So... anyone up for a little live-blog fun this evening?

YouTube (linked above) is streaming the whole thing; I'm going to watch on MSNBC, because I can't figure out if the networks are showing it live or at 8 Pacific Time.

Watch this space, I guess.  Or watch the press conference and then come back to this space.

I expect 1). The first question will be about either Swine Flu or Arlen Specter.  Bonus points to anyone who can fit both into one question.  If I'm wrong about this, it will be because someone decides that a Hallmark 100 days question is more appropriate.

2). No one will ask about Ken Lewis's half-ouster at Bank of America today, though I would really, really like to hear Obama talk about that.  I put the odds of anyone asking about the Chrysler reorganization deadline (it's TOMORROW) at about 60 percent.

3).  A question: Can Chuck Todd outdo his past performance?  I think so, and here's how: Rhyming Couplets.  I hope he's working on that right now... unless he's not going to be there.  Anyone know the status of Chuck Todd tonight?  If the official NBC representative is Ed Schultz, I'm going to be very disappointed.

 5PT: Here we go.  Challenges we're dealing with: H1N1 Flu Virus, continuing the reluctance to say "swine flu."  Emergency $1.5 Billion -- it's amazing that those numbers can still sound like a lot.

"All the members of Congress who worked so quickly to get this blueprint passed..."  AKA, Thank you, Democrats.  Nicely framed as a victory for health care, a housing plan that's "the equivalent of a tax cut." 

"We have to lay a new foundation for growth... and that's what this budget is made to do."

5:05: Foreign policy greatest hits: moving toward end of war in Iraq; "Banning torture without exception."

And now the obligatory, at every Obama outing, listing of all the horrible challenges we face.  This means we can expect an "unrelenting" effort from the administration in the second hundred days, and third hundred, etc. -- Kent, I think he heard you.

5:07 I want to thank the American people for their support.  You're welcome, Mr. President.

OK, to the AP.  "Whether it's time to close the border with Mexico?"

5:10: Seems like a good, reasoned answer to a somewhat alarming/alarmist question.  The list of precautions being taken is good -- seems well informed, not panicked.  And even making this a nice, bi-partisan sounding effort.  Nicely handled.

The practical breakdown of our efforts is helpful to me -- I like details like this.  But I'm worried there will be some backlash because, yes, it does sound trivial -- but yeah, it is important.  Clearly he's thought of this, though.  Still not saying "swine flu."

5:13: Yeah!  Detroit News!  Chrysler question, hurrah.

"Very hopeful" that Chrysler can resolve itself.  I agree -- new stuff out of Treasury today for debt holder sacrifice speaks well for this.  Mentions labor sacrifice up front, which is tricky but honest.  He's very, very well briefed and up to date, and it shows.

Dodging the big G.M. deal, I notice -- the government is about to own more than 50% of that place.

"It was the prudent and appropriate thing for Chrylser to do" to start their filing.  Also, the Treasury Department and your administration asked them to.  Just sayin'.

5:16:  In the comments -- agreed, phm, the lighting could be better.  And hi, bbd.  I agree that it's nice to have an eloquent speaker up there.

All right, Jake Tapper bringing the big torture question: Did the previous administration sanction torture?

So far the answer is a predictable dodge... except, he just said that torture can get useful information from people, which I really didn't want to hear anyone from the administration ever say.

"The steps we've taken to prevent these enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger." Yes.  But still, there's no answer.

I really expect his "admission" that torture can produce useful information is going to be the big news point.

Yeah! Jake Tapper going back in -- and, "whatever legal rationales were used, that was a mistake."  Sounds like a yes.  That might be the next news point on this.

5:20: He needs to say a big clear no to the question of whether he would ever authorize torture RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT NOW.

That was a complex, lawyerly no.

Oh, Chuck Todd wants to move to Pakistan.  Hurrah!

CT: Can America guarantee security of Pakistani nukes?

This is actually a good question, though it's on an equally alarming scale with the closing the border question.  Are those two sharing notes?

I am not reassured by the military-to-military communication answer to whether we could guarantee the safety of their nukes.  

Huh.  Risky, telling Pakistan that their hatred of India is a misguided obsession.  Not saying it isn't true.  "We want to respect their sovereignty, but..."  I would assume everyone in Pakistan stopped listening right there and went out to buy more weaponry.

 5:26: Reuters: Does uptick in violence alter plans for withdraw from Iraq?

This is a very Bush-ist answer.  I immediately distrust anyone who says "no, no, really, there aren't that many bombings or civilians being killed."

Really, we seem to have strayed back into Bush territory completely here. 

 To the comments: LPS, no, sadly, no POM liquor.  Diet Pepsi is sustaining me.

5:30: Chip Reid: How big a deal is Specter changing parties?  Question for Chip Reid: Which Republicans are saying that this a big deal? 

Obama: No, no, not a big deal, except that it's going to make it possible for him to vote on health care and infastructure spending without worrying about being beat up in the Dirksen parking lot.

Did he just call Congress a "colorful" branch of government?  Like the "colorful" uncle that you let sit in the corner and rant at his bourbon?  This is how I think of Congress, too, sometimes, but it's funny to hear the president say it.

 Nice subtle reminder of the "I won" factor, and I really, really like this speech about partisanship: if you don't get a hundred percent of what you want, you can't use that as an excuse to reject everything out right.

Ah!  Co-equal, not colorful, thanks, LPS.

"I don't believe in crystal balls."  Is that a Bush line?

5:35: Ed Henry re: Notre Dame, has your position on abortion rights changed, do you want the Freedom of Choice act to be passed up.  And yes, Kent, you're right, that paygrade thing definitely referred to God -- but maybe to Ed Henry the president is closer to God than a Senator?

This is actually a fairly strong and thoughtful answer; it certainly seems like he expected the question.

5:37: Jeff Z, NYT: What has surprised, troubled, enchanted, and humbled?  Heh.  OK, that deserved a little laughter.  Really, New York Times?  You're the 100-days questioner?  What is this, the start of a new profile for the magazine?

 Surprised: "I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression."

"The typical president has 2 or 3 big problems; we have 7 or 8 big problems." That seems on target to me.

Troubled: "Change in Washington comes slow."  Eh.  Really?  This is a surprise?  Was the Seante working pretty fast when you were there?  Though it does certianly sound like he's talking about the stimulus bill.

Enchanted: Ooh, he goes to the servicemen and women.  That's a heavier answer than I expected.  I was guessing he'd say something about the kids, or the dog.

Strangely, the camera on MSNBC shook -- possibly with laughter -- during that answer.

Humbled: This is the Spider-Man answer.  Say it.  With great power comes great responsibility.  Aw, going for a battleship metaphor instead.

Nice reference to the patience of the American people.

5:43: What is your strategy for immigration reform?  Still in the first year?  Going to reach out to John McCain?  Nice that she reminds him that McCain is a Republican.

Obama: Would love to partner with McCain on immigration.  That's called "ball in your court," McCain.

Convene a working group -- nice shout-out to Congressional Hispanic Caucus members.  Long answer, still haven't heard a direct answer -- the summary of this is, "There's a lot of administrative work to be done."  "What we want to do is show we're competent and getting results."  That would seem to apply to anything.

Really, a Bill Clinton-esque answer there.

5:48: Black unemployment rate is in double digits; given this unique and desperate circumstance, what specifically are you doing, and what's a time table to see tangible results?

Obama: We're trying to help everyone, and the most vulnerable will be most quickly helped.

5:50: MS, Time: State secrets priviledge.  How does your view of state secrets differ from Bush's?  EXCELLENT question.

State Secrets doctrine should be modified; it's over-broad.  Hm.  "I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases where national security interests are going to be at stake, and you can't litigate without revealing covert activities... that would generally compromise our safety."  

This is a strangely practical, liberal answer to this question, and his administration's actions have yet to meet with that bar.

5:53: Johnathan Weisman: What kind of shareholder will the government be as the majority shareholder in mortgage giants and automakers?

 The image of the auto-maker/Treasury umbilical cord is one that's never going to leave me.  Thanks, President Obama.

Systemic risk was the magical phrase in that long answer.  That sets the bar for when it's appropriate for the government to step in.  Too bad he's not focusing harder on that, instead of on this long, "well, they were failing, and we need them not to fail, so we're making them not fail."

This is a really, really interesting list of priorities: Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Health Care, Iran,  Energy Independence, Pandemic Flu.

Woo-hoo!  That's a wrap.  So now it's just to see what the headlines are going to be, I guess.  I think the big story will be the torture bit, really, because he certainly seemed to have called past actions wrong.

Agreed, LPS, he should've done better answering the shareholder question.  Particularly since tomorrow we're gonna possibly be on the hook for a big piece of Chrysler.

PHM gives it an A-.  Anybody else?  Grade POTUS?

And yeah, LPS, I agree with CNN (though I can't seem to get it to tune in here): grasp of issues was amazing.

I'm taking a dinner break, but feel free to chatter in my absence.  Thanks for playing along, folks!