Clever people post here. Can someone explain why this isn't considered a "State of the Union" address? What's the determining factor?

Bernard, I offer that a SOTU address is announced as such, but please check Google before asking such questions or believing my answer! ;-)

In a State of the Union speech, the President includes a review of the past accomplishments of his administration. For a newly inaugurated President, the type, as given so marvelously last everning, is one of laying out his legislation plans for the coming year.

NPR had a pretty good discussion about it that might satisfy you. But I Googled it like anyone else would.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2009/02/why_isnt_obamas_speech_to_cong.html

Back on topic. What did you think of the speeches by both Obama and Jindal?

One of the things that struck me about the speech is that for a long time into it, it seemed to lack that pie-in-the-sky/Christmas-list quality. As I thought about it, I realized that was mostly because he had already started us on many of the optimistic paths he spoke about. By the time he got to the education part, which to me does sound wishful, I was thinking that's not entirely absurd. If Bush had said that, I would have thrown a shoe. And while I don't think it is realistic to ever expect 100%, what a great goal.

The first paragraph of the CNN post contradicts the second and is inconsistent with the facts. 92% > 2/3. Paul Steinhauser made a plainly false claim contradicted by the data presented in his post. Clearly the facts had a pro-Obama bias which he had to correct in order to be fair and Ballanced.

I heard a bit on NPR this morning. Some have commented that Obama talked over the applause more than presidents usually do, and that sure made for jubilant sound bites this morning.

I expected him to end his speech with, "Vote for Pedro"

Robert Waldman, I'm not sure what you're saying, but here's some basic math that might help you out:

68%: very positive
24%: somewhat positive

equals: 92% very or somewhat positive.

Any questions?

Clever people post here. Can someone explain why this isn't considered a "State of the Union" address?

I'd be interested to know, since all a State of the Union address is any time when the President chooses to fulfill his Constitutional duty to report, "from time to time", to Congress on the state of the union via an address to a joint session of Congress, rather than, as Bush did earlier this year, in a written report without an in-person address to a joint session.

I'd be interested to know, since all a State of the Union address is any time when the President chooses to fulfill his Constitutional duty to report, "from time to time", to Congress on the state of the union via an address to a joint session of Congress, rather than, as Bush did earlier this year, in a written report without an in-person address to a joint session.

...which makes me think that this was indeed a SOTU address, but that, as bert points out, we have become accustomed to thinking of these as, in part, reporting on the administration's accomplishments since the last SOTU. The distinction isn't Constitutional; it's just a matter of recent habit, it seems.

Steve, and Berttheclock, and others:

It's traditionally been called SOTU for first-year presidents in the past. There's no requirement to review the past year, if that was the work of a previous administration, to meet the constitutional requirements of what we normally label SOTU.

Frankly, I wonder if MSLBs haven't been doing an attempt at a bit of deliberate slack-cutting for The One by trying to say this wasn't a SOTU. I e-mailed Josh Marshall to that effect when he did it.