Barack Obama certainly knows how to play the press to his advantage. On Wednesday night, he turned a presidential press coverage into an informercial for his leadership on health care reform. As question after question regarding his effort to remake the country's health care system was posed, the president turned each into an ongoing tutorial that demonstrated he's in command of the policy details and the big picture.

Which is crucial. Ultimately--and maybe very soon--Obama is going to have to sell a health care reform package as his plan. Let's face it: for most Americans, it's going to be difficult to understand the specifics of this complicated piece of legislation. And Republicans and industry groups yearning to defeat whatever is produced by Congress will look to whip up opposition and skepticism by focusing on a few details that can be made to seem unappealing or frightening (in or out of context). They will also rely on debate points that sound reasonable: Shouldn't we take our time when it comes to changing the entire health care system? Why rush through a program that could add costs or cause more problems when the economy is already on its knees?

To prevent such rhetoric and arguments--demagogic or not--from scuttling health care reform, Obama will essentially have to say, Take it from me, this is good legislation that the country needs now. And to do so, he will have to have a boatload of credibility. That's what he displayed in the East Room of the White House.

He began with opening remarks in which he tried to present an easy-to-fathom bottom line: "I realize that, with all the charges and criticisms that are being thrown around in Washington, a lot of Americans may be wondering, 'What’s in this for me? How does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform?'"

No surprise, he had an answer ready:

If you have health insurance, the reform we’re proposing will provide you with more security and more stability. It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you’re happy with it. It will prevent insurance companies from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. It will give you the security of knowing that, if you lose your job, if you move, or if change your job, you’ll still be able to have coverage.

It will limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay for your medical costs out of your own pocket. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money....And, finally, no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.

This is nothing he hasn't said before. But perhaps more Americans are listening now that the sausage-grinding is under way. And all this sure appears to be a good deal for many.

When the questions came, they were the obvious ones. How would you pay for this? How can you control costs? What are you expecting Americans to sacrifice--tests, referrals, end-of-life care? (An aside: why do mainstream reporters so often focus on the need for Americans to sacrifice?)

Each of Obama's replies was drenched with facts and figures--but each was accessible and easy to absorb. He claimed that two-thirds of the tab of health care reform will be covered by cutting costs and increasing efficiencies (and pushing wellness). He noted that he had wanted to reduce tax deductions for wealthy people to pay for the last one-third, but that Congress will probably come up with another funding mechanism--which he will only support if it doesn't place more tax burdens on middle class families. He explained that he has called for quick passage because "if you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen." He spoke favorably about a Republican-instigated plan to lower Medicare and Medicaid costs. He maintained that Americans will have to give up care that is driven by fee rates not best practices. He acknowledged that people were right to feel "queasy" about all the trillions of dollars being tossed about in Washington, while repeatedly contending that investing in health care reform was vital to the well-being and competitiveness of the economy.

Policy wonks and legislators can--and will--argue about Obama's assertions. But he uttered everyone with confidence. Those Americans who want to believe in him and whatever health care package he eventually okays--he's still not favoring particular legislative specifics--will have cause to do so.

But what Obama didn't say was also interested. Not once did he call upon Americans to get involved in the legislative process. He didn't pull a Reagan.

In Ronald Reagan's first months as president, he delivered several speeches urging Americans to support his ambitious economic plan, which involved tax cuts for the wealthy and severe reductions in social programs. Many Americans responded by flooding the House and Senate offices with phone calls demanding that the legislators support Reagan's initiative. Even though the Democrats controlled the House, this scared enough moderate and conservative Democrats into bucking Speaker Tip O'Neill and voting for Reagan's package. It passed.

During the Wednesday night press conference, Obama asked for understanding and support, but not participation. The off-shoot of his campaign, Organizing for America, which is part of the Democratic Party, has been powering up a nationwide organizing effort to support health care reform in general (since there's not one bill yet that the White House has embraced). This operation could do a lot with the list of 13 million Obama supporters it inherited from the presidential campaign. Still, Obama did not attempt to fire up his followers. His remarks on Wednesday evening were more about what he wants to do for you, not what he wants you to do for him. There was no Jerry Maguire-like call: help me to help you.

Perhaps that will come. It's hard to imagine legislative success for a decent overhaul of the health care system without pressure from the public. And given that it seems as if Congress will not finish the job by August 7, when the congressional recess starts, Obama, for good or bad, will have time to shift from eloquent explainer to power-politics leader.

******

Did Obama make a mistake at the end of his press conference when he blasted the Cambridge, Massachusetts, police for acting "stupidly" when they arrested Skip Gates outside his house for disorderly conduct the other night? No doubt, this will become fodder for talk radio, maybe even cable news. (An hour-long special on Fox News?) What happened at Gates' home is somewhat in dispute. And even though the charges against the Harvard professor were dropped, the police might feel compelled to reply to Obama's blast, creating a dust-up that Obama doesn't need. After all, it doesn't take much to stir a controversy when an episode involves race and law enforcement.

This was first posted at MotherJones.com. You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

I've been on the run today. But I've also been busy myth-busting.

In recent days, there has been a round of Ronald Reagan praising that's come from...Democrats. Yes, Democrats--including President Barack Obama. So I thought a remedial lesson was necessary. Here it is.

Also, yesterday Lt. General Stanley McChrystal, whom Obama has picked to head US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, appeared before the Senate armed services committee for a confirmation hearing. For years, he was in charge of the secretive Joint Special Operations Command, which in 2006 found and killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda in Iraq leader. And McChrystal comes across as a bright and confident commander. He seems competent. He has been widely praised. At the hearing, he frankly acknowledged that two key problems in Afghanistan have been civilian casualties caused by US troops and rampant corruption.

But McChrystal has some baggage. He ran JSOC when one of its units in Iraq was involved in abusive treatment of detainees at a secret base outside Baghdad called Camp Nama. (See here and here for graphic details.) Senator Carl Levin, the committee chair, did ask McChrystal about abusive treatment of prisoners, and McChrystal declared that he did not condone it. But neither Levin nor any of the other committee members asked McChrystal specifically about Camp Nama and reports that McChrystal visited the site.

This was a stunning omission. Clearly, the hearing had been orchestrated--so McChrystal would have the chance to condemn abusive treatment but not have to answer any tough questions about actual acts of abuse that happened under his command. Levin and the other senators wanted him confirmed without a fuss (perhaps because Gen. David Petraeus, whom everyone on Capitol Hill adores, wants McChrystal in this post). In any event, it was a low moment in confirmation hearings. The senators should have vigorously questioned McChrystal about Camp Nama. Instead, they gave him a pass. And dark questions remain.

I was able to complain about this later that day on PBS's Newshour. Transcript here; video here.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels tells GOPers in Washington to stop "whining.".

David Brooks complains that Republicans "are no longer the party of community and order" (as if they were ever the party of community) and that they "talk more about the market than about society, more about income than quality of life."

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney disses Sarah Palin for making Time's list of 100 most influential people: "[W]as that the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people? I'm not sure. If it's the most beautiful, I understand. We're not real cute." (Actually, Romney is kinda cute--certainly more handsome than influential these days.

That's what Jim Pinkerton and I take on in our latest Bloggingheads.tv diavlog. Pinkerton thinks the stimulus and the Geithner bailout are going to lead the country to hell (even faster!). I contend that these are both good-faith efforts (though I'm less kind about the bailout), and we better damn well hope for the best. And we discuss the mess in Afghanistan. We also debate the Reagan years. Anyone remember those dead nuns in El Salvador?

Remember when Bill Clinton in 1996 pronounced "the era of big government is over"? Liberals were incensed that a Democratic president would bolstered Conservative Talking Point No. 1 and would accept the fundamental tenet of Reaganism.

Well, it turned out Clinton was sure wrong about that. Today, Big Government is on the march, with a Republican administration spending hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street and to partially nationalize banks. So while we wait for the final presidential debate of 2008, here's a question to ponder: is Reaganism dead? Short answer: you betcha. From Bloomberg:

I'm Ronald Reagan, and John McCain's not.

That was Mitt Romney's not-so-implicit message, as he announced the suspension of his presidential campaign on Thursday before the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference. In a fiery speech, Romney hammered the point that he's a rock-hard conservative when it comes to all three legs of the great stool of the GOP: social issues, economic issues, and national security issues. At least now he is. He decried "government welfare" as a "threat to our culture." He essentially called Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama surrender-monkeys in the fight against radical jiihadism. He denounced regulations that choke businesses and called for lower taxes. The crowd lapped it up.

Romney knew that in a few hours McCain would appear before the same audience and try to appease those conservative activists who consider McCain an ideological turncoat. (How dare he care about global warming!) Though Romney was departing the race, he seized the moment to present himself as the real thing. Perhaps McCain will eventually be able to reach a detente with some of the conservatives who despise him (even if Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and James Dobson don't sign any peace treaty). Regardless of that, Romney was attempting to position himself as the true leader of the movement.

Which caused me to wonder: maybe Romney doesn't want McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, to win in November.

Look at Reagan In 1976, he challenged President Gerald Ford in the Republican contest and argued that Ford was not sufficiently conservative (mainly on foreign policy matters). It was a close race. By the time of the Republican convention, it was not clear who would be the nominee. Ford edged out Reagan--due to some last-minute strategic missteps committed by the Reagan campaign--and went on to lose the election to Jimmy Carter. Reagan emerged as the conservative champion in the party. Four years later, he roared back, won the nomination, and gained the presidency.

Whether or not McCain loses in November, Romney will remain the heartthrob of many conservative activists. But should McCain fail, Romney could become the de facto opposition leader--that is, if he's not chosen to be McCain's running-mate. And Romney would be able to use those millions of dollars he didn't spend on this campaign to bolster the conservative movement's infrastructure and further endear himself to the rightwing establishment. (Mike Huckabee might develop a Christian right following that sticks with him after the campaign, but his stool will be lopsided.) Romney would be well-positioned for the next campaign.

Republican losers often come back and succeed. Not only did Reagan do it, so did the first George Bush (who lost to Reagan in the 1980 Republican race) and Richard Nixon.

If McCain does end up as president, it will make life messy for conservatives. They will support him on some fronts and (if Democrats are lucky) detest him on others. There likely won't be ideological clarity. And Romney, like others, will have to navigate those shoals. But given McCain's age, that period might last no longer than one term. If Clinton or Obama triumph, Romney will be able to lead the rightwing charge against the culture-destroyer and surrender-chicken in the White House. Won't that be a lot of fun for him?

So Romney may not have to wait so long to have another shot. In 2012, he'll be 65 years old. Reagan was 69 when he reached the White House.

UPDATE: After Barack Obama's trouncing of Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, will the Clinton Attack Machine--starring Bill Clinton!--continue to fire away? I ponder this point here.

During a conference call on Friday with Clinton aides--who were again blasting Barack Obama for having noted that the Republican Party developed a reputation as "the party of ideas" in the 1990s--I asked whether the Clinton camp was stepping over the line (you know, that line of respectability and accuracy) in its attacks on Hillary Clinton's chief rival. As one example, I cited a remark Representative Barney Frank, a Clinton backer, had made at the start of the call.

Referring to Obama's "party of ideas" comments, Frank said that Obama had been "wrong to say Ronald Reagan was right about government getting too big." But did Obama really endorse Reagan's signature gripe? I'll post and you can decide. Here's the relevant passage:

I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Do these words add up to an endorsement of Reagan's antigovernment rhetoric?...Since you asked, they don't for me. I read the remark to be a stab at historical analysis, with Obama characterizing (rightly or wrongly) popular opinion during the 1980s. But in response to my question, Frank argued that Obama's reference implied approval.

I'm sure not looking to pick a fight with Frank, the sharpest wit on Capitol Hill. But let me point out that on January 27, 1996, then-President Bill Clinton gave a radio address and said:

These are the seven challenges I set forth Tuesday night -- to strengthen our families, to renew our schools and expand educational opportunity, to help every American who's willing to work for it achieve economic security, to take our streets back from crime, to protect our environment, to reinvent our government so that it serves better and costs less, and to keep America the leading force for peace and freedom throughout the world. We will meet these challenges, not through big government. The era of big government is over, but we can't go back to a time when our citizens were just left to fend for themselves. [My bold.]

The era of big government is over. How's that for a grand Reaganesque declaration? It's certainly a much clearer endorsement of Reagan's view of the world than anything Obama said. Will Frank now ask Hillary to disavow Bill?