This article by Dan Froomkin is well worth reading. His criticism of President Obama's speech is quite severe. As one of the most vociferous critics of my administration, he actually compares Obama unfavorably with the Bush Administration:

"...his disquisition on weaning the nation from fossil fuels still wasn't even as strong as George W. Bush's patently insincere but rhetorically effective assertion that "America is addicted to oil."  [please note that I was sincere, just not in too big a rush.  I have friends that work in oil]

and, "One of the countless lessons of the Bush era is that the American people, for better or for worse, respond very positively to a leader who acts with conviction."

Froomkin makes the argument that the President is getting ripped a new one by the Republicans no matter what he does. He asserts that the knowledge of that response should be liberating to Obama. Froomkin then poses the million dollar question, "If you're going to get savaged by your opponents, no matter what, why talk in half-measures and generalities that make even your supporters cringe?"

Look, I may disagree on many issues of policy with Obama. Heck, when I first met him I thought he was a black Irishman cause his name was O'bama. But I am so fascinated that a man who seemed so incredibly capable of managing a campaign is so tone deaf to his supporters. Rove said it best, "play to the base."

Obama won't pacify the Republicans. What is he doing? Maybe Cheney has the goods on him...