Consider these observations from President Biden’s State of the Union Address last night.

• The setting was historic, and it gave the Biden Administration an opportunity to redefine itself, at least in the short term. Similar to President Bush’s transition into a war-time administration, President Biden is now confronting a significant crisis. This is why Ukraine was the first significant topic of the address.
• The unity and bipartisanship surrounding Biden’s remarks on Ukraine were welcome, and important for the world to see. America represents the free world more than any other nation. Unity, instead of division, was critical. The Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States is Oksana Markarova. Having her present, as a literal representation of the conflict, was powerful and memorable.
• Biden’s strongest words were in defense of NATO, promising to defend our allies to the full extent of our power. While undoubtedly true, this had to be cold comfort to Ms. Markarova.
• The concrete pronouncements on Ukraine–closing our airspace to Russian flights, devoting a commission to go after the oligarchs’ assets–were welcome, they fall well short of Ukrainian hopes, I am sure. A decision to close off American markets to Russian oil and gas, or a designation of Putin as a war criminal, or painting a red line around certain forms of aggression, would all have had more teeth. Of course, these would also bring economic discomfort to Americans, who are already suffering from high inflation, or they might increase the possibilities of a broader conflict. This is the dilemma we face, though the Ukrainians don’t have the luxury of a dilemma. Instead, they are fighting for their survival and their way of life.
• President Biden’s speechwriters did him no favors, while his delivery strangled any rhythm or music the speech might have had. The talk, as almost every State of the Union Address, was far too long. Given President Biden’s obvious difficulty with public speaking right now, it should have been shorter. Thirty minutes of landing every rhetorical punch made far more sense than what we got.
• As the speech veered into domestic policy, the uniformity in the chamber dissolved. To his credit, Biden did reach across the aisle with a “Four Point Unity Plan” that could appeal to Republicans. He also argued the politicians should stop behaving like enemies, and should instead treat one another as fellow Americans.
• President Biden touted his successes (low unemployment, receding COVID rates, infrastructure spending), and tried to encourage Congress to resurrect some of his lifeless proposals. This is common, but this should have been an uncommon speech.
• We have old leaders. President Biden (79) stood in front of Nancy Pelosi (81), while Mitch McConnell (80) looked on. Somehow, this trio makes fellow leader Chuck Schumer (71) the young’un of the group. As I grow older, these numbers don’t appear quite as outrageous as they did ten or twenty years ago, but for the good of the country, and our political parties, we need new, younger leaders with different priorities. This stands in shocking contrast to Pres. Zelensky’s vigor. His active leadership is rallying the free world. This may be an unfair comparison, but it is hard to avoid in this context.
• President Biden took a significant swipe at the left wing of his party when he said the focus should not be on “defunding” the police, but on properly funding them. His discussion of fighting crime in America will offend a particular set of progressives, who were already offering their own response to this speech. Perhaps Biden is in the process of turning away from those supporters in an effort to salvage his domestic agenda. If so, he should follow this instinct. If the Biden Administration is defined by The Squad, it will be effectively over after the mid-term elections.
• Given the possibilities, I think the speech will be considered a missed opportunity for the Biden Administration.