THE STATE Senate's leading Democrat was beside himself. Gov. Mark Sanford's first State of the State speech was just "great," said John Land. "I can't fault anything he has said in his address."

Oh, he quibbled a bit, saying there weren't enough details, and "Of course, the devil is in the details," but overall the senator from Clarendon seemed ecstatic.

Not everyone agreed.

"I will not get into issues, but I suggest that you get him a speech coach," wrote a regular e-mail correspondent. "Brother Brad, how many times does the head of state government need to say 'uh' during a prepared speech‘‘.‘.‘.?"

Point taken, but overall, I have to agree with Sen. Land. I thought that for the most part, the speech was just what we've needed a governor to say for some time.

Not that it was delivered all that well, although I thought it was better done than his inaugural speech. Maybe I'm just getting used to his verbal ticks, such as introducing most thoughts with an unscripted "I would say‘.‘.‘." (What do you mean, you would say? Would say it if what? If you were the governor? Well, you are now. No need to be so conditional. Go ahead and say it.)

Nor did I think the speech was particularly well-written. Some of the organization was odd. And the anecdote about the German ship's captain expressing solidarity with America after 9/11/01 just didn't work as an example of leadership. Leadership isn't a gesture; it's stepping out to do something substantial. The world is full of anecdotes that would illustrate the point better. And it was just plain weird to cite that example on the very day that the Germans joined the French in thumbing their noses at U.S. leadership in the war on terror. That called for some last-minute editing.

As for the reference to Ataturk -- maybe this governor just needs to stay away from the anecdotes and historical allusions altogether, and stick to policy.

So what was so great about the speech? The stuff that too many of us ignore: the content, the substance, the meat of it. This particular meat was of high nutritional value to the body politic.

The governor expressed the essence of his message in answer to a question at a pre-speech briefing for editors. He was asked what, among all his proposals, was his chief priority?

"A more open and accountable government," he said, pointing to everything from campaign finance reform to changing the basic structure of government. In other words, almost everything he was proposing fit into an overarching vision. And vision is what we need in a governor.

In his speech, as in the fall campaign, he embraced reforms that are necessary, and often politically risky. It is essential, for instance, that the executive branch be completely reorganized to make it accountable to the governor, and streamlined so that responsibility is not diffused. We must go far beyond the partial restructuring of 1993. That includes reforms that no elected leader has been willing to touch, such as eliminating elected constitutional offices that create separate fiefdoms in government and pulling together the scattered archipelago of college governing boards into a single, coherent system.

Those last two proposals are like a keg of political gunpowder. But Mr. Sanford seems willing to sit on that keg and set a match to it. Best of all, he doesn't much care where he lands after that, as long as the job gets done and South Carolina is served.

I was also pleased and impressed by his willingness to take on:

• That bizarre entity, neither fish nor fowl, that controls a huge part of state government -- the Budget and Control Board. Rather than sharing the authority of that agency with two other statewide officials and two legislative leaders, he would put most of the board's functions where they belong -- under the chief executive.

• The excessive number of state jobs that are "classified," meaning that they are virtually untouchable. As he said, when an elected official lacks the power to replace a single employee in his or her office, "This is crazy."

• Across-the-board cuts. Eliminating the job of mansion director, rather than cutting everybody 5 percent, was a very small start. But it was a start.

• The need to take a comprehensive look at state spending, a la the Grace Commission.

• Drunken driving. The objections offered to reducing the standard to 0.08 blood-alcohol level are ridiculous and inexcusable, and a governor's leadership is much needed to break the logjam.

• Regulations that prevent us from being flexible in siting schools in neighborhoods, which have contributed to urban sprawl.

I was also pleased by his openness to raising the cigarette tax. Some on both sides of that issue point with either glee or alarm to his linking it to an income-tax cut. What reassures me is that he's willing to trade a cigarette tax hike now for a plan to cut income taxes at some time that presumably is negotiable.

Conventional political wisdom would say this is too much for a governor to bite off at once. But all of it needs doing, and it's high time a governor said let's go ahead and get all of it done.

That's why I liked the speech. Maybe that's why John Land liked it, too.