The Reconnect: Insiders fight like outsiders, as Obama seeks restored trust

By Rick Klein Everybody loves a fight. Everybody loves a comeback. Not everyone is crazy about a repeat. President Obama’s first official State of the Union address will be remembered for its combative tone (though there wasn’t enough of that for the left), its focus on jobs (though not enough for the right), and a range of new commitments (mostly to old promises). Primarily, though, this was about repositioning the president in the fight that defined his candidacy, and is more than likely to define his success in office. The president embraced the ideology of outsiderdom — as performed by one who’s been on the inside for a year now. The speech was a 70-minute argument that Washington is broken. That we knew. But what the public isn’t convinced of yet — or perhaps just isn’t convinced of anymore — is that the White House can lead toward a solution. The central question — one the president tries to start to answer Thursday, as he visits Florida to try to build some momentum out of Wednesday night — is whether that strong bond with voters that we saw a year ago can be built again. Can the insiders fight like outsiders? If the call to action gets heard again, the speech will be read as a blueprint for an unusually ambitious mid-term year. If not — hope and change were nice while they lasted. “It was the politics of Washington, rather than any specific policy, that the president spoke about with the most passion after a year when the change he pledged proved elusive,” Scott Wilson writes for The Washington Post. “Laced throughout the policy prescriptions, though, was Obama’s sharp critique of Washington’s political culture and Wall Street’s irresponsibility that worked so well for him as a candidate.” It was less an effort to ignore the Washington chatter than to rise above it and rebut it — to remind voters that he was elected to quiet it. It was less course correction than history lesson: This is how we got here, and this is why voters wanted this president to find a way out. “It was a confident performance, more defiant than contrite, more conversational than soaring,”Peter Baker writes in The New York Times. “He appealed to and scolded both parties, threatened vetoes, blamed his predecessor and poked fun at lawmakers. The agenda was largely the same, dressed up in fresh packaging, as he offered point-by-point rebuttals to the litany of critiques he hears with increasing frequency.”   ”Obama’s message seemed aimed at rallying the American people and reassuring them that his administration and the politicians in Washington understand their concerns and are working for them,” ABC’s Jake Tapper and Karen Travers report. “We do not give up. We do not quit,” the president declared. “This was the longest speech of President Obama’s national political career, and coming at a troubled time for his agenda, it might end up being his most consequential,” Tapper reported on “Good Morning America.”  (Really? He was never more hopeful than he was last night?) Backing up the messaging — Vice President Joe Biden, to ABC’s Robin Roberts: “There’s a lot of frustration out there — the president acknowledged that. But we’re focused on creating jobs now.” “We’ve lost a year,” former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., told George Stephanopoulos on “GMA.” “We want to see the president focus actually on jobs, rather than go all over the board, which is what we saw last night.” Would unemployment be lower if John McCain was president? No pause: “Absolutely,” Romney said. (And will Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., run for president? “He’s a great guy — welcome into that arena. I tried it once, and he may try it as well,” Romney said.) Can we go back there again? “President Obama’s State of the Union address was an unusually candid attempt to recapture the magic of his first months in office — an effort to remind Americans why they admired him in January 2009, and to persuade them to feel that way again,” Doyle MacManus writes in the Los Angeles Times.  “A year ago, he was welcomed by Democrats as a conquering hero. Since then, he’s struggled to get key priorities enacted,” Laura Meckler and Jonathan Weisman write in The Wall Street Journal. “To many Americans, a president who was supposed to sweep aside conventions in Washington has come to embody its gridlock, a dynamic Republicans are seeking to exploit.”   The AP’s Ron Fournier: “President Barack Obama checked every political box needed to restart his troubled presidency Wednesday night, but that may not be enough to consider his State of Union address a success. Did he strengthen his connection with the American public? Or did he sound like a politician with a stack of prescriptions for his political ills?”   USA Today’s Susan Page: “Obama’s tone was unapologetic and direct, at times almost scolding, warier than before.”  The lumps: “The speech … comes at a particularly rocky point in his presidency, with many Americans — including some fellow Democrats — complaining that the president has lost sight of the priorities of ordinary people,” Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in The New York Times. “And Mr. Obama acknowledged their doubts, conceding that some of his political setbacks ‘were deserved,’ a striking admission for any president.”  A big fan: “In tone and content it was aimed squarely at the fickle voters he has lost since last year: the swing-voting independents in the middle of the spectrum,” Newsweek’s Howard Fineman writes. “As a piece of politics, it was nothing short of masterful.” Slate’s John Dickerson: “The speech had a feel of a relaunch. In tone and spirit, the president returned repeatedly to the themes he campaigned on — a call to end partisanship and special interest influence, and to create a government equal to the spirit of the American people.” Bigger than ideology — for all that that’s worth: “In a favorable light, his State of the Union speech may have revealed the mind of a leader who has never cared much about traditional ideological categories and is determined to create his own results-oriented composite of ideas from across the spectrum,” Politico’s John F. Harris writes. “Less charitably, the address could be interpreted as the work of a president who is desperately improvising by touching every political erogenous zone he and his advisers can think of.” On the left — Aaron Swartz, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder: “It was, frankly, a boring speech — a rehashed call for bipartisanship when America wants to see a fighter. It’s tough to get inspired by a Democratic President who refuses to fight for popular policies like the public option and instead adopts tired Republican talking points on issues like offshore drilling and tax cuts.” On the right — any incentive for cooperation? “While the Democrats, at times, seemed to be considering the exits, the Republicans in the crowd handled the event with a renewed sense of confidence,” Time’s Michael Scherer writes. “Eschewing paper signs or rude interruptions, they seemed content to pass the time with a sort of cool confidence that accompanies a sense of ascendancy.” That was fast: “Liz Cheney’s group Keep America Safe is already out with this new spot an aide says will run on Fox and MSNBC in the capital starting Monday, moving from the State of the Union to attack Obama on what Republican leaders say is going to be a large part of the 2010 campaign’s: national security,” Politico’s Ben Smith reports.   Prodding to action — how, exactly? “Any glow from President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Wednesday is unlikely to translate into dramatic congressional action anytime soon,” McClatchy’s David Lightman and William Douglas report. “The tone in Congress was more somber and conciliatory than it’s been in recent years.” Bold calls? “There was a lot to like, and little to oppose,” the Boston Globe editorializes. “But behind all the grandeur of the occasion, it was a defensive speech. Its goal was to help Obama regain his political footing, and in that it may have succeeded. But his new initiatives — such as a package of benefits to encourage small businesses to hire more people — were relatively modest in the face of widespread unemployment and seemed designed to defang his Republican critics.”  Can you get a bigger debate with fewer words? Don’t ask: “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” the president said. Calling out the Supreme Court — and getting a rise out of a justice: “During tonight’s State of the Union speech, cameras caught Justice Samuel Alito seemingly shaking his head when the President made a pointed attack on the recent campaign finance decision,” ABC’s Ariane de Vogue reports. “Lip readers on the web are already weighing in — claiming that Alito said ‘that’s not true’ when Obama suggested the ruling will open the floodgates to corporate spending.” Quite the day for a little health care optimism: “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly predicted Wednesday afternoon that she could muster enough votes to pass the Senate version of health care reform if the upper chamber agreed to adjust the bill through the reconciliation process,” Ron Brownstein writes for National Journal.  Pelosi, D-Calif., told columnists: “Reconciliation resolving some of the issues: then we can pass this thing.” Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., on board: “If I support a bill, then I will vote for it regardless of whether it takes 50 votes to pass or 60 votes to pass,” Nelson said in a statement, per ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf. Liberals sound like they’re on board: “The day this bill passes, and if it doesn’t have a public option in it, I’m introducing my public option bill,” Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus, told ABC News. “On to the next.” But how about some handicapping by dint of positioning? “Health care was wedged into a catalog of presidential priorities, which included jobs, the economy, education, bank regulation, energy independence, deficit reduction and the war in Afghanistan,”Robert Pear and David M. Herszenhorn report in The New York Times. “The change highlighted the risks for Mr. Obama in staking more of his political capital on legislation whose fate in Congress is uncertain — a bill that divides the Democratic caucus, that is reviled by Republicans and that makes many independent voters nervous.” “President Barack Obama’s vague exhortations during his State of the Union that Congress should not give up on health care reform received broad support from House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday night, but Members said he did not give them a clear path forward to break the current gridlock,” Roll Call’s Emily Pierce reports. Backing up Tim Geithner, after the roughest of days on the Hill: “I’ve been sitting with Tim Geithner since January. He’s weighed in constantly on behalf of the American people,” Vice President Joe Biden told Robin Roberts on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. “And one of the things he did was he inherited a position where we had a bailout for the banks that wasn’t going all that well.” Unexpected complications: “Responding to growing pressure from downtown residents and business leaders, Mayor Bloomberg yesterday said the trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his fellow terrorists should be moved out of the city,” the New York Post’s Tom Topousis and David Seifman report. “It would be great if the federal government could find a site that didn’t cost $1 billion, which using downtown will, and it will also impact traffic and commerce and people’s lifestyles,” Bloomberg said. “And it would be great if we didn’t do it.”  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.: “I share the concerns from the Mayor and the businesses community, and I am open to alternative locations.”   In Hawaii — Michael Steele, firing back: “The chairman of the Republican National Committee on Wednesday denounced a proposed resolution that would require Republican candidates to adhere to a checklist of conservative positions in order to receive party support, warning that it could undercut his party as it seeks to rebuild and win back control of Congress,” Adam Nagourney reports from Honolulu, in The New York Times. Said Steele: “I am personally not in favor of litmus tests. It’s not what brought me into the party. It’s not a welcoming or an inviting activity.” “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed if the party moved in that direction,” he said, per Bloomberg’s John McCormick.  Looking for an exit strategy? “No, I really can’t,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told PBS’ Tavis Smiley, when asked whether she could envision herself serving a full eight years in her current post, per ABC’s Kirit Radia. And the latest from the Edwards spectacle: Yes, a sex tape. “There was one tape that was marked, ‘special,’ and we were just aghast,” Andrew Young told ABC’s Bob Woodruff, for a “20/20″ interview airing Friday. “It was a sex tape of Rielle [Hunter] and John Edwards, made just a couple months before the Iowa caucuses. … It’s definitely him. You never see her face. It’s a visibly pregnant woman.”   
The Kicker: “I’ve had so many members say, ‘Hey Joe, where are you sitting? I want to sit with you.’ ” — Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., perhaps more popular for the camera time. “If HF were here, he would probably be sitting on the Republican side.” — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., on her Twitter feed, referring to @HFord2. 
For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/