It is really quite something that the New York Times is running, on page one, above the fold, an article about yesterday's White House press briefing that says "President Obama hardened his tone toward Iran on Tuesday." Ooh, his tone! Hardened! The Chicago Tribune and others say similar. And the Washington Post says "Saying U.S. is 'outraged,' president appears to mark new phase in response to disputed election." Appears? New phase? What? A phase of doing what? (He also said Americans were "outraged" about AIG, by the way, because some people were asking about things that concern America-not to say that what is, one hopes, an Iranian revolution isn't amazing and important, but to say that the United States is in a dire horrible crisis of its own, as a matter of fact.) So none of this news analysis really holds up, no matter what Fox News proposed in the briefing room when Major Garrett asked "What took you so long" to say you were outraged?

Here is the second paragraph of his address yesterday:

I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place... Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

Repeatedly, Obama had to tell the press corps that he was merely reiterating what he's been saying for more than a week. "And I mentioned this I think in a statement that I made a couple of days ago," he said again, near the end. Let's turn the clock back!

June 15:

"We respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football... I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled."

Also he called some of President Ahmadinejad's historical statements "odious."

Okay and! June 16: "When I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.... I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed."

Also June 16!:

"The easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is, 'Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.' And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed."

Oh also how about March 3, 2007? "He called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'reckless, irresponsible and inattentive' to the day-to-day needs of the Iranian people. The Iranian 'regime is a threat to all of us,' Obama said."