Of course, given how most of the majors treated Bush the whole room was pretty much Siberia…

This isn’t the first time he’s called on a Huffpo “reporter” either. That question was one you might expect from a lefty blogger. Still, since all the news organizations there probably had heard from Iranians via twitter, YouTube, and other similar means, why Huffpo?

I just get suspicious when a lefty blogger from a site that has been in the tank for Obama from the beginning seems to get favorable treatment at a press conference.

When is Erick or someone else from here going to get their invitation?

Did you really think that question a softball?

You’re going too far. Obama is usually wrong – usually horribly wrong – but not on this one.

Finally–and most importantly–from the political/diplomatic front, think about what this represents. Despite its shortcomings, we still have the freest press in the world, and its reach circumnavigates the globe. By bringing in someone from outside the traditional media AND showing how they are a conduit for information to and from Iranians, we sent a pretty strong message to Iran’s ruling elite, namely this: The genie has left the bottle. They can no longer exert iron-fisted control over information entering or leaving their country, and they can no longer impose silence and isolation. The paths by which a “typical Iranian” can reach the ears of the world–even those of the President of the United States–have grown and multiplied beyond their ability to control. THAT is a significant message, despite its subtle delivery, and it’s one that the traditional media missed completely in all their clucking about protocol and ‘staged questions.’

Besides, take a look at the question itself:

“Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of the— of what the demonstrators there are working towards?”

That was, by a long shot, the toughest question asked at the press conference; it cut across political and diplomatic lines and pointed toward a hard truth. If you ask me, those other reporters may be somewhat embarrassed that an unknown Iranian asked a far better question than did they.

And I’m not sure I don’t feel the same way about ABC.

And no, Pitney saying that he did not do that is not proof that he did not. He lost all claim to credibility when he accepted the proffer from The Big 0.

Meanwhile, the boys at PowerLine made a good point:

“By tipping Pitney off that he would likely get to pose a question, the White House increased the likelihood that Pitney would carefully select the best possible question. As for Obama, he gained no substantive advantage from knowing that one of his questions about Iran would be from a dissident, via Pitney.

“Perhaps Pitney’s moment in the sun will encourage members of the White House press corps from traditional media outlets to use the internet to get ahead of the curve.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023886.php

Heck of a ptessure job to start with. But I’m guessing that having to protect some stuff that’s borderline indefensible makes the gig a tad more tedious.