The reviews are in

The reviews of President Obama's press conference last night are in and they're not all that positive. It sounds as if you might as well have watched "So You Think You Can Dance?"

Mike Madden at Salon warns that the press conference may cause drowsiness with a meandering comment about how Obama gets great health care. Madden thought his best answer was about Henry Louis Gates' arrest.


Ben Smith at Politico also thought that was the moment when Obama came alive.

Despite worrying signs — a slowing timetable, dipping poll numbers, and a growing sense of uncertainty – Obama stepped to the podium as his allies seemed to be retaking the initiative in the battle for a large-scale change to the way America pays for health care. His administration reached a tentative agreement Tuesday with conservative Democrats to create a commission with enhanced powers to rein in Medicare spending. And the White House political arm had found a groove in attacks on Republicans for boastful, macho talk about “breaking” the president and “killing” his bill – rather than helping American families stay healthy. (“You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans,” Obama said, despite his party’s full-throated attempts to do just that.)

But instead of shaking the rafters, he spent most of his hour just checking rhetorical boxes, with language so poll-tested and focus-grouped, it was bleached of life.

“Health care reform,” for instance, became “health insurance reform” – a formula that steers away from unsettling suggestions that the government will disrupt Americans’ relations with beloved family doctors, rather than equalizing relations with hated insurance companies.

The plan’s central goal, Obama stressed, was not making health care universal, as is often heard on Capitol Hill – it’s making it universally better.

Yeah, as if a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats in Washington are the ones we look to in order to make our health care better.

Mickey Kaus is riled by Obama's pretense that all these changes can be funded by making health care cheaper and more efficient.

He's still in the thrall of Orszagism! Here we're dramatically changing insurance (no more "preexisting conditions") and insuring the uninsured and creating a health care exchange and promoting a public option and generally telling everyone they can stop worrying about whether they will have coverage. It's all going to be deficit neutral over a ten year period. Why do we have to also dramatically change the "health care delivery system" at the same time (in order to save even more money after ten years)? Doesn't that undermine the reassuring message that if you like your health coverage, nothing will change? Sure. Nothing will change except the entire health care delivery system! Which is going to be redesigned! By experts! Maybe get rid of fee for service--Obama hinted at change along those line. All seemingly on the basis of a single article in the New Yorker that isn't nearly as convincing as it's made out to be. (I would like to see Dems apply Orszag's logic--that all Medicare expenses can obviously, without sacrifice be cut to the level of the cheapest provider--to the school system.) ...

Of course, Bill Kristol was critical of Obama's performance, but he still makes several good points.

Obama promised us health care this is at once better and cheaper, with both more regulation and more freedom to choose, featuring an assurance that government won’t limit our care and a commitment to a government panel that will save money by restricting care.

The juvenile happy talk reached its peak with this presidential statement: “If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?” Now, there’s good idea. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of that? For this reform, we need to spend $1 trillion?

So on health care, I’d be surprised if the president changed any minds, because he never seriously tried to address criticism of his proposal on the merits.

And, as Kristol points out, Obama probably didn't score any points with doctors and policemen by suggesting that the former perform unnecessary operations such as tonsillectomies just to make money and that, even though Obama has no idea of what really went on in Professor Gates' house, he stated that the police acted stupidly and pondered the possibility of racism. It's always helpful to have the President of the United States offer a criticism of a local police matter about which he admits he doesn't know what went on in the house. Since Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct and not for breaking into the house, it might be pertinent to know actually how Gates behaved when confronted by the police - just what Obama admits that he doesn't know.

And Larry Sabato tweets his low opinion of the President's performance.

Least impressive of Obama's four prime-time pressers. Little passion until the last question about Prof. Gates. This didn't help O's plan.

Sounds like you didn't miss much if you watched the dance show instead.

There truly are diminishing returns on putting Obama out there as salesman-in-chief.