BTD will be here in about 10 minutes. Here's an open thread for your reactions to Obama's State of the Union Address.

Be with you in a sec. Fla-Georgia is in OT. 2OT.

Winning the future! Live blog on the flip.

Big Tent Democrat will be here to share his thoughts on the President Obama's State of the Union address which begins at 9pm ET. Until then, here's the speech as prepared for delivery and sent out by the White House.

He doesn't seem to think much of the proposed plan to seat Dems and Republicans together:

What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

There's a lot of bipartisan talk:

With their votes, they’ve determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all – for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

Obama has a new target: Medical malpractice reform "to rein in frivolous lawsuits." Of course, that's nothing new. He voted for it while in the Senate and pushed it in 2009.

With 45 minutes to go, here's a place for your pre-speech concerns.

ABC reports that President Obama will propose a budget freeze and ban on earmarks in his State of the Union Address tonight. The theme of the speech ,“How We Win the Future”, stresses innovation, education and infrastructure. (Note: link is safe to click on, there's no automatic video that plays, hopefully ABC is learning.)

Is Obama going to discuss anything besides the economy tonight? I hope so. BTD - Conceptually, the President's proposal has a lot in common with the Tea Party Caucus's ideas. What seems clear is that no one seems willing to step on the Third Rail of touching Social Security and Medicare and thus "austerity" will fall on the rest of the budget for the time being.

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. - What Obama Needs To Learn, 2006

Via Digby, Greg Sargent writes:

There's been a ton of commentary to the effect that Obama's planned State of the Union address, which will stress the need for leaner and smarter government in order to foster "competitiveness," signals a move by Obama to the "center." But judging from what we've heard so far, it seems more likely that Obama's speech will seek to redefine the "center" as something more in line with his own current policy approach and priorities.

Sure. The question then is is Obama's "own current policy approach" what progressives want? As I detail below, on tax policy it surely should not be. I'm not sure where Obama stands on much else. More . . .

WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery:

President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, cheering liberals and drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress.

Good decision.

Speaking for me only

David Brooks reports:

Vice President Biden sent me a heartfelt e-mail on Thursday that ended: “The Senate will not be the same without Joe’s leadership and powerful intellect. But it is his civility that will be missed the most.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, here was Lieberman's "civlity" in action:

When [Arianna] Huffington said there's nothing in the Duelfer Report to bolster [Joe] Lieberman's conclusions, the senator replied, "I don't think you've read it, sweetheart."

More . . .

Good news for President Obama. Is it good news for progressive policies? Time will tell.

Open Thread.

Via Atrios, Felix Salmon asks the unaskable question:

[W]hat if part of the problem is that Obama’s economic team just wasn’t a good team? What if, in fact, it turns out to have been a very bad team?

My answer is that is was in fact a very very bad team. Obviously not as bad as Bush's economic team, but really bad. And the real problem is Obama had a bad economic team during a time that cried out for a great and bold economic team. Obama's Brain Trust was simply a disaster. Imo of course. YMMV.

See also Jason Linkins and Marcy Wheeler.

Speaking for me only

“The public didn’t sense that everyone in the White House was waking up thinking about how to create jobs,” said John Podesta, the former Clinton White House chief of staff and president of the Center for American Progress who directed Obama’s transition. “It seemed like they were waking up every day thinking about how to pass more bills."

Via Atrios, this Peter Baker NYTimes Magazine story is depressing:

The path from crisis to anemic recovery was marked by turmoil inside the White House. The economic team fractured repeatedly over philosophy (should jobs or deficits take priority?

How about neither. No significant progress on unemployment and a record deficit! Capped off with The Deal! Just terrible. More . . .

The Hill:

In two years, the president has repeatedly shown that he is more interested in results than ideological purity, and he has never hesitated to trade Democratic ideals for passable legislation.

(Emphasis supplied.) This reflects the Beltway mentality that passing laws is the end, not the means, of governing. Consider the assertion that Obama "never hesitated to trade Democratic ideals for passable legislation." I'm prepared to trade Democratic ideals for GOOD passable legislation. But, generally speaking, I am a Democrat because I think Democratic ideals are at the heart of good legislation and governance. At the least, a little hesitation in trading off good "ideals" (read policy) in order to pass bad legislation would be in order. See The Deal.

Speaking for me only

This is why Obama's critique of government regulation was stupid:

President Barack Obama's government-wide review of federal regulations will have little effect on two of the president's major regulatory victories: an overhaul of Wall Street and the health-care market, according to a White House budget official. The review focuses on old, outdated regulations so new ones written as part of the health-care and financial overhaul likely won't be affected, an official at the White House Office of Management and Budget said.

The argument is indefensible. What makes a "new" regulation less likely to suffer from infirmities than an "old" one? Darryl Issa will, rightly, have a field day with this.

Speaking for me only

The big claimed achievements of the Obama Administration are largely the paper creation of new regulations for the health insurance market and the financial markets. Matt Yglesias extravagantly claimed:

TARP gave Barack Obama a once-a-century opportunity to transform the American economy through state control over the commanding heights, an opportunity he deliberately declined [. . .]

Actually, what the Obama Administration claimed, not only with regard to financial markets but also the health insurance market (and what it seems to claim about everything) is that regulation is "the third way." As Ed Kilgore wrote: