Of Obama, mullahs, mischief-makers and miscreants

Although the questions did range topically in yesterday's press conference, they mostly boiled down to a presidential testosterone test on Iran and the U.S. Congress.

Would Obama, as nostalgic neocons have urged, further estrange a corrupt, medieval and intractable regime; and would he also, as the wistfully under- and uninsured have urged, further estrange a corrupt, medieval and intractable regime?

And the answers to both, as best I could fathom, were, Well, sort of, but absolutely no one knows what in hell is going on, so stay tuned, although corruption, medievalism and intractability do appear to have the upper and universal hand.

In Obama's prepared statement on Iran, there was some mitigation of his earlier, softer-power statement. But because yesteryear's Bush-Cheney neocons of today's GOP have failed to specify, exactly, what their alternative policy prescriptions would be, one can't really say how much closer Obama came to them.

Nevertheless there was movement -- but mostly politically unavoidable movement, since, as we all know, and as the Second World War, Korea, Vietnam and the Cold War proved, Democratic presidents can't be counted on for a muscular, assertive foreign policy.

So yesterday's statements were largely Saturday's statement amplified: Obama is now "appalled and outraged" by the Iranian regime's thuggish tactics, he "strongly condemn[s]" them, and he "deplore[s] the violence against innocent civilians anywhere" (that last word added to remove his condemnation from the militating arena of pointed outrage).

Then the formulaic, the exhortative: "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect [human] rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion."

Which, following the first press-corps question posed, pretty much brought Obama right back to the cautious, deliberative point from where he started last week: "We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed."

The only occurrence more profoundly expected than Obama's somewhat tougher-talk on Iran was Fox News' parading uncouthness. Correspondent-propagandist Major Garrett's contribution was more effrontery than inquisition -- "What took you so long?" -- but frankly Obama's steely reserve in reply -- "Track what I've been saying," Major; or, in easily decipherable terms, Try thinking for a change -- was worth it.

Turning to matters of our own social stability -- by the way, Chapter III, Article 29 of the Iranian Constitution affirms the "universal right of all to enjoy social insurance ... for health and treatment services and medical care" -- after one blown follow-up opportunity we finally got to The Question: "[T]his public plan, is this non-negotiable? Would you sign a health care bill without it?"

Here, the analytical skills of our finest sinologists are needed, because attempting any definitive assessment of Obama's answer is like trying to read the tea leaves of a Chinese communiqué. It was at once worrisome and baffling, heavy on the worrisome:

"Now, the public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies.... [L]et's have a system ... where we call it an exchange, but you can call it a marketplace, where, essentially, you've got a whole bunch of different plans.... As one of those options ... here's a public option that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price.... I think that makes sense."

Indeed it does. And so far, so good. (But?) then came this: "[W]e are still early in this process. So, you know, we have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured."

On the other hand, "There are a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to say that."

In other, interchangeable words, as in dealing with malevolent mullahs and heedless thugs "We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed."

I was just about to finish this piece with something snarky about that -- those topically unifying words, that is, words of wait, wait, and more possibly vacillating wait, specifically on health care -- until I paused for a moment of decompressing distraction and noticed this more thoughtful observation made by former White House press secretary Mike McCurry: "I'd say the most [more] important words were: 'You are on a 24/7 news cycle. I am not.' These are the most important words I have heard uttered that could alter the future of journalism. Why don't we all (both sides of the adversarial divide) agree that depth, substance, and thoroughness are the measures of excellence and not speed and scoops? That changes this 'game' in Washington."

Mr. McCurry is right, and I stand pre-corrected. It is still too early to say anything much of defendable snarkiness about what seems, on health care, like a touch of presidential apostasy. We'll just have to wait, to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments.