I'd rather see him start by going farther than the middle.

I would prefer that he step on the Republicans toes until they, the republicans, apologize.

He didn't.

So... we'll see.

I deeply regret that he's taught me not to believe he will stand up for what he says he will, though.  So the speech is very welcome for, finally, a full-throated defense of liberal government, something I haven't heard him do for a very long time.

But... sadly, it's just a speech, and going on past record, there's absolutely no reason to have any faith that he'll stick to the principles he outlined in it.

I am pleased with the speech.  If that's the standard he's set for himself, then to cut those programs is to fail.  So he agrees with me then policy-wise.

He can give into the GOP on austerity.  He obviously is on the same page as they are on that issue at some level.  But letting something happen to Medicare, Medicaid, or SS is suicidal for a Democrat.  I think his speech demonstrated that he knows that.

David Dayen:

The weakest part of the speech was his rebuttal to this concern, where he says he basically agrees, he gave everyone a payroll tax cut (which doesn't do a heck of a lot for people not on a payroll), and an evidence-free assertion that "doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option." But it's actually quite a good option.

At the moment the international investment class is prepared to lend money to the United States of America at low interest rates. What's more, at the moment the United States of America has a lot of infrastructure needs. Furthermore, at the moment the United States of America has a large number of unemployed people. The logical course of action would be to accept international investors' desire for us to increase our volume of low interest borrowing in order to put people to work on useful infrastructure projects. Near the end of his speech, Obama said that "doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option." But it is an option! It's not an option for Spain, which is facing sky-high borrowing costs. It's not an option for Portugal, which just accepted a bailout from the European Union. But it is very much an option for the United States of America. It's a good option, an appealing option, an option that will increase our wealth over the long term. It won't be an option forever, but that's all the more reason to exercise the option while we can.

Policies like this are just a missed opportunity, a chance to actually win the future with investments in the present that extend our economic performance. We could recover the half of the deficit created by falling tax receipts just by employing people. No deficit reduction works at 8.8% unemployment.

And, as Paul Krugman noted in his update to his initial post-speech critique:

I should probably say, I could live with this as an end result. If this becomes the left pole, and the center is halfway between this and Ryan, then no -- better to pursue the zero option of just doing nothing and letting the Bush tax cuts as a whole expire.

But this theme of portraying him as someone who hates liberal values across the board was just something I feel compelled to push back against.

Should we criticize? Yes. But argue that he's worse than Reagan and we shouldn't vote for him to allow for President Romney?

As I said above, it's just a speech.  But it's a heck of a lot more promising speech than 99 percent of what's come out of his mouth since he showed up on the scene back at the primaries.

I can't criticize what he says on tax policy, but I'd like to see some independent analysis.

Why should we believe you?

As part of the fight against global warming, California already requires its large, investor-owned utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from the sun, the wind, and other renewable energy sources, a goal they have not yet met. Developers are racing to build wind farms and solar power plants across the state, often using technology developed by California companies.
...

Do you seriously think that Republicans would be fooled in to agreeing to only 352 million in cuts?

What would be new, however, and EVERYONE knows this, is Obama doing anything that genuinely resembles playing hardball.  The Repubs play hardball, he plays softball, and a "lousy" deal is struck (lousy for the people, that is).