Ratings by Media Training Insider--Passion: A+, Civility and warmth: A+.

[eridani]

http://www.mediatrainingworldwide.com/blog/2011/09/09/obamas-report-card-for-last-nights-jobs-speech/

From Media Training Insider, an organization I'd never heard of before, but which seems to offer professional analysis and training for people that speak to the media and public:

"Passion: A+"

"Platform skills: A+."

"Civility and warmth: A+."

"Policy Impact: F-. This president is either unwilling or unable to package his ideas within a greater narrative, story or philosophy. He didn’t explain his vision of how we got into this financial mess and he didn’t explain why his approach is different or better than the Republicans."

"Political Impact: F-. The president failed to make the American people angry with Congress, therefore they won’t be screaming and demanding that Congress make any big changes. Therefore, very little of Obama’s agenda will be enacted."

"Combined Weighted Score: F+"

The House Progressive Caucus is doing what they can to pick up the slack for Obama's shortcomings:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=61§iontree=5,61&itemid=402

[Mimosa]

1. That's a sound, detailed analysis

Worth reading for certain. :)

Excerpt:

.

Here’s another gem from Obama’s speech: “This isn’t class warfare.” Sorry, Mr. President, but it is class warfare and your side is losing big-time.

Here’s a quote where Obama did deal with the larger narrative: “Now, I realize that some of you have a different theory on how to grow the economy. Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations. Well, I agree that we can’t afford wasteful spending, and I will continue to work with Congress to get rid of it.”

So Obama dearly defines his opponent’s economic philosophy, and then validates it. But does he paint the picture of a competing philosophy? Not really, other than to say something along the lines of “Let’s spend a little more and invest a little more, as long as we don’t run up the deficit too much.” Tepid stuff, which is why the Wall Street Journal was correct in labeling this the Obama version of Carter’s “Malaise” speech.

[Cosmocat]

2. Really?

Sean Hannity pleased for the use of his framing ...

:headbang:

[BeyondGeography]

3. There are some annoying truths here

Particularly on the failure to clearly assign blame for our present fiscal predicament where it belongs. The hypocrisy of the now-deficit-obsessed GOP is monumental; they invented deficits. Moreover, there's nothing in their history (or their suggested remedy...more tax cuts) to suggest they're even remotely serious about doing something about it. Americans don't get it unless you spell it out for them. In that respect, the speech was another missed opportunity, though not so bad as to give it an F politically.

[woo me with science]

4. See dixiegrrrrl's excellent post on what WASN'T in the speech.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=767857&mesg_id=767883