Governor Martin O’Malley gave a stellar State of the State address this week and rightfully gave himself several pats on the back. The speech was heavy on accomplishments, laid out an ambitious liberal agenda for the current legislative session and was ripe with national themes perfect for a 2016 presidential contender.

The governor struck a pragmatic tone as he discussed the impact the struggling federal economy had on Maryland but took credit for steering the state head-on into the storm and laid claim to a state budget that remains more robust and stronger than most states in the country. 

O’Malley was able to convince the legislature to raise taxes (several times) but did it in a way that most people didn’t feel a direct pinch and in doing so saw core functions like education maintain steady and progressive success.

On his watch he expanded gaming and won national attention by championing marriage equality for gays and lesbians and in-state college tuition for the children undocumented immigrants. Although he seemed as confident as ever— he also appears to have matured into an articulate statesman who knows how to take his bows without seeming arrogant and uptight, words that were used by many Annapolis insiders when he first arrived six years ago.

The governor can also take credit for restraining state government to a certain extent. He pushed state employees to take more responsibility for their pensions, he cut aid that went to local governments forcing them to make some difficult spending choices on their own and he curtailed and eliminated redundant and ineffective government programs.

O’Malley ticked off a laundry list of accomplishments during the annual address that will make the national political audience watching give him notice. 

Maryland schools have been named the top in the nation for five years in a row, the state maintains the highest bond rating possible, BWI-Marshall airport and the state’s port are finally hitting their stride and violent crime around the state is at its lowest levels in decades. He has much to be proud of and many in the legislature to thank for helping him get most of his wish-list each General Assembly session.

Now he has two more bites at the apple before he will move on from the governor’s mansion and he has set an ambitious course for himself. He wants to ban assault weapons and expand gun control, establish offshore wind energy, abolish the death penalty and in his words, begin to address the “worst traffic congestion in the country.”

With solid Democratic majorities in both legislative houses, O’Malley is likely to have several more successes under his belt before he leaves office.

With the eyes of the country now watching, it is likely that our governor will become an even more frequent player on the national stage (if that is possible). The confident, well-spoken state leader ratcheted up expectations for a presidential run with this speech but must keep his eye on maintaining his successes over the next two years if he expects to be a serious contender for the White House.

There is not much to say about Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold’s convictions this week on public corruption. We witnessed a trial that exposed abhorrent behavior by someone given the public trust. 

From using his executive protection for campaign work to his lewd sexual conduct, Leopold has shamed himself and placed a cloud over county government. The Council must now decide to vacate his office and replace the convicted executive. 

However, Leopold has one last opportunity, even among all of the bad choices he made while in office, to do the right thing. He should resign immediately.

His political career is over and to hold the executive’s office hostage and force his colleagues in government to remove him is yet another slap in the face of county residents.

Leopold should move quickly and preserve what little, if any, dignity he has left.

President Barack Obama said a lot of important things in his second inaugural address. But one thing he highlighted is somewhat of a repeat of the first go-round.  He said he would push to reform America’s immigration policies so that the dream of citizenship would be within reach for all who seek it. Sound familiar?

The president promised to start his first term by reforming immigration. We’re still waiting. This is the same president who ran for re-election packaged as a kinder and gentler alternative to cold-hearted Republicans who wanted illegal immigrants to “self deport” while, back at the ranch, the Department of Homeland Security was removing illegal immigrants 24/7 at a record pace.

In four years, the administration has removed a record-breaking 1.5 million illegal immigrants. While administration officials may insist that many of them were guilty of felonies and thus less sympathetic, they leave out that under current law, a nanny or gardener who is deported and simply re-enters the country is a felon.

However, there are two bright spots in Obama’s immigration record. Last summer, the White House announced a policy change that lets undocumented young people avoid deportation by applying for deferred action and two-year work permits. And last month, in a much more obscure change, the administration said it would ease requirements to help undocumented immigrants who seek permanent residency and must return to their home countries to do so.

Now Obama wants to go further. His plan, which will probably be spelled out in the State of the Union address next month includes a path to citizenship for most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

It won't be easy. The last time that Congress took up this debate, the big obstacle was guest workers. Republicans insisted on language that would have brought in a few hundred thousand guest workers to do jobs that Americans aren't doing. Under pressure from labor unions, Democrats objected. The result was a stalemate.

Given the clear support of President Obama by the Latino community in the last election and the desire of the Republicans to reach out to this important demographic, maybe there is hope for some movement. Here are three things that will make or break progress for Democrats and Republicans:

*Illegal immigrants don't care about citizenship nearly as much as politicians do. They want driver's licenses, the freedom to go to work without living under the threat of being picked up and deported and the ability to go back and forth between the United States and their home country.

*As long as Republicans are dead-set against citizenship, we'll never get a deal on immigration reform because— unlike the health care debate— this issue doesn't unite Democrats.

*United States citizenship is something special, and it has great value. It ought not to be bartered away in a round of horse-trading.

Politicians always play the same game when it comes to immigration. Democrats ask for the moon and stars, and the Republicans go into orbit. They walk away from the table, and Democrats don't have the votes to do anything without them.

So nothing gets done. Each side blames the other. The American people for the most part are indifferent and it’s back to the drawing board for the policy makers. The status quo is preserved. See you after the next election.

However, when that happens, the people who lose are the very ones who many people say they want to help— those 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in the United States and contribute to our economy. They deserve a pathway to legal status, and a final resolution to a debate that really isn't as difficult as some make it.

It is a question of will, which is something that seems in short supply in Washington.

Two words, best sum up the tangled saga that defines the legacy of sports icon Lance Armstrong. It’s complicated.

Armstrong, the latest tragic hero to emerge from the frequently soiled field of sport, is perhaps the most divisive case yet. Many things come to mind when we think of Lance Armstrong— fraud, inspiration, liar, mentor, bully and philanthropist. The world-class and record-breaking cyclist’s exploits on and off the road beg the age-old question about whether the end accomplishment justifies the ragged and messy path he traveled to get there. It’s complicated.

Armstrong, the wiry Texan, finally, apparently, came clean this week to talk show host and media entrepreneur Oprah Winfrey about his years of using performance-enhancing drugs, which helped propel him to an unprecedented seven Tour de France championships and an almost mythic place in international sport.

He did so after years of denials in the faces of his bitter rivals— many of whom were also drug cheats. He did so while also undertaking campaigns to smear and destroy those who attempted to bring evidence of his activities to light, but he also did so after amazing the world with his fearsome battle with testicular cancer, an event that sparked his creation of a charity known as Livestrong that has helped thousands upon thousands of those inflicted with the horrid disease.

The ubiquitous yellow bracelets have become easily recognizable symbols of his fight and that of others and have inspired millions in America and elsewhere to take arms against cancer. Livestrong has raised millions in money that otherwise would not be available in the war on cancer. All the while, Armstrong himself became a mighty symbol of overcoming seemingly impossible odds and achieving extraordinary things.

However last year, his denials began to fray. The goodwill he had established around the world was no match for the cold hard facts. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a 1,000-page report that went far beyond merely accusing Armstrong of doping to improve his cycling ability. He was also cited as the mastermind behind a scheme that involved members of the U.S. Postal Service team he headed. Critics called it sports doping on a professional level. It was cheating, lying and organized deceit at a level not seen in modern times. All, allegedly, under the direction of the humble, meek, media star Armstrong.

The facts led to Armstrong being stripped of his Tour de France titles and disassociating himself from his Livestrong foundation.

On Monday, January 14, 2013 before Armstrong’s two and a half hour interview with Winfrey, he met with Livestrong staff members and offered a tearful apology. He also urged them to continue helping cancer patients and their families.

The personal cost to Armstrong has been high. His lucrative endorsements have mostly dried up. He is also banned from competing in the elite triathlon or running events he participated in after his cycling career. Activities he obviously deeply loved and cherished. 

Such a fall from grace is unimaginable and Armstrong’s place in history and his legacy is now forever tarnished, no matter what he eventually spends the rest of his life doing.

The one difference in the Armstrong drama and the countless other elite athletes caught up in steroids and doping is his unmistakable contributions off the racetrack.

What he has meant to cancer survivors and the families who support those in so much agony can’t be estimated. It’s a value far beyond numbers posted in a sports record book that one day will be broken by someone else.

So what to finally make of Lance Armstrong? He is everything his critics say he is and he is also every bit the hero his supporters believe him to be as well.

It’s complicated.