Disconnect on Obama speech

An instant poll by CBS found 91 percent approval; CNN 84 percent. Among a focus group of swing voters, the president's approval rating shot up 26 points. But last night's speech generated lots of criticism among the punditocracy. Here's a sample, from NY magazine:

Joshua Green, Atlantic: I thought too much of the speech came across as hucksterish and hokey, as though Obama were fresh from some all-day motivational conference by Tom Peters or some other catch-phrase spouting business guru type.

Charles Krauthammer, via Daily Caller: "I was also struck by the line, 'We do big things.' But what was so ironic about this speech and what was wrong with it was that the content of the speech entirely undermined that. He said 'we do big things.' And all he recommended, all in the laundry list, the first half of the speech was all the things that government was going to do was small ball. It was like late Clintonian minimalism about high-speed rail, more spending on roads and solar shingles. I mean look, that's not the Apollo program."

David Frum, Frum Forum: The disingenuous suggestion that China's growth is driven by superior Chinese education system. Don't confuse Amy Chua's kids with off-the-farm peasants in Chinese factories.

Kevin Drum, Mother Jones: In the end, the only thing that surprised me was how uneventful it was. With only a very few exceptions that were passed over pretty quickly (healthcare reform is great, student loan reform is great), there was almost literally nothing in there that couldn't have been in a George W. Bush speech.

Ezra Klein, WP: The question that gets asked of every investor is the same: "How much?" Investments, after all, primarily matter for how much capital they give their beneficiary access to. But "how much" was a question that President Obama studiously avoided answering in last night's State of the Union. And without knowing what Obama is actually asking from Congress, it's hard to know what his vision amounts to.

Paul Krugman, New York Times: Overall, however, I have no idea what the vision here was. We care about the future! But we don't want to spend! Meh.

My own two cents: Way too long (but that's always the case with SOTUs), way too much time spent on questionable investments like high-speed rail (does anyone really believe it will amount to anything?), way too little time spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no specifity on how to cut entitlement spending.