But in general both his and Major’s questions were just variants of the “your critics say” inside politics, beltway bullshit line of questioning which is guaranteed to provide more heat than light. It becomes all about the political dance and can be telegraphed from a mile away, and is why they both got the “consistent statements” response.

I thought the first Iran question was good as well, but Nico’s question from the Iranian was just more direct and specific.

p.s. nice to see you back here

My comment was how, even with a staged question, he couldn’t ask it without disclosing that it was staged. He was inept and this is a guy supposed to be an orator.

I see that DRJ answered this but I’ll add that the reason I believe the Major Garrett question was the more difficult was because a) it was unexpected, unplanned for and no answer had yet been prepared; b) it confronted the president with the a serious inference of his inability to stand firm from the get-go; and c) it put Obama in an awkward position because there had been, from both sides, indications that he needed to make a far more strident stand for than he did during that first week.

I would also suggest that as one reads his answer to Garrett’s question, his obfuscation and evasion to answer it directly indicates it may have been the more difficult for him. The question from the Iranian obviously could have been planned ahead of time, arranged, pre-approved – who knows, what the ‘arrangement’ entailed, and therefore tailor-made so that Obama could reiterate his prior talking points on the matter. Which he did.

Q So there’s no news in your statement today?”

Comment by DRJ — 6/24/2009 @ 7:00 pm

That’s gonna leave a mark.

Nico’s question was good but I don’t think it was the toughest one Obama had on Iran. I vote for these:

“All right? Major Garrett. Where’s Major?

Q Right here, sir. In your opening remarks, sir, you were — you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged. What took you so long to say those words?”

And later in the press conference, these follow-up questions by a reporter identified as Chip:

“Q By speaking so strongly today, aren’t you giving the leadership in Iran the fodder to make those arguments that it is about the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, I mean, I think that — we can parse this as much as we want. I think if you look at the statements that I’ve made, they’ve been very consistent. [***]

Q So there’s no news in your statement today?”

Mike K., Dana (thanks for the link!), & Travis Monitor all responded to the challenge…. and fail to provide any.

Travis rightly notes that we are unfortunately drawing from an extremely shallow well; however, you go to press conference with the sadly deficient & trivial press corps you have….

We should all be happy when good questions do get asked at press conferences.

And that interviews of Republicans seen as a threat to him are planned so as to make them look as bad as possible. Even cut up to portray the interview out of order. If Obama answers an ABC interview question badly, they will just cut it out. If Sarah Palin answers it well, they will consider doing the same.

Granted, Palin screwed up a few interviews and really hasn’t impressed me, but this is a larger trend that goes back to Clinton. The press are political hacks, by and large.

You defy anyone to find any of the other WH Press Corps questions to be better that the PuffHost Question? Isnt that like finding the winner of a special olympics event? (oh wait, those analogies are un-PC) …

I think the better question would be whether there are better questions out there – Questions on GM govt takeover, firing of IGs, challenging him on spending by pointing out the cost of Govt-run taxpayer-funded health insurance, etc.

So many missed opptys.

just looking at this thread, there is no logical or reasoned argument presented to defend the President’s action.

I would add, on almost all threads. Which leads to the question of whether it is ignorance, dishonesty or some combination of both that is a requirement for membership in what is arguably a cult of personality.

The trolls, by their very behavior, fail to put forward rational or coherent arguments and draw questions as to their mental functioning. How that can be viewed as a ‘win’ by anyone is a cause for even greater concern.