Speaking at length

Obama said a lot tonight. I watched the returns, along with several other young politicos, at home tonight, and we all had many-a witty comment to make about his windiness. Then, I read this from Jon Cohn:

It wasn't a terrible speech by any means; I don't think Obama is actually capable of doing that. On his bad night, he still puts most other politicians to shame. And tonight's certainly had its moments. I was particularly struck by the story he told about the 20-year-old soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

But this felt a lot more like those old Bill Clinton State of the Union speeches. Packed with policy ideas, they seemed to go on forever -- and lacked the thematics or sheer lyricism we've come to expect from Obama.

Interestingly enough, Bill Clinton is exactly who came to my mind when people started yawning. But not for the same reasons. I thought of Bill Clinton because of something I'd read perhaps two years ago. In 1995, Bill Clinton's State of the Union address went on for well over an hour, boring the pundits who a). already knew a great deal about the policy specifics he offered, and b). were more interested in the showmanship--in how the speech would usher in a new era of a shorter, snappier President Clinton. They panned it. Here's how James Fallows reported it just over a dozen years ago:

For instant analysis NBC went to Peggy Noonan, who had been a speechwriter for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. She grimaced and barely tried to conceal her disdain for such an ungainly, sprawling speech. Other commentators soon mentioned that congressmen had been slipping out of the Capitol building before the end of the speech, that Clinton had once more failed to stick to an agenda, that the speech probably would not give the President the new start he sought. The comments were virtually all about the tactics of the speech, and they were almost all thumbs down.

A day and a half later the first newspaper columns showed up. They were even more critical. On January 26 The Washington Post's op-ed page consisted mainly of stories about the speech, all of which were withering. "All Mush and No Message" was the headline on a column by Richard Cohen. "An Opportunity Missed" was the more statesmanlike judgment from David Broder. Cohen wrote: "Pardon me if I thought of an awful metaphor: Clinton at a buffet table, eating everything in sight."

What a big fat jerk that Clinton was! How little he understood the obligations of leadership! Yet the news section of the same day's Post had a long article based on discussions with a focus group of ordinary citizens in Chicago who had watched the President's speech. "For these voters, the State of the Union speech was an antidote to weeks of unrelenting criticism of Clinton's presidency," the article said.

"Tonight reminded us of what has been accomplished," said Maureen Prince, who works as the office manager in her husband's business and has raised five children. "We are so busy hearing the negatives all the time, from the time you wake up on your clock radio in the morning. . . ."

The group's immediate impressions mirrored the results of several polls conducted immediately after the president's speech.

ABC News found that eight out of 10 approved of the president's speech. CBS News said that 74 percent of those surveyed said they had a "clear idea" of what Clinton stands for, compared with just 41 percent before the speech. A Gallup Poll for USA Today and Cable News Network found that eight in 10 said Clinton is leading the country in the right direction.

Nielsen ratings reported in the same day's paper showed that the longer the speech went on, the larger the number of people who tuned in to watch.

Obviously not every long, detailed speech will be a big winner with the public. But I think the bored pundits who have yet to comment on the victory speech--both those who know policy too well, and those who care about it too little--ought to study this artifact before judging it too harshly on a largely meritless line of criticism.