The last thing you need to hear is more speech commentary — from me at least — but I wanted to make a point: has to do with reading versus watching. I did not watch the speech, but read it. And late last night, I said to a group of friends — via e-mail — “I’m afraid that Obama’s speech will prove effective, because he was the same Obama as in the debates last fall: reasonable, moderate, America-respecting, traditional, anti-collectivist, pragmatic, etc. A great act.” That’s how the speech read, at least to me. One of the friends wrote and said, “But wasn’t he totally condescending and off-putting?” I replied that I was at a disadvantage — not having watched the speech.

I have since seen video clips, and I take the point — concerning tone, posture, ’tude, etc.

And I thought the below e-mail from a reader was interesting:

Jay:
The content: same BS on stilts, but louder; he convinced no one from the town halls.
The tone: harsh and angry; inappropriate to the subject matter; he has not earned the right to talk that way.
He is humorless; a true believer of things most Americans don’t believe. He presents the face of social payback. It is unattractive and dangerous in a president.
Sponsored a coffee last night for a Republican candidate [in Illinois]. People who never get involved in politics were eager to come. 2010 will be a huge Republican year.

’Tis a long way off. We’ll see.