The president announced that combat operations are over — but 50,000 troops (all combat trained, commentators said) are remaining, including 5,000 special forces soldiers.

He implied that, in keeping a campaign promise, the withdrawal was a product of administration initiative — except that the schedule and other specifics of the withdrawal were negotiated by the Bush administration before it left office.

He said we were going to stay in Afghanistan and use the money we had been spending in Iraq to that struggle — although we would begin pulling out next year.

“Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” Emerson famously wrote. But how about foolish inconsistency? I am not a supporter of the president, but I like to see the game played well. Last night it was as if a rookie took the mound, and I’m not talking about Stephen Strasburg

The SEC’s civil suit against Goldman charges that, through a partner company, the investment bankers packaged particularly troubled mortgages into collateralized debt obligations, the now notorious CDOs. After Goldman sold the allegedly designed-to-fail instruments, the partner shorted them. Goldman collected fees for assembling and marketing the package (later offset, the firm contends, by larger losses). The partner reportedly netted a billion dollars on its short positions.

The Wall Street Journal front page story characterized the SEC’s charges as the biggest Wall Street-Washington confrontation since the Michael Milken-Drexel case at the end of the 1980s. The Journal might have added that Milken’s was the most prominent of a larger package of investigations targeting the investment community. Despite a parade of so-called perp-walks, when financiers were led into custody as cameras clicked, almost none of those actions produced convictions. The Milken case led to a fine and prison time but remains controversial to this day. Many, myself included, believe justice was miscarried.

Major financial players face a formidable communications obstacle when they become the targets of such sweeping legal actions. Most attorneys — both prosecutors and their own defense attorneys — and journalists don’t actually understand what they do. The complexity of modern fiance bewilders them. And they are predisposed to assume that complexity equals opacity and opacity equals fraud of one stripe or another.

I am not passing judgment on the government’s case against Goldman here, though the purchasers of the CDO were among the most experienced and sophisticated players in the financial world. If any buyers were capable of being intelligently beware, it was they. But I am saying that Goldman must learn to explain its business with unprecedented clarity, otherwise, the legal, political, and journalistic worlds will judge them guilty and exact huge penalties long before any trial.

Morgan’s glass pockets suggested passive transparency. Pull back the fabric; let in the light. Goldman will need actively to project the light outward, making the complex both simple and comprehensible. For an institution unaccustomed to talking to non-experts, the challenge is sure to prove formidable.

We can debate later why the President’s speeches have stopped persuading the public. Here I want to say a word about all these domestic summits. The word is, Why?

Why does the Obama White House keep staging these fiascos?

Has any of them worked? The beer summit was silly and off-putting. The jobs summit highlighted the failure of the President’s economic program. Now the health care summit has exposed the falseness of the claim that the Republicans have no health care programs. And it left the President looking like the rote reciter of talking points, a hat he was trying to slip on the Congressional GOP.

So advice to the White House: enough of the summits already. One senseless summit is understandable. We all make mistakes. The second is questionable. Didn’t you learn the first time? The third makes no sense at all.

In a recent interview Mrs. Obama was asked to opine on former Alaska governor and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This came days after White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had taken with a childish, tasteless jab at Mrs. Palin, in the process making his boss and the entire administration look cheap. As most of America knows, Gibbs wrote notes on his hand, making fun of the former governor for doing the same to guide herself in a speech. Innumerable commentators noted that, with a principal who overuses the TelePrompter, it was unseemly for the Press Secretary to have pulled such a belittling stunt.

In contrast, when asked about Mrs. Palin, Michelle Obama was the picture of graciousness, even defending Palin as a strong woman who was bound to draw criticism as a result. Through her generosity and realism, Mrs. Obama enhanced her reputation and by extension her husband’s, even as Mr. Gibbs was guilty of the opposite.

Maybe the know-it-all aides in the West Wing should take a trip over to the East Wing (where first ladies traditionally have their offices) for a refresher is good sense.

Ailes was prepared. With predictable left-wing sanctimony, Huffington complained about the tone of Fox News, focusing particularly on Glenn Beck. Ailes quickly and devastatingly pointed out that she had grossly mischaracterized Beck’s words, so grossly (her quote was from a show that explored how nearly identical were the rhetoric and tactics of Hitler and Stalin; she characterized the program as a hit on contemporary Democrat) that the audience could only assume ignorance or malice on her part. In fending off her second attempt to characterize Fox News as beyond the pale, he quoted disgusting, personal attacks on him on the Huffington Post.

In the same program, Barbara Walters, who was hosting, began what seemed to be an attack on Ailes about Fox News’ hiring of Sarah Palin. Ailes noted that Fox (”fair and balanced”) has had as a commentator for the past decade Geraldine Ferraro, the only woman ever to receive the Democratic Party’s VEEP nomination, as Palin is the only woman ever to received the GOP’s nod. Score a knockout for Ailes.

It is great fun to watch a world-class pro at work. Ailes emerged the indisputable champion. By comparison, Walters and particularly Huffington ranked as hapless amateurs.

It came, of course, two days after Mr. Obama delivered his State of the Union address. Drafting an SOU is generally a team effort. I have been on one of those teams (1988), penning the best received, per the pulse polling, section of that speech. My take on this one? A net negative for the president. The internal contradiction (for example, calling for a spending freeze to control the deficit and a new stimulus bill), the petty partisanship (he’s still blaming Bush), and the bad manners (his hit on the Supreme Court) were turn offs for the disillusioned independents he needs to reach.

The visit to the GOP caucus was a different matter. Both sides came out winners, I thought, in part because both engaged issues seriously and courteously. It was exactly the kind of respectful exchange that independent voters have been demanding.

The Republicans made the absolutely true point that the White House has been unwilling to engage with them for a year now, with GOP critiques and alternative proposals belittled or ignored at every turn. The “Party of No” hit has been particularly galling to the GOP members, who have advanced a full suite of alternatives on health reform. GOP members made clear that, from their point of view, the White House’s idea of bipartisanship has been that Republicans should accept every detail of Administration proposals without an edit. Negotiation and compromise have not been in anyone’s vocabulary on the Democratic side.

The president seemed to be sticking by that “my way-or-the-highway” stance in the substance of his remarks. His “you-are-spouting-talking-points” jab sounded as though he was spouting a talking point himself, which he was. But his defense of the substance of his positions — particularly on the spending run-ups he inherited — was, I thought, compelling in places. And his remark that Republicans were happy criticize earmarks even as they sought them for their own districts was totally fair. Most of all, just being there, engaging seriously and promising to keep it up (as in any case he has to do in the wake of the Massachusetts voting), will count in his favor among independents, at least that’s my guess.

So both sides won. The Congressional Democratic leadership may be another matter.

This past week I attended a small dinner that included prominent figures on both sides of the health care debate, among them one of the very most senior Democratic insiders. As the arguments got hot, the Democrat advocated trying for passage through reconciliation or wholesale House adoption of the Senate plan. Either ploy would take the threat of a Senate filibuster out of the game. He didn’t seem to grasp that the cost of the White House and Democratic Congressional leadership’s brushoff of the GOP throughout 2009 is that they probably cannot muster a majority for either approach on the floor of the House today. Democratic backbenchers understand the news from Massachusetts, even if the Senate majority leader and the House speaker don’t.

On one hand, the President can be extremely appealing. Numerous times in the evening, I found myself liking him — particularly when he seemed to break from text and, with a smile, remind both parties of their common duty to the naiton.

But other places I found myself saying “wrong”, “tin ear”, “off note”. The hit on the Supreme Court was one such place. It was too much, a violation of decorum. Even more (for me at least) came when I started to count the “I”’s. A TV commentator said the text had 93. Presidents routinely use the first person plural — “we” this, “we” that, striking a note of common purpose with Congress and the American people — but rarely the first person singular and, in SOUs, never even close to as frequently here. The impression left was of a president not as concerned about common purpose as about personal purpose.

“The real reason I’m calling is this….” He went on to say that Jay Leno wanted to become a Podium Pundits contributor. Seemed odd at the time – after all, Jay isn’t known for his political views – but I figured we’d incorporate him into the scheme.

Then Clark explained that because of some bandwidth issues, we could only accommodate Jay if another contributor dropped off. As the low person on the totem pole, and a George W. Bush appointee, I would have to go….

No, wait, sorry. I’m having my “get paid $30 million for not working” fantasy again.

In truth, I do have to keep working, but I’m going to be doing it somewhere else and that means I won’t be contributing to Podium Pundits anymore.

And I’m leaving at a really interesting time. One year into the era of Obama (and the age of Podium Pundits), it remains to be seen how the president can leverage his considerable communications skills to advance his policy agenda, a task that will only grow more difficult with the crucial 41st Republican vote in the Senate.

As for the Republicans, will 2010 see the emergence of a new spokesperson for the party? Someone who currently holds an office, unlike the party’s most notable and bankable stars in 2009, former vice president Cheney and former governor Palin?

Will Republicans coalesce behind an appealing policy and rhetorical strategy they can employ to erode or overcome the Democratic majority in Congress?

In the face of widespread public disapproval and renewed Republican swagger, will Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid become even more shrill and polarizing, or will they lace their communications with the honeyed words of moderation?

And what about the banks? Can they survive their brush with death and the close scrutiny of politicians whose first instinct is always higher taxes and more regulation?

My guess is that Obama won’t get much done on the domestic scene; Republicans won’t find a leader smarter than Cheney or more exciting than Palin; Reid and Pelosi will spin their wheels trying to keep their grumpy caucuses together (while occasionally contributing an amusingly tone-deaf comment); and banks will keep making money and awkwardly telling the DC folks how smart and handsome and charming they are.

But what do I know? Until about 8:01 last night I didn’t think Scott Brown would actually win Ted Kennedy’s seat. Maybe yesterday’s upset is a sign that 2010 will be an extraordinary year in politics.

The past year has been a lot of fun, especially getting to read and converse with Vinca, Paul, Jeff, Mark, Josh, and Clark. I’m particularly grateful to Adam D’Luzansky of the White House Writers Group for launching this ship and keeping us from running aground on the shoals of WordPress.

And of course the success of this effort relies entirely on readers. Thank you for your time and your patience. I look forward to reading along with you in the months to come.

Will it be” “Last night’s election was a fluke”?  Or? “It was indicative of nothing more than a single vote on a single night.” Or?  “It was a snapshot.” Or? “We had a bad candidate.” Or?  “Don’t read anything more into this than you should.”  Or?  “It was all the old Cosmo pictures that made the difference.” Or? “This means nothing.”

My personal choice is “We had a bad candidate.”

Trust Us, We Know What We're Doing.