I’m not gonna lie, I’m hot for Barack Obama’s thoughts. That man could be talking about toast or paint colors on the walls and I’d be hanging on his every word. So it’s probably no surprise that after the State of the Union, I was inspired to wax poetic about most of the major issues discussed over several bourbons on the rocks (pretty sure I got smarter as the night wore on).

Inspirational speech (or at least speaking skills) aside, I think the tack Obama has been forced to take is an interesting one. Recent events, namely the surprising election in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court decision on campaign financing for corporations, have shaken the administration just enough that the State of the Union had our president strengthening his resolve and making more promises of change. Indeed, if he can’t deliver some of those this year, he risks alienating his roots.

I never thought I’d have to say this in the wake of Obama’s game-changing marketing strategy, but I think he’s suffering from some bad PR. I’m pretty sure it was under the Obama administration that our financial crisis was pulled back from the brink of the deep hole of destruction. Under his watch, our foreign relations have improved. We’re in uncharted territory in an international policy sphere. But, strangely, we don’t hear about this. Why? Because at the end of the day, we, and by we I mean most of the people who voted for Obama, want to see real documentable domestic change.

I think now is an apt time to consider the role of the president in general. Realistically, the unfortunate (or fortunate) fact of the matter is that no matter how intelligent and pragmatic, a new president alone cannot necessarily make sweeping change to the system. There’s a constitutional reason for this: we put checks and balances in place in order to make sure ruling doesn’t become dependent upon the whims of one man (or woman). And, quite frankly, even with a legislature stacked in Obama’s favor, after the Bush administration, a constriction of power in the executive branch should be expected. Unfortunately, as a lawmaker, the president is relatively inconsequential, doomed to lobby for his interests and set the general law-making tone.

That’s not to say the president is unimportant, however. He (or she) represents the face we show the world. How we negotiate with foreign countries, arguably equally as important as domestic policy in today’s global climate, is largely dependent on the president in power. And there, Obama is delivering, opening avenues closed by 8 years of President Bush. So you want change, you got it.

The problem is that Obama was elected on the assumption of sweeping domestic change. As a result, a large portion of his base is going to be the restless and fickle type that’s quickly going to lose heart when real change at home doesn’t seem imminent. This is why our president had to focus on reaffirming his promises, vowing not to quit, and acknowledging that change hasn’t come as fast as he would like. Don’t expect it to happen- Obama needs the legislature to put aside their regional and political differences in order for anything consequential to pass. Here’s hoping his speech stirred our politicians enough to try to work together.

Voters should focus instead on what Obama has the potential to represent, and what he already does represent. I voted for Obama because I think he constitutes change we can believe in because he’s a figurehead we can believe in. Obama is an intelligent fresh face we can show the world, opening doors that few other leaders, from either party, could have opened. And Obama’s PR machine would do well to remind us of that.

Still, I liked Obama’s overarching message in his address, and, particularly, his line about leadership. The kind of change I hope to see doesn’t have to do with any one policy. I’d like to see Washington working for a more compelling future, whether it’s popular or not. I trust that Obama is smart enough to have that vision. I’ll vote for him again if he follows it.