' last equivalent to that is FDR. JFK was inspiring, but more for the potential that was destroyed. Clinton's legacy is ... complicated. If things go well, Obama will be seen as the leader who led us out of the biggest economic crisis since the depression and - maybe - who righted our foreign policy. In 2007, in one of the book tour interviews, Kerry spoke of the importance of the next election and argued that if we elect the right person, they would have the chance not just to be a good President, but a great one - because of the tough problems they would face - and this was said before the economic meltdown! Obama is that President.