Red State, Blue State, State of the Union

Okay. President Obama talked about jobs, about energy, about jobs, about climate, and about jobs. Did we mention jobs?

As President, it’s not his job to make everybody happy. But it helps if he wins over more than 51 percent.

Some folks were definitely happy. Steven Cohen, Executive Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, wrote at the Huffington Post:

I continue to root for Barack Obama. Blunt and tough was just the right tone for his first State of the Union. While I expected him to submerge climate policy within the veneer of energy and employment policy, I was impressed that he addressed it so directly

So was “billyparish”, writing at Its Getting Hot In Here:

But from the standpoint of an aspiring green entrepreneur, there was an awful lot to like in the speech. This was the jobs speech it needed to be, and it continued what may be the overarching theme of his presidency, “to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth.” ...But more than any speech we’ve heard from him before, he put clean energy jobs at the absolute center of his job creation strategy, mentioning clean energy 10 times, solar twice and climate change 3 times. His discussion of U.S. competitiveness in the global economy is entirely framed in the context of the race to develop clean energy technologies.

And Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, was more than pleased:

President Obama issued a clear and unmistakable call to action tonight, charging the Senate to pass the comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we need to put Americans back to work and lay the foundation for a generation of prosperity, efficiency and security.
The President could not have been more clear: This legislation will jump-start economic growth, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and roll back the pollution that threatens our future. The Senate should pass it without delay.
The President is right on the money. His plan will get Americans back on their feet. Now it’s our job to let our Senators know where we stand. This is our moment. This is our charge, too. It’s time to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation and put America back to work.

It looks like he did well overall. A CBS News poll found 83% of speech watchers approved of Obama’s proposals, although his harshest critics on the right probably weren’t watching to hear some of the olive branches he offered them.

And those olive branches didn’t exactly enamor some of the doves of the left. Progressive organization MovOn.org ran a mega-focus group – more than 10,000 MoveOn members in a real-time “dial test”, providing instant feedback that allowed them to create a moment-by-moment reaction roadmap throughout the speech.

The lowest-rated phrase in Obama’s SOTU? Not too surprising:

That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.

This phrase got a better reaction (although Republican legislators laughed out loud at “overwhelming”):

I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change,” he said. “But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future.

Some who have been fighting for clean energy were disappointed at the President’s version of “clean energy”. Like David Roberts at Grist:

...what [“clean energy”] means was, in order: nukes, offshore oil and gas drilling, biofuels, “clean coal,” and ... well, that’s it. That’s right, in listing what “clean energy” means the president did not mention renewable energy. That’s just stunning. It’s 2010 and renewable energy isn’t even an afterthought? Seriously?

Or the Get Energy Smart Now blog, which drew a sharp contrast between SOTU 2009 and SOTU 2010:

In 2009, President Obama made a strong and uncompromising call for investments in “clean, renewable energy” and made a direct statement about the type of climate legislation expected from Congress (”market-based cap on carbon pollution”). He provided a meaningful opening target: “we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years”.
In 2010, President Obama did not even mention the word “renewable”, failed to refer back to the strong statements about renewable energy in the 2009 SOTU and how we on track to achieving (and likely exceeding) them, and sounded like he could have been speaking to the Republican National Convention in the Luntz-ian like redefinition of a “clean energy economy”...

What was Obama thinking, calling for more nukes? He’s probably thinking of Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (LIE-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who are trying to put together a bi-partisan climate bill. Whether or not he won any hearts and minds on the other side of the aisle, he didn’t endear himself to his supporters.

As commenter “shiplord kirel” offered over at rightwing blog Little Green Footballs:

With the kind words for coal and nuclear, O has grabbed his last few far-left supporters by the scruff of their scruffy necks and tossed them right under the bus of state.

Obama also may have been pitching to those notorious “swing voters” that everyone has been so concerned with. Democracy Corps did a focus group of swing voters, and found that their approval of the President jumped from 44 percent pre-speech to 60 percent after.

They didn’t ask about green initiatives specifically, so we don’t know the group’s reaction on that front (although his “Tax the Banks” plan was wildly popular.)

But we do know one thing: Swing voters liked what they heard, but have doubts as to whether he can deliver.

Unlike most attributes that shifted during the speech, “promises things that sound good but won’t be able get them done” remained very high (78 percent pre-speech to 74 percent post-speech). The “shifters” in these post-speech focus groups are waiting for results, and they pointed specifically to passing health care reform and job creation initiatives as critical reforms that must be delivered. While they see the Republicans as obstructing every Obama initiative, they nonetheless expect Democrats to pass major legislation with their large majorities.

One final poll number: last week Republican Pollster and media guru Frank Luntz reportedon a national survey with some encouraging results:

• 57 percent agreed with the statement: It doesn’t matter if there is or isn’t climate change. It is still in America’s best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe.
• National security is the main reason that people support cap and trade. Across the demographic board, people liked the idea that clean energy will liberate us from this oil addiction.

You want bi-partisan? It sounds like there’s already a bi-partisan consensus in this country. We just have to wait for our politicians to tap into it.

(Originally appeared at TenthMil.com)