Why can't the public see this characteristic of Obama's leadership for what it is: Strength, and confidence in their own ability to correctly judge developing trends. I am so glad we do not have an insecure knee jerk reactionary like John McCain in the White House. It is remarkable to have a leader that isn't so complex driven that he must PROVE something to someone on a daily basis or he can't get to sleep that night.

"Whether his detractors like it or not, Obama is a president, not a pundit, and he doesn't seem to care much about whether that meets with the chattering class' approval."

And that is the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain in a single sentence.

Whether his detractors like it or not, Obama is a president, not a pundit

John McCain, on the other hand, has never been much more than a pundit. Elections have consequences. Pundits don't.

Once again BHO fails to use the bully pulpit to protect and promote democracy.

We'll be able to see the red mark that left on Todd's face for months.

It's nice to see President Obama reminding the "liberal" media that he runs on a different clock than they do. Just to name one thing, having an informed and intelligent press is important for a functioning democracy.

Yes, that exchange was instructive.

Also memorable, I thought, was Jake Tapper's sniping at Obama over the health care issue by referencing his "Spock-like" answer to an earlier question. I guess that was because Obama used a variation of the word "logical" twice during his remarks.

How is it possible that these national journalists are not embarrassed to behave so stupidly and childishly in public?

The media wants another march to war to promote. The last one was so sensational!

This has been true of Presidents/Kings/whatever since -- "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

Villagers like Chuck Todd care more about getting the kind of newsworthy interaction they want, than the national interest. That's "understandable" but not good enough.

So now we know - McCain would have thrown down some vague threat to...what? Invade and remove the Guardian Council? Capture the Supreme Leader and hang him? Make Halliburton stop doing business in Iran? Everything is so incredibly black and white in the neocon world. And if we just follow their 'lead' we can be at war with every state in the ME. Cheaper Obama's way.

Fatuous. When Chuck Todd "seemed to be asking, forcefully, that the president address a series of hypotheticals" you think he deserved a smackdown. But in your previous post you praise a similar question from a nicer source ("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?") and say it "was a good question, pressing Obama on a specific point he wasn't anxious to address."

How is it possible that these national journalists are not embarrassed to behave so stupidly and childishly in public?

Todd has a brain but frequently chooses not to use it. Tapper, on the other hand, is bona fide dumb.

Major, Chuck, Chip, Jake - Each one of those grandstanding buffoons got Barack-ed. I loved it.

Okay.

It's not the place of the USA to interfere. Goodness knows we've done it enough in our recent history, but only when it suits us, but we're hardly in a position to take the moral high ground here, given what was done during the Bush years. And what is still being done today, comes to that.

I realize it's very difficult for a "Villager" to understand, but what exactly does Todd think the US govt can do to a sovereign nation that is obviously having a great deal of unrest?

Even if it was our place to interfere, we've pretty much shot our wad on other wars (& they're going so well, aren't they?). So what do we do?

What did we do about those elections in Zimbabwe when Bush was president? I forget.

About six times a day I thank the flying spaghetti monster that we have a smart, thoughtful grown-up in office.

Ross Best: If you can't understand the difference between a question coming from an actual Iranian and a question coming from a partisan hack, then you need some help.

Furthermore, considering that Obama gave the exact same answer to both questions (i.e. "We don't know the end result yet, so I can't do anything at this time."), it is pretty clear that Todd was just beating a political drum to try to push Obama into a corner. We have every reason to be amused that Obama pushed back, rather than getting defensive.

Why, it's almost as if they've spent their careers getting: a) malapropisms or b) "I'm the decider" from the podium!

And I agree that Tapper is sort of an idiot, a lot of the time.

Ross Best: If you can't understand the difference between a question coming from an actual Iranian and a question coming from a partisan hack, then you need some help.

No, that just makes him perfectly qualified to land a job in the Village.

Obama's response may have been appropriate but Chuck Todd's questioning as quoted seems perfectly reasonable to me. The only way to find out what Obama would say was to ask.

Asking the president what he will do is not asking him to be a pundit.

"Asking the president what he will do is not asking him to be a pundit."

On the other hand, asking him what he will do **WHEN HE HAS ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION**, and then, after he repeats his original answer, continuing to badger him for a different answer by merely rephrasing the question, is not reasonable.

As I wrote previously: if you can't understand the difference between a question coming from an actual Iranian and a question coming from a partisan hack, then you need some help.

"Whether his detractors like it or not, Obama is a president, not a pundit, and he doesn't seem to care much about whether that meets with the chattering class' approval."

Oh, yes. We all recall fondly how you granted this obvious fact during the last administration. Hardy Har Har.

"If you can't understand the difference between a question coming from an actual Iranian and a question coming from a partisan hack, then you need some help"

As one who has read the Washington Monthly for more than twenty years, I understand the difference in this blog between the old days with Kevin Drum and the new dispensation with Steve Benen. Too often Steve is a high-functioning partisan hack. And that seems to be why many of his readers love him.

Don't misundersestimate what is going on in Iran.

Neda could be their Kent State, the moment when the war (violence, mysogyny, etc.) becomes horriffic, senseless.

Neda

We can only hear you sing across the grave,

hear you cry
from your grave.

Neda

Oh,
haven't we had
enough?

"On the other hand, asking him what he will do **WHEN HE HAS ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION**, and then, after he repeats his original answer, continuing to badger him for a different answer by merely rephrasing the question, is not reasonable."

No, we can't have reporters pressing presidents for fuller answers.

Is Todd really that stupid to think he could corner a president into making threats based on hypotheticals and "what ifs".

I personally feel that at this time, the less the president says on Iran, the better. It's really hard not to love this man for his tact and deliberation...that's why it is so difficult to accept his increasing violations of civil rights with his preemptive detention and prolonged detention especially in light of the now 7 people who have been rendered off the streets and taken to Bagram as prisoners who turned out to be mistaken identity...but all this must be kept secret as it might make people angrier at our troops so any mistakes we make must never be revealed...to anyone including the courts.

Thank God McCain is not our president...or Palin or the Newt with their General George Custer (Bush) mentality.

btw...what Feinstein really meant to say is "...we are 'making sure' the president does not have the votes..." but she's so old now she seldom makes any sense at all. If you doubt this see her complete statement at Crooks & Liars. It makes no sense.

"As one who has read the Washington Monthly for more than twenty years, I understand the difference in this blog between the old days with Kevin Drum and the new dispensation with Steve Benen. Too often Steve is a high-functioning partisan hack. And that seems to be why many of his readers love him."

Unfortunately, none of that has anything to do with the fact that you still aren't understanding the difference between a question from an actual Iranian and a question from a political hack.

"No, we can't have reporters pressing presidents for fuller answers."

But apparently, we *can* have political hacks try to back the President into a corner, and additional political hacks try to spin it into something else while using their 20-year-long readership of a magazine to pretend that they really do know what they're talking about.

UncommonSense - I couldn't agree with you more..better journalists are needed. Chuck Todd has been reading too much of his own press. He was OK as a once in a while number cruncher for NBC ...but I'm sorry he does not have the presence or the understanding of a true journalist and was promoted beyond his ability. Jake Tapper - just another hack who likes to hear his own name.

NICE. He should use that one more often!
I hope he hasn't given away his secret sauce, though: the man understands the media and how to use it better than anyone.

"...Asking the president what he will do is not asking him to be a pundit.
Posted by: Ross Best on June 23, 2009 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

The difference is what he will do..."if",if if if...that is punditry.

"But apparently, we *can* have political hacks try to back the President into a corner, and additional political hacks try to spin it into something else while using their 20-year-long readership of a magazine to pretend that they really do know what they're talking about."

Readers of the Washington Monthly should get more muckraking and less mudslinging from this blog. And in the comments section.

"The difference is what he will do..."if",if if if...that is punditry."

We've graduated from a standard evasion of the Bush years--"I'm not going to answer a hypothetical"--to something much grander: "I'm not going to engage in punditry."

Sometimes public officials should tell us what they plan to do. Sometimes they need to wait to figure things out.

Chuck Todd in the quoted passage was asking Obama what he would do if the human rights violations in Iran continued. One "if." To call that a call for punditry is sophistry.

I heard an expert on Iran today on public radio, he said the Iranian people would not listen to anything John McCain said, he has no credibility with them, they know him as the one who said bomb bomb Iran. They also said they think Obama is doing the right thing and that if he came out really against Iran it would empower the mullahs, and weaken the people, they would be called puppets of the big satan.

Not to worry- NBC is in the tank for Our Beloved Leader no matter what.

Wow, amazing, amazing. I didn't see these "news-reality show style journalist (Faux...) badger Boy George when Americans accused them of stealing the election.

No one likes the outcome of what happened in Iran. However, one must note, Ahmadinejad may be getting the upper hand due to the constant threat of Israel wanting to go in and take out their nuclear weapons bunkers.

This is a no-win situation for Iran & Israel. Both countries are scared of each other, or what one may do.

However, Saddam called peoples' bluff. This could very well be what Iran is doing. Maybe, maybe not, afterall, there are some very educated Iranians living in Iran.

The main point is, no matter where you are in the world, you never tell your enemies what you have and where its at.

Another important point, Americans, particularly, white men in power, tend to do things to people, and expect everyone to forgive and forget. They tend to be confused how people could hold hatred towards them. The next generation of kids from Iraq and Afghanistan will be the next to show their feelings towards Americans.

BTW, haven't you noticed the world calmed down just a little bit now that the GOP isn't the head of state.

When Boy George was in office, Morales, Chavez, Putin, Lil Kim, Ahmadinejad....all stood up to the U.S. in a challenging manner.

Yes, the threat from other countries was always there, but never, and I mean never had they all challenged the U.S. at the same time.

Yes, other countries will continue to teach there students and kids bad things about the U.S., but that also happens in Europe.

Is it just me or has Chuck Todd asked consistently weak questions at Obama's press conferences? He seems to be swinging for the fences but always ends up with a might WHIFF.

That's what got us into Iraq, and what gives us these endless debates on torture. Reporters on the build-up to Iraq did not look at the facts, but instead asked, "Would you be man enough to support war IF Iraq posed an imminent threat?" And the "Yes" answer was taken as a "Yes" vote for war. With torture, we have reporters asking, "Would you be man enough to torture if it were the only way to prevent a terrorist attack?" And, again, the "Yes" answer is taken as a "Yes" vote for torture. Which is a long way of saying, I'm also glad Obama's not playing along when a reporter asks him, "If such and such happens, will you be man enough to bomb Iran?"

A similar thought struck me when Meet the Press had Netanyahu on to comment on the situation in Iran (which itself seemed like a bad idea for all involved.) David Gregory went on to repeatedly press Netanyahu on whether Israel would launch an independent strike against Iran's nuclear facilities if the US wouldn't. Obviously, Netanyahu declined to comment, and I just couldn't figure out in what world Gregory thought that his question would glean even the tiniest amount of information.

It's frustrating because one of the questions was about McCain's criticism and I wanted him to say the President doesn't get to sing about bomb bomb bomb Iran.

In reality President Obama's words to the leaders in Iran do not mount to a hill of beans. I only wonder why the Obama administration has stepped up trade with Iran instead of cutting it off completely.

Perfect work!

Perfect site, i like it!