You expect certain responses out of certain people when President Obama gives a State of the Union address. You can count on Reince Priebus, for example, to be a pissy teenager about the whole thing because, well, that's his job. His problem with the speech, I guess, is that it was a speech:

"I just can’t take him seriously anymore," he said. "The guy is just full of speeches and you know, it’s one forensics contest after the next with this president. So, I don’t know. I think we’re all a little glazed over with the speeches and the pomp and circumstance and the pageantry with this president."

And I'm not surprised that Sullivan was underwhelmed by the lack of sweeping vision. That's a standard Sullivan complaint, and while I don't agree, I'm sure a lot of Obama fans were upset that he didn't deliver one of his enormous, bold campaign-style speeches. But that's not what a State of the Union is. SotUs are about telling America where we are, where we've been, and where we're going. You have to have a lot of pragmatism in a SotU, because it's got to be about the possible. Worse, it's got to be about the possible within a very limited timeframe of a year.

But this is more than just a few examples: All night, political commentators on TV and the internet were saying the speech wasn't what it needed to be, that it lacked fire, or specificity, or anger, or generosity. I suppose that's fine, but I can't for the life of me picture what kind of speech they wanted to hear. (Goldy suggested that TV news commentators are upset that the presidential race isn't looking more competitive, and so they're framing this speech as a weakness to keep things exciting. I think there's some truth to that theory.) The speech I heard was a strong SotU in which President Obama made the case for correcting income inequality and stole the language back from the conservatives who've been telling 99% of the country that they suffer from envy.

The president said that we were on track, but that the recovery is taking time to rebuild correctly; he said we're properly poised on the international stage; and he offered a few proposals that either appeal to Republicans (the whole energy bit) or will never be more than just words (the whole keeping kids in school until they graduate bit). He began and ended with the troops, which always works in the United States. Focus groups reportedly loved it, and I think independents will love it, too.

The SotU is watched or listened to by well over ten times the number of people who watch the Republican debates. It hit its target by reintroducing the president to people who are just now starting to pay attention to the elections in November and framing the debate in his favor. What else could you reasonably expect?