Wow, if that's their take-away, that IS a shame.

He did another amazingly outstanding press conference with re: to Iran and Health Care reform.

Watch the whole thing. Loved his responses. How brilliantly clear headed is he. So refreshing.

Can he do this every week? Pretty please?

Politico is just another MSM (right wing "middle of the road") publication. It's what we have come to expect from almost all of the "journalists".

Easily refuted. Just compare this "softball" with the puffery received by Obama's predecessor after calling on Jeff Gannon.

OK, so the answer was nuanced, and for what it was, it was even correct. As a poster on Think Progress said, "It's not for Obama to decide the Iranian election."
But.
At some point, he is going to have to get off the fence. It's very difficult to know precisely when. But he'll be taking flak until he does - not all of it entirely undeserved. Plus, he didn't really answer the question. If you ask me - right now the bad guys are at least holding their own if not winning.
A week from now, we may very well find ourselves having to deal with an Ahmedinejad regime. How the hell do we do that?

The AP -- which became yet another element of the conservative media under John Solomon -- deserves special placement at all?

If the Politico piece is any indication, there's likely to be a dust-up over this.

Yeah, because it's irrelevant inside baseball stuff about perceived infringement of Villager privilege and -- especially -- because it isn't substantive at all. The Politico piece is intended to cause a dust-up, but to serve its own agenda of driving page hits and desperately trying to appear relevant, not -- perish forbid! -- because it has any "news" value.

If President Obama did not anticipate the types of questions he would receive at a press conference, then he would be grossly unprepared. I mean, I wouldn't expect anyone to be asking him to do vector calculus at a press conference.

Though the 'coordination' may have been prearranged to some degree, you have it exactly right: It was a good, pointed question. If President Obama was caught stocking his press conferences with Jeff Gannon equivalents, then there would be cause for alarm. But then again, a question from Mr. Gannon would have been more koosh-ball than softball (and this question wasn't a softball by any stretch of the imagination).

A week from now, we may very well find ourselves having to deal with an Ahmedinejad regime. How the hell do we do that?
Posted by: Cazart

Yeah, like we haven't had to deal with an Ahmedinejad regime yet. That'd be a new thing for us.

(rolls eyes in disgust)

I saw the press conference and after the fourth or fifth variation on the question of what would Obama do about Iran, I wished a light beam would fall on some of the press and knock a few of them out. Considering all of Nico's work (which has been amazing and, it goes without saying, of much more substance than anything Politico has churned out then entirety of it's existence) and considering the question came from an actual Iranian, if they are going to whine about who asked the question and when they deserve to ask the question, then I'd add him to the list of people that light beam should have knocked out.

The MSM can't die out fast enough.

There's no reason to think this was scripted, or that Obama knew the specific question in advance.

It wouldn't bother me a bit if it were scripted or if Obama knew about it in advance. It was an intriguing question, and would have been even coming from a Politico reporter instead of an Irani.

Plus, he didn't really answer the question.

Yes he did. He accepts the government in charge. It's up to the Iranians to decide which government that is.

But when you stop to think that the traditional media is in the habit of asking really stupid, off-point questions, it doesn't seem strange at all.
Didn't some traditional-media reporter waste a perfectly good question-time with Governor Palin just to ask her what she thought of Tina Fey?

Would you like a side order of hate and discontent with that manufactured outrage? Oh, right...of course you would!

The right is outraged over Obama breathing. The old school media is outraged that they failed us and are having to compete with outlets that are eventually going to replace them (HuffPo, ProPublica, TPM) because we need real investigative journalists, not villager idiots.

Cazart: To begin with, I would like to remind you that Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran, even if he does win the election. The president is second to the council of clerics who really do rule. So calling it an "Ahmadinejad regime" is, to say the least, very inaccurate.

With that said, on to the actual issue, which is not the complex issue you are making it out to be. The way we would deal with Iran if Ahmadinejad wins is the same way we would deal with *any* foreign government. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem is, your entire objection still rests on the assumption that this is about us. It is not. The Iranians will settle this themselves, and we will have no choice but to deal with whatever is left when the dust settles. That will be our reality whether Ahmadinejad wins or loses.

Anyone who criticizes Obama for not taking a stand clearly does not understand this. Obama clearly *does* understand this; that is why he is (wisely) remaining neutral.

Nico Pitney is doing his job and the President of the United States is doing his job. Politico is flinging poo in a zoo, which I suppose, is their job too. So Nico Pitney has the intersection of tech and politics covered, Obama has US foreign policy covered, and Politico is throwing shit every day to see what sticks.

Information flows more than one way, it's not called coordination, it's called life on earth circa 2009. I know what question Chuck Todd is going to ask in advance - the insider question that nobody but pundits are talking about. Obama uses Chuck Todd as a foil in his narratives and nobody at Politico bitches about it. Now that he's using Nico Pitney in the same way they care because of...the order of the questions? Fling it, baby!

If Fox had a reporter with contacts inside Iran the question from Iran would probably have been about Obama's birth certificate.

HEY! You people with the garage door openers, or channel changers; those Blackbird thingies, whatever the hell they are!

We spent a ton of time and money at Journalism School. We have Masters Degrees. WE are the ones they give out Pulitzers to, and I don't mean Lily's fancy pants!

Go back to the self adulation of yourselfs on the the internets, and leave the asking of tough, hard, inciteful queries to us perfessinals, er, porfetional; DAMN, this splell checker isn't working any more. . .

Speaking of Chuck Todd, loved Obama's response to his query about consequences. He said firmly, "Look, you're on a 24 hour news cycle. I'm not.
We need to see how this gets played out".

And loved how he responded to the McCain question--
"I have no doubt John McCain is genuinely passionate about this....but I'm the only President of the United States". (paraphrasing)

@Insanity - Is that what Obama said? I didn't even see the press conference! Chuck Todd may as well be coordinating with Robert Gibbs he's so predictable.

Gibbs: The people dislike the press and their focus on daily minutae that don't effect their lives, Mr. President. Can we plant a confederate in the press room to make them REALLY hate the press?

President Obama: No need. When I need to work that theme into my press conferences I'll just call on Chuck Todd. I've coordinated with Chuck in advance and told him to be himself.

If you can stomach it, read through some of the comments on Calderone's post (warning, reading thru all of them will cause your IQ numbers to drop 20-30 points below your body temperature). The comments make clear who reads Calderone and who responds... the 11% of Americans who still believe Saddam Hussein masterminded 9/11 and the 24% who believe anything Dick Cheney says.

There is no reason to conclude that Nico coordinated his question with Obama. Nico posted over an hour before the press conference that he would be there and sought questions from Iranians to give him. Clearly the White House read Nico's posting ahead of time and knew that he would have important questions to ask as a result of his communications with Iranians. But that doesn't mean that Obama knew what the question would be. Sounds to me that Michael Calderon is just plain jealous that the internet is doing the journalism that the MSM is unable to do and that the situation in Iran is amplifying the importance of citizen journalism over the MSM.

These guys are relentlessly focused on their own narcissistic concerns rather than substance.

I mean ... come on. At this moment in time, are questions of PROTOCOL and HIERARCHY among the press corp really worthy of being national news?

Throw in a conspiracy theory the way you have, and it is a perfect storm of laziness and sloppy thinking and self-regard.

Obama is brilliant with his answers. The problem with the media is they've gotten used to 8 years of softball questions asked by secretly gay male prostitutes peppered into the press corps. For too long it was Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions in the U.S. Now they think that's where the bar is still set, and they're surprised when they get smacked down with an intelligent answer.

Obama's always going to have those who complain about him because they miss lil' Bush and his lowbrow crowd of swaggering buffoons. White House protocol doesn't include the Huffington Post? Please... White House protocol is being rewritten - and desperately needs to be - after the clusterf*ck that was G.W.

F--k AP and Reuters. Two worthless old dinosaurs on their way to a well deserved extinction.
And I'm so sick of these whiners and their precious egos more concerned about some bs unwritten rules as to who gets called on when. They sure didn't give a damn when Bush started to snub Helen Thomas.

Joe and day have the proper responses to the calderone foolishness and petty vampiness covered.
It was a great question when you think thru the repercussions of a disputed election. Obama has said he'd sit down with iranian leaders without pre-conditions. How about disputed leaders??? Thats where i think the questioner was leading him.

"Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters"

Well I guess we have a new White House protocol, now don't we, you loser beltway buffoons at Politico?

Giving due respect to actual journalism from the HuffingtonPost - Yes, we can!

Obviously, there is nothing to suggest that Obama "had an idea what the question would be". Calderone seems to be confused about the difference between the source of a question and the contents of it. I'm not sure if he's had the opportunity to ask Obama a question, but if he did he probably just said, "this question is from Michael Calderone." After all, when the president is asked a question, what's more important: his response, or who got to ask it? As Calderone's second point makes clear, for him it is clearly the latter. Talking about some sort of coordination with HuffPo is just a cheap attempt to disguise carping about who deserves to question the president as some sort of expose of presidential misbehavior.

But the kicker is that the basis of Calderone's sleuthing is Obama's own comment. It's not like he talked to a Press Office staffer who admitted that Obama was aware of Pitney's intention. If there was anything inappropriate about this, why would Obama himself point out the incriminating fact that he knew the question would be from an Iranian?

Reporters typically don't coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences - Politico's Michael Calderone

BWAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAHAA

Bush and the Republican party perfected the practice, no?

Not only do I support what Obama said, but think he's essentially endorsed my position that we need to stop interfering with politics in other countries and accept whoever can control the country. That has a much better chance of giving us influence in the country than if we meddle and try to select the leaders we like best. Even if we're well intentioned, it always backfires on us.

After all, all of America's enemies became our enemies based upon decisions that American leaders made decades ago. We need to just resolve to let the people of these countries decide their own fate, and do business with whoever controls the country. That's not just the realistic position, but the only one based in reality. And in the long run, it has a much better chance of getting good leadership in that country.

To suggest otherwise is to pretend that Castro isn't in charge of Cuba and our support of the Shah didn't make us widely hated in Iran. China, on the other hand, looks more and more like a beacon of freedom, simply because we keep buying their shit and aren't trying to overthrow them. We have much more influence on China than on Cuba for this very reason. Castro and Ahmadinejad thumb their noses at us, while China imprisons people for selling us tainted goods.

You can read more about this here:
Obama Endorses Biobrain Doctrine

a perfect storm of laziness and sloppy thinking and self-regard

If that's not Politico's motto, it should be.

A week from now, we may very well find ourselves having to deal with an Ahmedinejad regime. How the hell do we do that?
Posted by: Cazart

Yeah, like we haven't had to deal with an Ahmedinejad regime yet. That'd be a new thing for us.

(rolls eyes in disgust)

Posted by: Screamin' Demon

OK, Demon - let me slow this down for you.
There is a better-than-even possibility that the bad guys could win.
And that we'd have to deal with the bad guys after that.
If you could set aside the disgusted eye-rolling for a second and get off your fucking high horse, just how do we deal with that? Are there no consequences for a government that shoots unarmed women in the street? Obama campaigned (rightly) on the idea that you keep talking even when you really don't like the other side (EX: I'm talking to you even though you're a self-righteous douchebag.)
But what in the world is Obama supposed to say to them in the event they survive this? That's a question that prompts disgusted eye-rolling? I would have preferred an answer.

WE are the ones they give out Pulitzers to

They gave a Pulitzer to Maureen Dowd. 'Nuff said.

Cazart: To begin with, I would like to remind you that Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran, even if he does win the election. The president is second to the council of clerics who really do rule. So calling it an "Ahmadinejad regime" is, to say the least, very inaccurate.

If you'll excuse my shorthand, I'll excuse your condescension. I meant "the bad guys."

With that said, on to the actual issue, which is not the complex issue you are making it out to be. The way we would deal with Iran if Ahmadinejad wins is the same way we would deal with *any* foreign government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, that's not an oversimplification. The current Iranian government is comprised of some very bad people. They're shooting women in the street! We'd deal with them the same way we'd deal with Belgium?

The problem is, your entire objection still rests on the assumption that this is about us. It is not. The Iranians will settle this themselves, and we will have no choice but to deal with whatever is left when the dust settles. That will be our reality whether Ahmadinejad wins or loses.
Anyone who criticizes Obama for not taking a stand clearly does not understand this. Obama clearly *does* understand this; that is why he is (wisely) remaining neutral.

Maybe my original post was badly written. Here's what I meant to say - I know it's not about us. And that the best thing we can do is shut the hell up.
BUT.
If the tide turns in favor of the good guys (yes, I know: Mousavi is no friend of the U.S. or of what we would consider "freedom." Please, no more lectures.) a very carefully chosen word from Obama could be a really big deal. He'll have to judge when that time is for himself.
If it ever comes.
Which it may not.
And if it doesn't, what then?
You say: we treat them like Belgium. Certainly, isolating them hasn't done much.
What I'm asking is, is there another way?

"..."Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?".."

Reverse this question as if Obama were asking it of the Iranian questioner. What is it our business?
We have no choice but to publicly accept whatever leader comes to represent Iran regardless of our approval. It doesn't mean we support him...it doesn't mean the elections were fraudulent either or that the other candidate would deal with the US any differently.

The question "chosen" by HP implies that we should somehow take it upon ourselves to inject our version of what Iran should be into the picture. Who are we to demand "changes in the conditions there" and who did this questioner think they were to say WE are "betray(ing) what those demonstrators there are working to achieve" as if WE set up the conditions operating in Iran right now. The question inferred a huge load of bullshit propaganda the questioner is carrying around as if Obama and America is their savior.

Was Huff Post going for headlines rather than substance or what? Truly a disappointing moment for HP...out of all the questions that could have been asked...surprised it didn't come with a glossy photo of Neda's death attached.
What did the questioner expect?

"...at some point, he is going to have to get off the fence. It's very difficult to know precisely when. But he'll be taking flak until he does - not all of it entirely undeserved...."-cazart

Oh really, and just how does he do that.What would you have him do...or say exactly, and what would he accomplish. After all the saber rattling and the Bomb.bomb.bomb.bomb bomb Iran, and the Shah we installed, what would you now have him do...and for Pete's sake please tell us the difference in dealing with Ahmedinejad and Mousavi for Obama.

Maybe he should just go for the "We are all Iranians now" bit while getting off the "fence". World domination means forcing our version of democracy off on all cultures. They're too barbarian to work things out for themselves, after all.

Or maybe we should just deal with our own hypocrisy first....before we go putting everyone into preemptive detention for what we think they "might" do.

Obama isn't "on the fence." He has condemned the brutality, and put the Iranian government on notice that the whole world is watching.

He isn't saying something stupid and counterproductive, though, so of course Republicans are upset.

""...at some point, he is going to have to get off the fence. It's very difficult to know precisely when. But he'll be taking flak until he does - not all of it entirely undeserved...."-cazart

Oh really, and just how does he do that.What would you have him do...or say exactly, and what would he accomplish?"

Posted by: bjobotts

I'd have him say: "We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard.

"Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets.

"While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

"As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech.

"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion.

"That's what Iran's own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government."

I thought that was really great. (N.B. He said it after the question we're discussing now.)

I marvel at how right-on the guy is. That's all I've been trying to say. Obama has a talent for this stuff. I am impressed by it. And I don't think it's in any way outrageous to wonder what he'll do/say if "those who stand for justice" don't end up "on the right side of history."

I do not wonder this as some agitating wingnut. (Anyone who uses "Agitating Wingnut" as a handle owes me royalties.) I wonder this as an admirer, a supporter and an American.

I also wonder if it's Douchebags Who Assume You're A Freeper If You Even Look Like You're Questioning The President Day. WTF, people? Can you not read? Or just not handle a question?

"If you'll excuse my shorthand, I'll excuse your condescension. I meant "the bad guys." "

I think I'll continue to condescend, actually, because you seem to be stuck in "black and white" mode. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make them "the bad guys."

"Yeah, that's not an oversimplification."

No, it isn't. How astute of you. Shall we change your name to "Captain Obvious" now?

Oh, wait, you were being sarcastic. Never mind.

"The current Iranian government is comprised of some very bad people. They're shooting women in the street! We'd deal with them the same way we'd deal with Belgium?"

*facepalm* If Belgium were doing that, then yes, we would deal with them the same way. Try to be a bit more nuanced in your thinking rather than assuming that I'm using the same over-simplified, black-and-white mode of thought as you are.

"If the tide turns in favor of the good guys (yes, I know: Mousavi is no friend of the U.S. or of what we would consider "freedom." Please, no more lectures.) a very carefully chosen word from Obama could be a really big deal."

See, this is your central problem. **YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT OBAMA'S WORDS COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE**. You are just pulling it out of your ass, and it simply reeks of American exceptionalism, particularly this business of using over-wrought emotionalism like "good guys" and "bad guys". And since the Iranian people are quite disgusted by American exceptionalism at this point, putting this attitude into practice is most likely to make the situation worse, not better.

"You say: we treat them like Belgium."

Actually, I would say we treat them more like North Korea: a potentially hostile regime that is none the less a sovereign nation and must be dealt with as such. Apparently, it hasn't occurred to you that dealing with foreign powers doesn't always mean dealing with *friendly* ones. Also apparently, your solution to a government you don't like is to meddle in it and tell its people who you want them to elect, which is foolish because people generally don't like having foreigners dictate the make-up of their government to them.

"What I'm asking is, is there another way?"

Not one that works, no. We let people devise their own government and then deal with the one they set up. That's the only workable method to foreign relations. Particularly when you are dealing with a country that has been putting up with your meddling for more than 50 years and is utterly sick of it, as is the case with Iran and the US.

I think I'll continue to condescend, actually, because you seem to be stuck in "black and white" mode. Just because you don't like someone doesn't make them "the bad guys."

No, shooting random women in the street makes them "the bad guys." I'm comfortable making that judgment. Just as you're comfortable condescending to me for it.

Shall we change your name to "Captain Obvious" now?

Oh, wait, you were being sarcastic. Never mind.

Well I guess it wasn't obvious enough for you. There can be only one Captain, I suppose.

You said: "The way we would deal with Iran if Ahmadinejad wins is the same way we would deal with *any* foreign government. Nothing more, nothing less."

And I'm saying - this isn't *any* foreign government. If nothing else, it's a foreign government we've had next-to-no success dealing with for decades. And now I'm getting beaten up for asking if there's a better way?
Ok, sure - I'm the one who's too "black-and-white."

*facepalm* If Belgium were doing that, then yes, we would deal with them the same way. Try to be a bit more nuanced in your thinking rather than assuming that I'm using the same over-simplified, black-and-white mode of thought as you are.

Assume that based on what? You said - and pretty definitively - "The way we would deal with Iran if Ahmadinejad wins is the same way we would deal with *any* foreign government. Nothing more, nothing less."
That doesn't deserve a follow-up question? Gee, sorry I'm so obvious.

"See, this is your central problem. **YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT OBAMA'S WORDS COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE**. You are just pulling it out of your ass, and it simply reeks of American exceptionalism, particularly this business of using over-wrought emotionalism like "good guys" and "bad guys". And since the Iranian people are quite disgusted by American exceptionalism at this point, putting this attitude into practice is most likely to make the situation worse, not better."

"American exceptionalism?" How about, "We have an exceptionally loud megaphone?" What we do and say doesn't occur in a vacuum. It does have an effect.
We've all heard McCain's blather lately, and rightly disagreed with it. What if he were President? Wouldn't that kind of cowboy "diplomacy" be damaging? If so, how can you say I have **ABSOLUTELY NO REASON** to think Obama's words could make a difference?
I have every reason to think they could make a difference! I think Obama's done an outstanding job so far of threading the needle. But I also recognize that he is,in fact, threading that needle. Which implies there are lines he should and should not cross, at particular times. If he's too timid - AND I'M NOT SAYING HE IS - he will be rightly criticized for it. We're supposed to fucking stand for freedom. That's what liberalism is. It's not wrong to look at this brutal repression, wonder what the President is going to say, when, and what effect it might have.

"Actually, I would say we treat them more like North Korea: a potentially hostile regime that is none the less a sovereign nation and must be dealt with as such."

Yeah? That hasn't done a lot of good so far. But hey, yell at me for asking if there's a better way.

"Apparently, it hasn't occurred to you that dealing with foreign powers doesn't always mean dealing with *friendly* ones."

But I'm "Captain Obvious?" Maybe you should "try to be a bit more nuanced in your thinking rather than assuming that I'm using the same over-simplified, black-and-white mode of thought as you are."

"Also apparently, your solution to a government you don't like is to meddle in it and tell its people who you want them to elect, which is foolish because people generally don't like having foreigners dictate the make-up of their government to them."

When did I say that? What I said was - what do we do if the mullahs remain in power? How do we deal? The same way as before? Are there no diplomatic consequences for repression? What consequences could we even bring? Saber-rattling hasn't worked so far, so what now?

I said: "What I'm asking is, is there another way?"

"Not one that works, no. We let people devise their own government and then deal with the one they set up. That's the only workable method to foreign relations. Particularly when you are dealing with a country that has been putting up with your meddling for more than 50 years and is utterly sick of it, as is the case with Iran and the US.

All that blather and your answer is "I don't know, just deal with it." Really? *faceslap* indeed.

I hope we can do better. I think that Iranian questioner hopes so, too.

When the dust-up happens, Calderone--and Politico--will have accomplished what they are paid to do.

Why are we even discussing Obama setting up a question he wanted to answer? For the last 8 years we had a President who tasked the Secret Service to eliminate any possibility of any negative questions being asked at any his public appearances. What message do you think this sent to the White House press corps?

The reason the MSM is now dead is that no one who was conscious during 2000-2008 trusts them to stand up for truth, justice and the American Way. Right, left, center...no difference: we all saw talking heads and by-line journalists cave in to power instead of challenging it. There is no Fourth Estate. It's now a business.

Plus, he didn't really answer the question.

Yes he did. He accepts the government in charge. It's up to the Iranians to decide which government that is.
Posted by: Danp

Agreed. I never stop rolling my eyes at people who won't accept any answer but the one they want to hear.

Just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it a non-answer.

It means grow the hell up.

.