The State of the Union Address was the best show in town this week--if you knew who to watch. Clinton was his usual boring self, saying all the right things about all the right causes and avoiding the only topic which may actually affect the state of the Union in the immediate future. The only people he offended in his speech were cigarette makers, by calling for a federal suit against them, and Mark McGwire, by sitting Sammy Sosa next to the First Lady.

Fortunately for us, there were scintillating subplots to keep us interested, such as the Oscar-worthy performance of Al Gore '69. His primary job was to look attentive for all 77 minutes of the address, an especially difficult task given the circumstances. The president continually tested his resolve by rattling off a series of bland initiatives to tinker with the current budget. In all, Clinton forced Gore to applaud on 98 separate occasions, according to the New York Times. That means Gore had to clap for 1.27 proposals per minute.

To further complicate the vice president's task, he had to beat Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert to his feet for every standing ovation. Otherwise, it would look like Republicans were the real champions of hundred dollar tax credits and measures to save social security for a few more years. While Gore enjoyed several natural advantages over Hastert--he is younger, trimmer, and thus more fit--he still wins high marks for being such a spirited cheerleader.

According to my observations, Gore rose faster than Hastert on all of the most feel-good issues. Hastert stood up first on only two occasions. One was to support fast-track legislation, the other when Clinton offered words of thanks to his vice president. By refusing to pay tribute to himself, Gore showed either humility or latent self-hatred. Either quality would be a welcome change in the person who replaces Clinton.

Aside from the Gore-Hastert competition, the most interesting moments came during the periodic close-ups on faces in the crowd. It seemed that no one's anonymity was safe from Clinton's all-encompassing agenda. Most people thrust into the spotlight didn't know how to handle their fifteen seconds, with the exception of Sosa, who blew kisses to the crowd and nearly broke into a home run trot around the House Chamber. All other honorees took Madonna's advice and struck a pose, or at least stuck to one. The Desert Fox serviceperson looked like he had recently taken a double dose of Prozac. As for Dan Glickman, well, you can't blame a Secretary of Agriculture for looking like he's never been on television before.

After the address, Jennifer Dunn and Steve Largent gave the president his first real challenge of the evening. They proved that they could match Clinton's vague propositions with abstractions of their own. Just as the president spoke generally about the benefits of bigger government, the GOP's dynamic duo talked broadly about the benefits of lower taxes, causing their two ideological ships to pass each other peacefully on the Potomac.

Dunn focused on how her experience as a soccer mom and amateur botanist inspired her to believe firmly in smaller government. She smiled when she talked about her family and looked stern when talking about America's problems. I think she said some other stuff too, but I wasn't really listening.

The best part of Dunn's speech was when she passed the ball over to Steve Largent. He provides the Republican Party with the much-needed gridiron experience that it has lacked since the heyday of Gerald Ford. I hoped he would open his speech as if he were on the Simpsons--"Hi, my name is Steve Largent. You may know me from such NFL films as 'The 1987 AFC Playoffs,' or 'The 1985 Raiders/Seahawks Classic'"--but he didn't. Instead he talked a lot about God and Christmas, and how these things have led him to believe in America's promise--and a 10 percent tax cut.

Largent also mentioned both the importance of a missile defense system and the need to pursue peace on earth. Unfortunately for him, Clinton had already won the award for best contradictory goals when he proclaimed that America needed "freer and fairer" trade regulations.

The President said that he would achieve both objectives by "putting a human face on the global community." I am not sure what this means, or how it will help turn the United States into both a protectionist and a freely-trading nation. Maybe Clinton thought what works for him will work for the world--he seems to have been very successful at putting human faces on himself.

When we add up all the subplots--Gore's 98 ovations, close-ups on everyone, the bland GOP response and Clinton's contradictions--a disturbing theme seeps through the evening's grandiose rhetoric. It seems that the avoidance of our problems has become the problem itself, and we can look forward to nothing better than more of the political pandering, simple mantras and stop-gap solutions that we have come to despise. Alex M. Carter '00 is a history and literature concentrator in Dunster House. His column will resume next semester.