There are times when the speech soared.

And yet, as one without HopeTM, I’m left shaking my head, hearing a lot of big promises from a guy who didn’t keep a bunch of them when he was in the Senate. A good list can be found here; a fuller one can be found in Freddoso’s book.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Okay. The “petty grievances” would presumably include booing the outgoing president. And blog posts that are entitled, “Let the joyous news be spread, the wicked old witch at last is dead” and “it’s over, bitch” would seem to be not in keeping with this new spirit. I’d like to believe it when Obama is saying, “we’re all going to hold ourselves to a higher standard, now” but it comes across to my ears as, “now, you guys on the other side aren’t allowed to be petty and criticize me the way my side criticized your guy.”

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, health care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.

I’d love to believe it. But as a senator, Obama had little or no role in eliminating wasteful or ineffective programs. [Rereading it, I realize that the entire defense budget doesn’t meet the criteria he lays out.] His work was always about adding, expanding, broadening, making government bigger and more expensive.

And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The stimulus will be a key test. So how much time will members of Congress get to look over the final bill text before voting on it?

Instead, [the Founders] knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

I hope he’s right. I really don’t think that our enemies or even those on the fence are significantly influenced by “humility and restraint”; I think there’s a common danger of projecting our values onto them. But I will not hope that he is wrong.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Maybe his best section, but I fear these optimistic words will fall on deaf ears. If the people of, say, the Gaza Strip judged their leaders on what they could build instead of what they could destroy, would Hamas have ever have come to power? And do dictators really care if their people judge them as deficient “builders”? They don’t worry about legitimacy or if their acts defy popular will; if they did, they wouldn’t become dictators.

But I feared a rerun of his Berlin speech, the one that was indistinguishable from We Are the World. This one greatly exceeded that, thankfully.