Obama Press Conference Blogging
I'm watching close - mostly just in case someone gets a question in about religion. There are a few issues up in the air these days. Obviously, the economy and stimulus bill are top priority and wouldn't shock me if that's all he is asked about.

It is nice isn't it to have a President who's not afraid to go in front of the press in prime time and answer questions. But it does carry risks - which is why Bush hardly ever did it. Hopefully there's no screwups. But it really should be a regular presidential event, especially in times of crisis.

Note: Chuck Todd just told me on MSNBC that "stimulus" is too complex a word for the American people to digest. How many more words will we lose to the scrapheap of elitism?

UPDATE: Oh great...Chris Matthews just told me that the President is sure to have to answer a question about...wait for it... A-Rod's admitted steroid use. *Sigh* Also, we will apparently have to hear about the dress code in the Oval Office, and more hand-wringing over what precisely his mistake was in handling Daschle...that's if Chris gets his way anyhow....here's hoping not. Are there not enough legitimate questions about the stimulus bill, Iraq, Afghanistan, energy policies, and the future of health care legislation to fill a press conference? Maybe I won't watch after all...

UPDATE 2: Ah...I see after 15 minutes that the President has already mastered the art of the long, long answer (which, some might note, didn't respond to the question). Well-played, sir.

UPDATE 3: Random complaint. I don't like the way he refers to cabinet members as "my treasury secretary...." Why not "the", or "our"? But, surely, I have more important things to complain about. Will keep looking...

UPDATE 4: Ugh... an A-Rod question. Dude, you are on national TV asking a historic President any question you like during his first press conference amid historically troubling times and that's what you came up with?

UPDATE 5: All in all a strong performance. One question though: has anyone else noticed that he has changed his metric about job creation? He doesn't talk about "creating" 4 million new jobs anymore. He talks about "creating or saving" 4 million, a nuance that most pundits are breezing past. How could the stimulus possibly be proven ineffective on the job front now? Can't he always claim he saved 4 million? As in....no matter how many are lost, if it weren't for the bill, we would have lost 4 million more? It's a sure winner.

UPDATE 6: In case you missed it, read the transcript here.