A Uniter in Illusion.
(Just my perspective on the Speech.)

The President’s State of the Union speech was obviously much more than a report on the country or even an outline of goals, it was a stand-up sit-down fight, fight, fight, song and dance. Of course expecting partisanship to be missing is not realistic, nor ever really lacking in the past, no matter what party was in charge. However for a uniter not a divider?

Some candidates have been accused of being lackluster in the past and now some are revealing too much emotion, but does it really compare to the smirks, and half-winks as the president presents the state of the union. Of course this is just my characterization of it.

But was there not a record amount of standing ovations? Some were certainly over the obvious and non-partisan, like a tribute and thanks to our fighting and dying men and women in arms. There were more occasions where the Republicans would rise as if on cue, and they probably did have some sort of cheerleader or choreographer. Or at least they should have as some in the crowd could have used some directions, as they even seemed perturbed or curious about their reason or whether it was their move.

The positive reaction to the president’s statement that the "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year" was expected by the Democrats. But his emphasis almost with glee that "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule" brought unusually rousing applause and glee from the other side. Were they really listening or just unthinking?

Late in the speech another rousing ovation also followed his statement that "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." He went on to explain: "The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." But this last bit must have been confusing for some or they were morally tired, as they seemed to almost forget to clap or see that that was a very good line. It is interesting that he even mentioned a debate.

Is my characterization of smirks and winks unfair? What about the choice the president brings up barely into his speech:

"We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare, or we can turn back to old policies and old divisions. "

Who casts illusions, let alone divisions? The emphasis, partisanship and divisiveness are sickening.

DEAN EMOTIONS IN CONTROL:
( To Seatlle Times Editor about a piece by Tom Brown-see quotations in first paragraph).

Tom Brown is right. The results in Iowa can be good for the Democrats by having a more "vigorous primary season" rather than an "early runaway by Howard Dean". Also "Americans want someone in the White House who is in control, not someone who may go out of control". However, the horse is already out of the barn there.

Dean’s emotions are very appropriate and up front which is better than hidden agendas and wondering who is in control in the White House. The President’s handlers or "objective staff" who tell him the media is too filtered, should explain that if he had more press conferences that the press would at least have more to go on. Instead they control his exposure and his intelligence. Meanwhile the use of intelligence and leaks are out of control unless they want to control them.

It is hard to control your emotions when the President doesn’t know the difference between WMD and intentions, and has control of both but is not up front about either. As an "unnamed Democrat" now leads Bush, just wait till Dean or any Democrat faces Bush to see who has and will control.