That there is a word cloud from CBS based on last night's State of the Union address (SOTU) by President Barack Obama. If the speech accurately mapped the way things really are, I'm guessing that the tiny "debt" (lower right-hand side) would be twice as big as the "America" and "American" put together. And "jobs" would be more clearly linked to "where the hell are they?" or a frank admission along the lines of "government doesn't create jobs, though it can do a helluva lot to destroy them."
I've got very little to say about the speech, which will be forgotten even more quickly than last year's, which had the unfortunate (and widely insta-praised in the nano-second before being forgotten first and foremost by the prez himself, natch) phrase about Sputnik in it.
Which leads to me two predictions:
First, this SOTU will not referenced again, except ironically, after next Monday morning. It will vanish down the Memory Hole lickety-split, hopefully taking the idea of a Financial Crimes Unit with it (don't we already got like thousands of regulators hired by George Bush—who Obama pointed out passed far more regs than he has?).
Second, based on the evidence of Monday's debate and this SOTU, I can't imagine Obama losing the 2012 election, particularly if and when the GOP nominee becomes Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. Last night, it seemed as if Obama was getting out of the car after a long drive and his endless list of new initiatives were like the food and soda-straw wrappers you brush off your pants legs: Memories of mistakes you made while trying to get to your destination without stopping to take a pee or consult a map. Indeed, it's far from clear that he was proposing anything new (some of the vague proposals seem to date back to George W. Bush's first term, particularly the emphasis on home ownership, which has turned out just swell).
And yet, can you imagine him losing to either Romney or Gingrich? Despite their willingness to bark "limited government" like trained seals, they do not represent alternatives to Obama's vision of a large and sclerotic state filled with bureaucracies (Medicare, for one, which both Mitt and Newt defend; individual mandates for health care; immigration cops everywhere; a corpulent military-industrial complex) that end up regulating most aspects of our lives or simply spending borrowed money until oblivion informs us that our check just bounced. Neither has come up with serious plans to cut spending now, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. They represent an echo not a choice of what we saw first under George W. Bush and now under Obama.
And if Newt and Mitt can't do it on the stump, why would anyone trust them to do while in office? The thought of Obama sticking around for a second term while facing a full GOP congress seems a lot easier to live through than Newt or Mitt working with same.
So if it comes down to Barack vs. Mitt or Newt, bet the house on Barack.
Because it's not like you'll be paying for the house anyway.
The Reason staff live-tweeted the talk, check that out here why dontcha.