Josh Barro digs into the substance of the speech:
Obama is calling for protectionist tax policies, aimed at rewarding companies that manufacture here and punishing those that manufacture abroad. This is economically inefficient–less expensive manufacturing abroad is a key downward driver of the price of consumer goods, which raises Americans’ real incomes. It’s also a fool’s errand. There is nothing that forces multinational corporations to incorporate in the United States. Attempting to use America’s unusual system of worldwide corporate taxation to tax the foreign operations of U.S. companies just advantages foreign-incorporated multinationals over American ones.
Josh Marshall mocks Romney:
Great idea for Mitt to release his tax returns today. True stroke of genius. Because who could have predicted President Obama would make the Buffett Rule a centerpiece of his speech?
Mark Steitz liked the mortgage refinance plan:
Tonight, the president announced that he is sending the Congress a plan to allow for the refinancing of the mortgages of every responsible homeowner. Conventional wisdom in Washington has it that little if any serious legislation will pass this year. But this issue may and should be different. Many of the primary beneficiaries of this streamlined refinance policy are Republican voters in Tea Party districts. Broad based refi represents a market based approach that doesn't require significant taxes or an increase in the deficit, but will strengthen the real estate market. Shouldn't Republicans line up?
Howie Kurtz is more critical of the policy proposals:
Obama offered a number of small-ball initiatives, such as asking companies to work with community colleges on hiring. And there were lofty promises, such as urging schools to reward good teachers, with no concrete proposals attached. And even if there were, where would the money come from with both parties arguing over the deep budget cutbacks mandated after the supercommittee’s demise?
Stan Collender wanted more discussion of the deficit:
The budget debate didn't move forward by an inch with this speech. No hints about what's planned for the deficit. A non-event as far as fiscal policy is concerned. This was a campaign speech with lots of positives and optimism and almost nothing about the costs.
Jared Bernstein says the speech was about short-term economic fixes:
This wasn’t “win the future” with a long-term investment agenda. It was “build on the momentum we’ve got right now“ by creating incentives for manufacturers, skills for workers, jobs in fossil fuel extraction and clean energy innovation, all financed by a fairer tax code.
Sir Charles at Cogitamus boasts that he liked the speech for all the reasons I hated it:
I do agree with Sullivan that the speech is Clintonesque, i.e. a stem-winding laundry list — which were more effective than one might think — and rhetorically the weakest of Obama's SOTUs so far. The language is pretty pedestrian and there are no real admirable rhetorical flights that I can recall. But I think the substance of the speech is aimed in the right places for the election.
I should say that I routinely hated Clinton's SOTUs, but they were all wildly popular. So I may be wrong on this one as well. John Cole, meanwhile, swooned:
[E]very time I hear him speak, I am still aware of all the things I disagree with him on, but think “That is a good man doing what he thinks is best.” That is really all you can ask for from someone, because as far as I can tell, I’m the only one who agrees with me 100% of the time. And as you all know, if you give me a week, I’ll disagree with myself. We really don’t deserve him. We really don’t.
E.D. Kain thought the speech was "pretty good":
The point of a speech like this one – an election year State of the Union Address – is not to lay out a grand vision. To be honest, the time for grand visions is over. What the president needs to do – and what he didn’t do enough tonight – is lay out in stark terms why his presidency is important and distinct from the hypothetical presidency of Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
Mark Halperin agrees the that speech was about Obama's reelection more than anything:
The speech was clearly poll tested to within an inch of its life, filled with programs and themes of broad appeal running from the left to the center right. Rhetorically reached out to the opposition by invoking national security, the need to get Washington working and a few familiar areas of common ground (entitlement and education reform). But much of the speech focused on policies that divide the parties absolutely. And, judging by the press releases and tweets from the Republican leadership, this State of the Union address will serve to lay down markers for November's election rather than break the current gridlock.
Will Wilkinson's take:
Obama's speech, in its particulars, seemed fairly rote. I'm left with the idea that the economy's getting better, Obama's keen to do something about jobs, and that bin Laden is fish food. If he can get just that much to stick in the electorate's collective mind, it's probably enough to win reelection.
And Jim Fallows thought the speech was effective:
I think the speech advanced his aims in some ways that are obvious and others that plant little markers for the rest of the campaign year.
The Dish 