What pundits are missing regarding President Obama's State of the Union Address

Following President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address last night, I listened to the post-speech reactions from both left-leaning pundits and right-leaning ones.

Both sides made a valid point, but completely missed something that was critical in my eyes and which may illustrate the overwhelming approval of the speech by the public via polls.

On the left, there was the usual cheerleading going on, but one point they made which I found to be true was that Obama's message, the plans he laid out were very center to slightly left-of-center. Obama was not using far left rhetoric. He made statements to show support for his Democratic base, as well as statements which would likely garner some Republican support.

Over on the right, again, there was the typical criticism of the president, but they made one point which I found to be accurate as well. They said that the president's speech lacked in specifics. He painted the future and his plans with a much broader brush than some had hoped.

Following the speech, CBS conducted a poll, which found that a near unanimous 92% of the American public approved of the plans Obama had laid before them and 62% believe that the two parties can work together to move this country forward.

So, why the mixed reactions from the pundits and the overwhelming support from the public?

Obama may have lacked in specifics, but I think this was mostly based on strategy. In November, the Democrats lost control of the House and with that. They had solid majorities in both houses of Congress, but as the country was angry at Washington in general and because there were more Democrats than Republicans in Congress, the people punished the majority party more so than the minority one. With this, the president knew and knows he will have to try and find some common ground between the two parties if he wants to get anything accomplished over his final two years of his first term. He knows he'll have to make some concessions here and there in order for this to happen.

Also, let's keep in mind how divided Washington has been over the years and this was amped up a notch following the Republican's big day in November. Republicans were clamoring that "The people have spoken" and "This was an anti-Obama/-Democrat vote" and "This gives the Republicans a mandate for the next two years". Just last week, the House passed a symbolic vote to repeal Obama's health care plan. The rhetoric has often times been angry between both parties over Obama's first couple years in office and it hasn't progressively improved or anything. If anything, it's progressively gotten worse. In November, the American public didn't vote against the president's policies or the Democratic Party. They voted against incumbents. They voted against how things were or weren't getting done with these incumbents. They were voting to change things around a little bit, because they were sick and tired of the status quo and they wanted to shake up Washington in any way they could. Congress had the lowest approval ratings in their history not long ago. People are sick and tired of the angry rhetoric, the divisiveness and the reluctance for the two parties to come together in a compromise in order to improve the citizens' daily lives.

Taking all of this into consideration, think about Obama's plan of attack last night. If he had spoken in specifics all night, there wouldn't be a very unanimous applause for most all of the plans. The public would likely see the majority of Democrats stand up, clap and cheer and the majority of Republicans sit down with their hands in their laps, perhaps booing on occasion. However, what Obama did was speak a bit more vaguely, in order to create the illusion that he is obviously bi-partisan in his plans, that he can bring both parties together and things can get accomplished in Washington. He spoke in large-themed generalities often times last night, whether that be about education reform (do it for the kids...), America being the greatest country in the world, tax cuts, security, the soldiers' livelihoods, etc. I don't care what one's political persuasion is. If he or she sits and refuses to applaud the president when he speaks of such things, it's not going to look good in the public's eyes and as a result, there will be some backlash. With this strategy, Obama gave the impression that Washington isn't as divided as it was and with this, has put some pressure on the Republican Party and their majority in the House to deliver.

As the CBS Poll indicates, the people saw Obama last night as very center, as bi-partisan, as a compromiser willing to make sacrifices in order to get things done. If the Republican Party continues with their frequent no's, chances are a majority of the people whom approved of the president's speech last night will sit back and think, "Well, we all know Obama is bi-partisan. It must be the Republicans whom aren't willing to meet in the center. We'll have to vote them out of office in the next election."

So, the pressure is back on the Republican Party. Obama cornered them last night with his speech and if their House majority doesn't step up and illustrate a willingness to compromise with Democrats in order to move the country forward, they'll pay for it in 2012, while the president will then be elected to a second term. So, no, Obama's speech wasn't very specific, it wasn't the most exciting, but it accomplished what he wanted it to accomplish and that's corner the GOP, put the ball in their court and force them to make the next move. Well done, if I do say so myself.