I THOUGHT it was a good speech, politically speaking. Barack Obama came off as relaxed and optimistic and presidential. He was able to make the opposition squirm a few times ("do we clap for tax cuts or not?"). And early polling suggests the public overwhelmingly responded well to the speech.

I would say that it's unlikely to change anything. Mr Obama's numbers will rebound when the economy rebounds, and not much sooner. I was impressed at the forcefulness with which he urged Congress to get its act together and pass some legislation, and his oblique reference to the inappropriate use of the 60-vote cloture rule surely cheered many of his supporters. But if stonewalling senators were the sort to be swayed by a speech, they wouldn't be stonewalling in the first place. Business as usual will continue, as usual.

As for content, there was little in the speech, economically-speaking, that we hadn't already heard about. He mentioned the contents of the House jobs bill. He briefly discussed his deficit plans. And he made reference to some aspirational goals on things like energy efficiency. Two points did stand out. One was a proposal for changing funding for higher education:

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college.

An adjustment to student loan rules in long overdue; as it stands, the government guarantees the loans and yet allows private companies to make them, granting them a nice profit for no particular reason. The tax credit is potentially a good idea. I'm curious to see how the debt forgiveness would work. Is it the case that a borrower could make the minimum payment (or less) for twenty years and then get the debt forgiven? And more importantly, will this be retroactive applied? Please?

And then there was this:

Third, we need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

This seems to me to be a somewhat more mercantilist use of language than is customary in these speeches. Every president talks about competitiveness, but Mr Obama's connection of more exports with more jobs seems to up the zero sum quotient.

The good news, is that he doesn't follow that up with anything too stiff. An initiative to help American firms access export markets is pretty benign, and the next paragraph promotes the signing of trade deals and the Doha round of trade talks.

As for that doubling of exports, well, it's not quite as tough a task as it might sound. If we take the likely 2009 number, return it to the 2008 level and count on 2% inflation, then in nominal terms the goal is almost halfway met. Presumably, Mr Obama is counting on some help from a declining dollar and continued growth in emerging markets. It's not the most audacious goal in the world, in other words, which is a probably a good thing.

But the bottom line is this: for all the sunniness in the speech, conditions remain as they are. The economy will limp through 2010, and unemployment will likely be near 9% the next time Mr Obama stands at the podium to deliver one of these things. If he wasn't fully on the defensive this time around, he will be then.