Another boring press conference?

Politico: "Obama works to avoid being exciting"

Andrew: "I'm beginning to regret watching this terribly dull and unnecessary pseudo-event."

A New York Economist blogger:

I'm starting to wonder after last night's presser, what the purpose of these things are. Barack Obama's first few prime-time appearances before the press were refreshing in their novelty; George Bush seemed allergic to reporters' unscripted, live questions. But do they really accomplish anything? Even when a reporter peacocks with a "tough" question (that he's obviously very pleased with himself for asking), the president can filibuster without saying much. Mr Obama did just that many times last night. Unlike his predecessor, he did allow a few follow-ups, but he still didn't say much that surprised anyone who has been alive since November. I'm starting to feel suckered into watching an hour-long campaign advertisement.

Apparently the hidden hypnosis is wearing thin.

But seriously, better too many press conferences that we can skip watching rather than not nearly enough, as Bush gave us.

Library Grape embeds the video and other reax. Transcript here.

I appreciated the part on Arlen Specter and Republicans:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. On Senator Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, you said you were thrilled.

I guess nobody should be surprised about that. But how big a deal is this really?

Some Republicans say it is huge. They believe it's a game changer. They say that if you get the 60 votes in the Senate, that you will be able to ride roughshod over any opposition, and that we're on the verge of, as one Republican put it, one-party rule.

Do you see it that way? And also, what do you think his switch says about the state of the Republican Party?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think very highly of Arlen Specter. I think he's got a record of legislative accomplishment that is as good as any member of the Senate.

And I think he's always had a strong independent streak. I think that was true when he was a Republican; I think that will be true when he's a Democrat. He was a very blunt in saying I couldn't count on him to march lockstep on every single issue. And so he's going to still have strong opinions, as many Democrats in the Senate do. I've been there. It turns out all the senators have very strong opinions. And I don't think that's going to change.

I do think that having Arlen Specter in the Democratic Caucus will liberate him to cooperate on critical issues, like health care, like infrastructure and job creation, areas where his inclinations were to work with us but he was feeling pressure not to.

And I think the vote on the recovery act was a classic example. Ultimately, he thought that was the right thing to do. And he was fiercely berated within his own party at the time for having taken what I consider to be a very sensible step.

So -- so I think it's a -- overall a positive.

Now, I am under no illusions that suddenly I'm going to have a rubber-stamp Senate. I've got Democrats who don't agree with me on everything. And that's how it should be. Congress is a coequal branch of government. Every senator who's there, whether I agree with them or disagree with them, I think truly believes that they are doing their absolute best to represent their constituencies.

And we've got regional differences, and we've got some parts of the country that are affected differently by certain policies.

And those have to be respected, and there's going to have to be compromise and give-and-take on all of these issues.

I do think that, to my Republican friends, I -- I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine. I can't sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work, and the American people voted to change. But there are a whole host of areas where we can work together.

And -- and I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, "Look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I've -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow. On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position." And if that is how bipartisanship is defined -- a -- a -- a situation in which, basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in an historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.

If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be some differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard- core differences that we can't resolve but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.

QUESTION: Is the Republican Party in the desperate straits that Arlen Specter seems to think it is?

MR. OBAMA: You know, politics in America changes very quick. And I'm a big believer that things are never as good as they seem, and never as bad as they seem. You're talking to a guy who was 30 points down in the polls during a primary in Iowa so -- so I never -- I don't believe in crystal balls.

I do think that our administration has taken some steps that have restored confidence in the American people that we're moving in the right direction, and that simply opposing our approach on every front is probably not a good political strategy.