The New Republic's Noam Scheiber tweets a rhetorical question upon which the fate of journalistic incest rests:
If I’m planning to watch the State of the Union, do I need to read all the coverage in the next 48 hrs telling me what’s going to be in it?
How else, my dear Mr. Scheiber, would you know what to forecast, which all other journalists are forecasting based on their readings of others' forecasts?
But what am I doing answering a rhetorical question, when I could be conveying the accumulated, weary wisdom of Politico:
This is likely to be one of the most anti-climactic speeches Obama has ever given.
Now that's just unkind, if not dreadfully prophetic; as prophetic, anyway, as any "likely"-modified prophecy can be. Nonetheless it's the Beltway scuttlebutt, reinforced by the White House itself, sort of:
"Forget the Obama speech," joked one former aide to the president, "I can’t wait to see the Rubio thing."
Such mirth comes rather naturally, though, given this additional reportage: "Rubio is ... intent on making a better impression than Bobby Jindal."
And that leads to my own rhetorical question. Do I--does anyone--really need to watch Marco Rubio to know that Bobby Jindal's performance was the unbeatable, everlasting Platonic Ideal of the Really Crappy SOTU Response?