I think that’s always the way Presidents handle controversial actions. I could be wrong. It only makes sense to let surrogates field questions for a while, then make a further elucidation in future press conferences or (in an election year) in campaign speeches.

So far anyway as far as I know Obama has ducked any questioning on this. He’ll send out his surrogates to the Sunday talk shows then let Jay Carney get beat up tomorrow in the press briefing.

I hear that! With the usual US journalists we wouldn’t have had riff raff like Neil Munro.

I read about that press conference yesterday but can’t find much about it. Your question is kind of a deflection since the press conference you speak of was not the way Obama chose to present his views to the country, rather he wanted to come out, make a statement and go back in the White House.

To answer your question though, a better way would have been to hold a press conference with the usual US journalists. I understand his decision impacts other countries but there is no reason to make that the primary focus of the conference.

OK… then what setting would you recommend as better than a press conference for a president to address a large number of international reporters and encourage questioning?

Having said that, i happen to think there’s too much deference given to presidents in these kinds of settings and i really don’t blame reporters for pushing back, as long as it’s done properly. And i do wonder about Joe’s claim that all other countries practice that decorum (i’m not questioning Joe’s experience with this, just saying that it may not be universal.) i’m thinking particularly of the UK, because although i don’t recall if I’ve seen interactions at press conferences there is certainly a lot more give and take between opposition party members in parliamentary sessions. I could be wrong but there seems to be a lot less deference and more verbal sparring, which i would imagine taking place between journalists and party ministers there too, which i think is a healthy thing. I’m sure there are times that are more formal settings where deference should be given, but it seems a bit to me that our presidents tend to manage the settings a bit too much by opting to speak in those formats too much and not in the settings that allow or encourage questioning.

What’s also pretty sad though is that this is the big story on Memeorandum this AM. What does it say about the shallowness of the blogosphere when the actions of a rude reporter are bigger news than a momentous decision by the president?

The study doesn’t say only liberals were motivated to vote for him. Obviously some conservatives did, also, or the numbers wouldn’t have been so high. He’s not comparing Democrats to Republicans anyway. In fact “Republican” appears only once in the piece. Perhaps a second read would clear all that up.

I’m not a scientist so don’t know if the study was valid or not, you would have to take that up with the NY Times. It’s been a long time since I did any research, but I don’t see a problem with his concept. If you find a reputable refutation, I’d be glad to look at it.

“your argument that that makes every criticism of the president racially motivated is quite a leap.”

Of course I said no such thing. I certainly have criticized Obama, as you should well know, if you have been here any length of time and it wasn’t because of his race.

What I said was the disrespect shown by the congress people I gave examples of and used by this reporter is unprecedented. I have no idea if Mr. Munro is a racist or not, either. Nor does it matter. What he did was disrespectful and encourages more disrespect which was the point of this article.

My conclusion, you don’t have to agree, is that the unprecedented disrespect this President has recieved from before he was even elected is a product of racism. Unprecedented is the qualifier.

But, of course I wouldn’t argue there is no racism. But, your argument that that makes every criticism of the president racially motivated is quite a leap.

I have no idea if this guy is racist, but I don’t see any reason to suppose that. He was clearly out of line, and the President was right to be angry.

Was it unprofessional and a disgrace to journalism at large? You bet.

But more importantly (in my opinion), it was flat-out rude. If the guy were a local television reporter covering the opening of a new store who interrupted the ribbon cutting ceremony, or a heckler at a comedy club, my reaction – had I been standing next to the guy – would be the same.

“Sit down and shut up, this isn’t about you.”

Maybe this is the twitter effect, whereby everyone regardless of station becomes accessible to everyone else. It’s startling to see a president stripped of the aura of respect that presidents have always gotten, to see democracy democratized too far.

Then again Daily Caller is hardly the peak of journalistic integrity

Some tout ‘shout outs’ as brave. Not in my book in this circumstance. Just for proportion, real bravery, confrontation: I’d copy my father and grandfathers perspective about bravery: stand in a war and face death. Respect earned by standing when your life and other lives are threatened by death in this very moment, death right now. Not metaphoric death. Not maybe, kinda, sorta, could be death. Not pre-planning to purposely blurt in front of cameras during a meeting of people, 99.5% of whom are unarmed.

Most often grandstanding isnt done to change matters for the better. It’s done to get strokes from those who’d agree. However, most grandstanders (not to be confused with activists like martin king, chavez, etc) are dropped on their heads when their quasi supporters find new blood to ‘shout out as the ‘old ones’ will be barred from most if not all gatherings.

To recap, the behavior of the reporter was totally inexcusable and I agree that no professional reporter from either side of the political fence would have acted that way with any President.

That said, there is plenty of disrespect on both sides, which is sad.

But I do find the “well my side only is critical of the other side when they deserve it” is also a bit old.

Shouting “You lie” (also about immigration) in the middle of a State of the Union message – unprecedented. Ignoring a request to address congress then deciding the date the President requested was not convenient – unprecedented. Refusing to attend a State of the Union – unprecedented. Why this unprecedented disrespect for a sitting president is occurring now is open to interpretation.

We know some things. A new study says Obama would have won bigger if not for race.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/

We know the Secret Service reports the rate of threats against President Obama is up 400% over President Bush.
http://www.drudge.com/archive/123755/death-threats-against-president-up-400

We know we’ve never seen signs like those at the Tea Party rallies since the busing controversy in the 1970’s.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701-14-s&va=tea+party+signs

We know a very smart woman said Obama couldn’t win because of race. She should have said he couldn’t govern because of race.

This is something black people can’t say without being called racist or “playing the race card”. I’m not black. I’m saying it. The people using the disrespect tactics may not be racists. They have no compunction about using those tactics to inflame those who are. Chris Matthews for a while talked about how worried he was about the “zeitgeist” in the air. I’m worried as well, but no I’m longer going to pussyfoot around about calling it what it is. It’s racism. If we don’t face it and fight it now, we never will.