Barack Obama offered a new political product on Tuesday night, a brand with a distinctively retro flavor — “Democrat Classic.” 
 
 Four years after his first State of the Union, Obama rolled out a series of vintage proposals from his party’s amply stocked policy cupboard — a $1.75-an-hour hike in the federal minimum wage, an ambitious plan to expand public preschool education to all kids, reintroduction of a $50 billion infrastructure plan, and resurrection of climate change legislation. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset POLITICO LIVE reaction, analysis Obama's 2013 SOTU speech 
 
 (PHOTOS: Scenes from Obama State of the Union 2013) 
 
 Taken as a whole, it marked the latest step in a clear effort by Obama to nudge the nation’s politics to the center-left, a shift from the center-right politics of Ronald Reagan that have dominated American political life for more than three decades. 
 
 The scale of his new spending proposals was relatively modest, but the new programs targeted improving life on the lowest rungs of America’s working class, delighting liberals and eliciting charges of overreach by Republicans, who are unlikely to pass much of what Obama laid on the table Tuesday night. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Did Obama stretch the truth?) 
 
 “It is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that built this country — the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities, you can get ahead, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love,” he said as he began a speech that lived up to its billing as a bookend to his progressive inaugural address three weeks ago. 
 
 “It is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many, and not just the few; that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative, and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation of ours,” he added. 
 
 Obama called for bipartisanship, but drew limits at how far he was willing to go to cut deals, a marked contrast from his first term, when he sought with little success to reach a grand bargain on the budget and deficits with GOP leaders. 
 
 (Full text: State of the Union speech) 
 
 Over and again in the hourlong speech, Obama cast himself as champion of the working classes and portrayed Republicans as protectors of the wealthy and powerful — in a speech that began with a John F. Kennedy quote and could have been comfortably delivered by JFK, FDR or LBJ. 
 
 Obama’s more immediate aim was to back Republicans into a corner on the upcoming fight over $1.2 trillion in budget cuts triggered on March 1 by the sequester by harnessing public opinion for his own approach — through fewer budget cuts than Republicans want, a more modest approach to reforming runway entitlement programs and a greater emphasis on raising new tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy. ||||| THE bright blue tie worn by President Obama to his State of the Union address on Tuesday evening was an accurate barometer of the weather. This was the most Democratic State of the Union in some time, not just in the range of government initiatives he proposed — the annual speech is usually a long laundry list — but because it set a new tone. 
 
 Mr. Obama was looser than he has been in these previous annual messages to Congress — and unapologetic about his belief in government as an instrument to improve people’s lives. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, might have been right when he snorted, in the blur of televised commentary that followed, that it was the most liberal speech by a president to Congress since Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. 
 
 Though it was his birthday, Lincoln went unmentioned (as did Mardi Gras). The only bit of history in the speech was at the opening, when Mr. Obama took us back to President John F. Kennedy’s second State of the Union address, in 1962 — the start of an eventful year that would include the peaceful resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the integration of Ole Miss, a strong White House response to price-gouging in the steel industry and the rapid expansion of NASA. 
 
 Unapologetic governance was key to all of the above, and to a host of smaller initiatives — on the environment, public health, consumer protection and civil rights — that would later flower into Johnson’s Great Society. That was a moment — the “liberal hour,” as a 2008 book by Robert Weisbrot and G. Calvin Mackenzie styled it — when the federal government earnestly reached out to citizens in every walk of life, with no consciousness that this outreach might ever be considered unpopular. 
 
 Four months after his re-election, President Obama appears to feel increasingly the same way, and it was refreshing to hear him be himself. While there were words about compromise at the front of the speech, a gauntlet was thrown down by the president — newly empowered by his victory and an electorate that daily tilts in his direction. He was right to abandon a strategy of outreach to Republicans that was not working. Four years after he took office, the Republican party appears to finally accept that Mr. Obama is the president. So now we can get down to the real business of fighting for America’s future, one bill at a time. 
 
 A century ago, in 1913, Woodrow Wilson started the modern tradition of delivering the State of the Union address in person. (Previous presidents, except the first two, had sent written messages to Congress.) 
 
 Listening to Mr. Obama’s speech, you could hear much of the 20th century in between the lines. Certainly the New Deal was in there. Mr. Obama’s second Inaugural Address, on Jan. 21, voiced a refurbished faith in the social contract binding Americans to each other, and the State of the Union address on Tuesday put some flesh on the bones of that idealistic speech. 
 
 The middle class was trumpeted, as always, along with citizenship and mutual responsibility. But even more impressive was the president’s willingness to evoke vividly the challenges affecting the very poor, in some of his most descriptive language of the evening: “Let’s also recognize that there are communities in this country where no matter how hard you work, it’s virtually impossible to get ahead. Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job.” 
 
 Across much of the United States, that feels more accurate than assurances that the economy is rebounding (which Mr. Obama dutifully delivered, too). More than a few of the initiatives he unveiled — a commission to examine voting rights, an increase in the minimum wage to $9 — were directed at the most vulnerable segments of American society, and might have been lifted straight out of a speech from the “liberal hour.” (Johnson’s War on Poverty was declared in his 1964 State of the Union address.) 
 
 Ted Widmer, assistant to the president for special projects at Brown University, is the editor of â€œListening In: The Secret White House Recordings of John F. Kennedy.â€? A former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton, he was recently a consultant to the State Department. ||||| That was an incredibly ambitious speech. 
 
 Imagine, for a moment, that President Obama managed to pass every policy he proposed Tuesday night. Within a couple of years, every 4-year-old would have access to preschool. The federal minimum wage would be at $9 -- higher than it's been, after adjusting for inflation, since 1981. There'd be a cap-and-trade program limiting our carbon emissions and a vast infrastructure investment to upgrade our roads and bridges. Taxes would be higher, guns would be harder to come by, and undocumented immigrants would have a path to citizenship. America would be a markedly different country. 
 
 In some ways, what was most noticeable about the speech was what wasn't in it: Nothing. It was difficult to come up with a single policy favored by Obama's party but left out of this speech. The speech included the politically possible and the politically implausible. It had the poll-tested policies, like small tweaks to encourage manufacturing jobs, and policies that have a tougher time in the polls, like putting a price on carbon. 
 
 It's often the case that candidates are more ambitious than presidents. But Obama's second term is showing precisely the reverse progression. The speech went much further than Obama's 2012 Democratic convention speech. There, his address was notable mainly for how modest the policy proposals were. Here, his speech was notable for the sweeping nature of the proposed changes. Obama's agenda hasn't been this bold since 2009. 
 
 The difference between 2009 and 2013, of course, is that Democrats no longer control the House of Representatives. Most of these proposals have little chance of becoming law, at least right now. 
 
 But the difference between 2011 and 2013 is that Obama isn't content to let Republicans drive the agenda. He just won an election, and he intends to set the terms of the discussion. The past two years have been all deficit, all the time. But the president doesn't intend to let the next two years be similarly dominated by the debt. Republicans such as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.) have begun working to find an agenda that goes beyond deficits and articulates a positive role the government can play in an individual's life. Obama is beating them to it. 
 
 Much of Obama's second-term agenda may not pass. But he has an agenda, and it's an ambitious one. ||||| Americans who have become weary of Washington’s endless battles over spending and taxes — and the stagnating economy that stalemate has produced — got a chance to hear about a different path on Tuesday night. President Obama’s message in the State of the Union address was clear: It doesn’t have to be this way. 
 
 The country doesn’t have to get bogged down by demands for endless austerity and government contraction. It doesn’t have to defer investments in education and public works. The poor don’t have to remain on society’s lower rungs, and the middle class can aspire to do better. Mr. Obama said his proposals to bring about growth with government action would not have to raise the deficit. 
 
 What is required to move the country forward is political will, which has been missing for too long. While many of the president’s proposals were familiar, and will probably be snuffed out by politics, his speech explained to a wide audience what could be achieved if there were even a minimal consensus in Washington. 
 
 Mr. Obama called for a series of steps that would provide enormous benefit for the middle class and for those hoping to enter it: universal public preschool in every state, a tax code that encourages manufacturing, a higher minimum wage and vital repairs to infrastructure. These and other investments could be paid for by ending tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, the kind of tax reform that Republicans have already said they support. The effect on jobs and incomes would be significant. 
 
 “Most Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — understand that we can’t just cut our way to prosperity,” he said. “They know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue.” 
 
 Repairing the economy was only one of the challenges the president set before Congress. If lawmakers could overcome ideology and extreme partisanship, they could make real progress on things that most Americans say they want, including immigration and an improved voting system. In the most emotional moment of the night, drawing sustained cheers, he said victims of gun violence deserve a vote on each of his gun control proposals, from background checks to a ban on assault weapons. 
 
 But on virtually every one of these issues, Republicans are standing in the way. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, the Republicans’ designated responder, wielded the party’s ancient cliché that the president simply wanted more “big government.” 
 
 In fact, according to the president, spending is going down, thanks to $1.4 trillion in cuts already enacted. That makes investing in programs like universal preschool more affordable. By educating children at a critical juncture in their lives, such a program could help reduce dropout rates later. The Center for American Progress estimates a similar idea would cost $200 billion over 10 years, but no investment would be more important. 
 
 “Every dollar we invest in high-quality early childhood education can save more than $7 later on,” he said, “by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime.” 
 
 Raising the minimum wage to $9 from $7.25, and indexing it to the cost of living, would lift many families out of poverty, though it was not clear why Mr. Obama backed down from his 2008 proposal for a $9.50 wage. 
 
 Mr. Obama laid out a timetable for withdrawing 34,000 American troops from Afghanistan by this time next year; we would have preferred that all 68,000 troops be pulled out. He also made an intriguing promise of greater transparency in targeting enemy combatants, which will require clarification in the days to come. 
 
 He failed to propose a strong legislative agenda to eliminate long lines at the polls, instead announcing a bipartisan commission to recommend changes, even though good bills to improve registration and early voting have already been introduced. 
 
 Nonetheless, Mr. Obama’s broad second-term agenda is impressive. It is largely what won him re-election. His task now is to turn his widespread public support into a wedge to break Washington’s gridlock. ||||| In his first State of the Union address of his second term, President Obama delivered the most forceful defense of liberal values uttered on this occasion by any president since Lyndon Johnson. Obama argued for progress on the environment, common sense on guns, decency on immigration. On those issues, he has the support of the American people. 
 
 Yes, there are problems left over from his first four years: high unemployment and slow economic growth. He rightly called on Congress to close the nation's long-term budget gap by reforming entitlements and simplifying the tax code, rather than making across-the-board reductions that only chip away at the deficit. But it wasn't clear how he'd get his ideas, many of them recycled from his first term, through a polarized Congress. 
 
 Many of the proposals Obama laid out — initiatives to promote manufacturing, shore up infrastructure, expand exports, develop clean energy technology, prepare American workers for the demands of today's job market and fix a broken immigration system — would help build a stronger foundation for economic growth. He added a new wrinkle to several of these proposals, calling for public-private partnerships in construction and education to reduce the cost to taxpayers. 
 
 TRANSCRIPT: 2013 State of the Union 
 
 The president also renewed his call to reduce carbon emissions, suggesting that he may spend some political capital on that vital issue. He endorsed sensible steps to deter gun violence, including new protections against sham sales that arm criminals. And he reconfirmed his commitment to ending the U.S. war in Afghanistan next year. 
 
 Leaders have to do more than set the right goals; they have to find ways to achieve them. There, Obama's course is unclear. In the first term, he courted Republican support and was rebuffed. With his inaugural address, he suggested a new approach: rallying the public in support of common values, transcending partisanship. This speech extended that idea, but achieving it won't be easy. 
 
 Obama did make one significant nod to the other side, announcing that he would pursue a free-trade agreement with the European Union. Although his own party may balk, it was a smart and bold move. 
 
 The president rightly argues that Washington should re-prioritize, not just cut back. Before him and Congress stand great opportunities to do just that. Pass immigration reform. Pass sensible gun laws. Work to improve the lives of average Americans regardless of which party benefits. Those are ambitions worthy of a great nation.
– Pundits agree: President Obama's speech last night marked a firm push for progressive goals, shedding much of the bipartisan focus we've heard from him in recent years. A sampling of what analysts are saying: The speech had a "retro flavor—'Democrat Classic,'" writes Glenn Thrush at Politico. It "could have been comfortably delivered by JFK, FDR, or LBJ," marking "the latest step in a clear effort by Obama to nudge the nation’s politics to the center-left." At the same time, it had its similarities to Marco Rubio's response: "At times, the blue-collar rhetoric employed by Obama and Rubio tracked so closely as to co-mingle, like alternating verses in a Bruce Springsteen song." "That was an incredibly ambitious speech," writes Ezra Klein at the Washington Post. If all the measures Obama proposed last night, from gun control to minimum wage, were to pass, "America would be a noticeably different country," he notes. "It’s often the case that candidates are more ambitious than presidents. But Obama’s second term is showing precisely the reverse progression." The Los Angeles Times calls the speech "the most forceful defense of liberal values uttered on this occasion by any president since Lyndon Johnson"—a comment similar to Newt Gingrich's, the New York Times notes. But while Obama "has the support of the American people" on many of his goals, "it wasn't clear how he'd get his ideas, many of them recycled from his first term, through a polarized Congress." Despite that polarization, the president "explained to a wide audience what could be achieved if there were even a minimal consensus in Washington," note the editors of the New York Times. Obama's "task now is to turn his widespread public support into a wedge to break Washington’s gridlock."