The SOTU response

|
(0)

By Tim Redmond

--It says a lot about the state of the media when Sen. Dick Durbin decides that instead of doing TV interviews, he'll respond to the speech by blogging on DailyKos. Complete with some really dopey pictures. (Look, look, here I am, blogging! I may be a U.S. Senator but I can actually type on a computer, like the real people! I'm a blogger! Whoo Hah!)

--Chris Matthews argues that Jim Webb's response is the strongest Democratic response to a GOP State of the Union speech since Ed Muskie responded to Nixon in 1970. That's a strong statement, but it's pretty clear that Webb was the right guy for this job: He pointedly noted that he, and his brother, and his son, had all served in active duty in the Marines (unlike Bush), and that leaders who send troops to war have a responsibility to make honest judgements.

--CNN says that Bush is already a lame duck Duh.

--Just saw Barack Obama on Larry Bush; he sounds good, although a bit hesitant. He carefully handled a question about Hilary Clinton and her initial stand on the war; he didn't blast her, said that "many people voted in ways they regret" -- but reminded everyone that he was against the war from the start.

--The Guardian of London leads its coverage with a discussion of ethanol. If this is the heart of Bush's energy plan, he's in trouble: Ethanol is an energy inefficient fuel, and the plan was a perfect Bushism -- no need for sacrifice. No need to stop driving an SUV. Just use ethanol and it will all be fine.

--I was a bit appaled when Nancy Pelosi applauded at Bush's comment that the nation needs to address the problem of illegal immigrants "without animosity, and without amnesty."

--Even the libertarians think that Bush is "increasingly irrelevant."

Bill Richardson has one of the most sensible comments tonight: Bush's "nightmare scenario" in Iraq is what's alrealdy happening.