REUTERS/Pablo Martinez

President Obama: "We cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment."

Your humble and obdt. ink-stained wretch thought the new president did very well with the big speech last night. He laid out a breathtakingly ambitious agenda to rescue the economy, then take on four ginormous bonus issues -- health care, energy independence, education, long-term fiscal sustainability -- that have devoured all who have tackled them in recent history. If he pulls it off, he will be headed for Mt. Rushmore. (If he makes big progress on any two or three, his presidency will be a great success.)

Our current political culture, not to mention the straitened public coffers, make the prospects for success seem daunting, but we like a leader who thinks big. Quoth the president: "This is America.  We don’t do what’s easy.  We do what is necessary to move this country forward."

Eventually, Obama will also have to think small, as in the small substantive details of how the new health care system will work, and the small political details of how to enact his programs, etc., etc. Details were scant last night. But last night was not the night for details, maybe not even a night for gritty realism.

The agenda was very close to the program on which he ran for president, which is always charmingly reassuring for democratic theory. The economy, of course, blew up late in the campaign. But the list of crisis priorities -- stimulate spending, save banks from collapse, unclog credit, slow down foreclosure rate -- has been around for a while now and, well, it's still around. Health-care, energy and education were, I believe, three top priorities he emphasized all last year. And, especially since the election, taking on long-term debt and deficit has been a new theme (and one for which your wretch is grateful).

The tone was near-perfect. I have one complaint on tone, which I'll get to in a minute. And I'm not saying it was poetry. The speech will not be remembered for any bejeweled ask-not-what-your-country, mystic-chords-of-memory phrases. But the prose was just what we needed. It felt like straight talk. 'Here's the problem. Here's why it matters. Here's my approach to tackling it.' Of course, until we hear those details, we should reserve final judgment on the straightness of the talk. But this guy is particularly gifted, compared to some recent Oval occupants of whom one can think, at not insulting our intelligence.

An excellent example of those qualities was the section where Obama segued from a sort of an apology for having to bail out bankers who don't deserve it, to a virtuous cycle of economic growth. It went like this:

"I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions.  I promise you – I get it.

"But I also know that in a time of crisis, we cannot afford to govern out of anger, or yield to the politics of the moment.  My job – our job – is to solve the problem.  Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility.  I will not spend a single penny for the purpose of rewarding a single Wall Street executive, but I will do whatever it takes to help the small business that can’t pay its workers or the family that has saved and still can’t get a mortgage. 

"That’s what this is about.  It’s not about helping banks – it’s about helping people.  Because when credit is available again, that young family can finally buy a new home.  And then some company will hire workers to build it.  And then those workers will have money to spend, and if they can get a loan too, maybe they’ll finally buy that car, or open their own business.  Investors will return to the market, and American families will see their retirement secured once more.  Slowly, but surely, confidence will return, and our economy will recover."

Could we really stop acting out of anger? Could we really resist the politics of the moment? Will confidence really return, slowly but surely? One can hope. And one does. Will such sweet reason actually convince those whose ideology leads them to a different approach? That's a tough one. Didn't happen on the stimulus bill. In general, I think Obama is handling the open-hand-to-Republicans stuff well. But that leads me to the one tonal complaint I mentioned above.

Too much Bush-bashing.

Look, I hold no brief for the former president nor his many disastrous policies. I know many liberals who are in no mood to be gracious or forgiving to ex-Pres. Bush or his fellow travelers. On substance, I agreed with every Bush-bash uttered by Obama last night and would gladly suggest more themes. My personal favorite was this one:

"We have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election. A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future. Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market."

But I don't think we need to hear this blame game from Obama. If he really wants to attract some Republican votes for some of his policies, it's best that he take his own advice about not governing out of anger. For example, Obama brought both sides of the hall to their feet when he said:

"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay."

Obama smiled at the applause from the Republican side, and ad libbed that he knew there were some things on which he and they agree. But the next words out of his mouth:

"This deficit we inherited..."

brought a joyous, slightly juvenile ovation from Democrats only, while Republicans went back to studying their programs with slightly red faces.

There is a certain justice to the argument that Republicans are ill-positioned to lecture Democrats about fiscal responsibility. And it may be a smart move when Republicans are giving such a lecture. But in a joint session, with no one other than Obama able to speak and wanting to continue his charm offensive toward the Repubs without compromising major principles, I would rather see him stick to the theme that it's more important to try to find areas to work together than it is to parcel out blame over who created the mess in which we find ourselves.

That being said, it is very clear from the latest polling (New York Times and Washington Post polls, both published yesterday) and from various forms of instant reaction supplied by the networks last night, that, at least at the moment, America believes that Obama is sincerely reaching out to Republicans and wants the Repubs to reach back.

Otherwise, for style points, Obama is in a zone. A 9 on the 10-point scale. Looked good. Sounded good. Projected confidence, competence, optimism rooted in realism. (Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal seemed pitiful in the official Repub reaction. I felt almost sorry for him. So over-matched. On Fox, Juan Williams called Jindal's speech "amateurish." On CNN, token republican Ed Rollins got off the snarky line that Jindal's performance made it "a good night for Sarah Palin.")