President Barack Obama certainly covered a lot of ground in his third prime-time press conference last night. For once, almost every question he was asked was a fairly intelligent one, and the media pack seemed to have settled down quite a bit from their initial post-recess elementary-school behavior. Obama was asked about many substantial issues, and gave many substantial answers. He announced new policy directions, and clarified some vague stances he has had recently, all of which is newsworthy today.

But everyone else is talking about all of that, which frees me up to talk about talking. Specifically, the verbal framing of a few issues by our president. Obama has always been excellent at doing so, only slipping up a few times on the campaign trail; so it is to be expected that he would continue doing so as president. And last night, he continued to show his verbal skills, by reframing three particular issues (you could probably count more, these are just the three that struck me the most).

Framing is important for a politician, because if you frame the issue early enough on, then everyone (even your opponents) start talking about it using your terminology, and you have won half the battle already. Case in point: the "surge" in Iraq.

Obama's first example of framing wasn't as strong as it could have been, but it was strong enough. [Note: all these quotes come from the official transcript of last night's press conference.]

What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices.

Later, answering a followup question, he said it slightly differently:

I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the -- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.

A stronger way to say this would have been an unequivocal declaration: "Waterboarding is torture." By saying (both times) that he "believed" it to be so, a semantic door was opened. If it is a matter of belief, or a matter of faith, than it is by definition not a legal argument, rather a question of what each individual believes. But his statements were a lot stronger than anything he's personally said (at least recently) on the issue, which is good enough for now.

The media have played a game with the word "torture" for the past few weeks, which has been partly undercut by the label "Bush torture memos" or just "torture memos" catching on. But most mainstream media still feel a need to assuage their Republican audiences by continuing to use some form of: "the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' which many on the left call 'torture.' " Obama's statement last night may at least move them up to "the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' which President Obama has called 'torture.' " Which will be a slight improvement, at least.

There really should be no debate. Waterboarding is torture. We prosecuted and executed Japanese soldiers for doing it to our troops in World War II. We prosecuted our own soldiers for doing it in the Philippines a century ago.

Next up was Obama directly taking on the definition of "bipartisanship." Now, I have to admit, I've been beating this particular drum for a while now. Because pretty much since the day Obama was sworn in, Republicans have been pushing the media story that Obama has "failed" at "changing Washington" into some sort of bipartisan Utopia, overnight. They realized early on that Obama was doing pretty much everything he said he would do on the campaign trail, and that the only way to convince people who voted for him into some sort of "buyer's remorse" was to portray him as failing at one of his major promises. This is the one they picked, because they can control it (if all Republicans agree never to support anything Obama is for, then bipartisanship simply cannot be achieved, ever). The media, for the most part, went along for the ride.

Way back in January (Friday Talking Points [63]), I wrote the following talking point for Democrats to start using:

This one should be held back until it is needed. And it's more for the media than for the Republicans. Because the media needs a little remedial training in the definition of "bipartisanship." For over a decade, the definition of this term in Washington was warped to mean: "Democrats slinking across the aisle to vote for Republican proposals without any input." Or, more viscerally, "Democrats knuckling under to Republicans, once again."

This definition is no longer operative, as the politicians say. The new definition should read: "Republicans joining in the process of legislation to have input to the process," and not (as the media seems to have been bamboozled into): "Republicans having absolute veto power over everything Democrats try to do."

It needs to be said over and over, to counteract this trend:

"President Obama got the largest mandate from the voters in decades. Democrats have made sweeping gains in both houses of Congress in the past two election cycles. Americans want Democrats to get some things done in Washington precisely because they are tired of these political games. The tide is flowing in our direction, and the only ones who haven't realized it are the ones in the GOP acting like King Canute. I've got news for them. We are now the majority in Washington. We will set the agenda now. You can join us if you have some new ideas and we will consider them, but we are in charge now, and you should realize that fact. What part of 'You lost' don't you understand?"

OK, that was a bit snarky, I admit. But hey, that's what Fridays are for. Ahem. Two weeks later (Friday Talking Points [65]), after a major legislative victory for Obama (which the media were portraying as a "failure"), I returned to the subject:

Specifically reject the notion that Obama somehow "failed" in his bipartisan efforts. Once again, this one is very easy to refute. When asked any sort of leading question about the "failure" of Obama's bipartisan outreach, or about how it "cost him political capital," respond forcefully.

"Excuse me? Did you just say Obama failed to achieve bipartisanship in Washington overnight? President Obama bent over backwards trying to accomodate Republicans, and in fact I think he met more with the House Republicans than he did the House Democrats. But bipartisanship is a two-way street. It takes two to tango, and the Republicans decided to sit this dance out. There's not much more the president could have done, while still remaining faithful to his core principles. The president has said he is going to continue his bipartisan efforts, not just because they are the right thing to do, but also because the American people overwhelmingly support his efforts to do so. Take a look at just about any poll -- the president didn't lose political capital in this fight, he gained political capital. Republicans would do well to take this into account in the future."

Now compare what Obama said last night, where he took on this issue head on, and redefined the word for all of Washington to hear (of course Obama, being a nice guy, was a lot less snarky than my humble efforts):

I do think that, to my Republican friends, 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 I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I -- 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 costs 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 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 a 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 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.

When pressed on the issue, Obama continued:

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.

That is close enough for government work (as they say). However, I fully admit that "the majority will probably be determinative" is one whale of a lot more elegant than "What part of 'You lost' don't you understand?" Ahem.

The third issue was the strongest, in terms of framing, because Obama had to strongly refute some framing from his opponents. Some may consider "Obama's a socialist" to be only a slogan used by moonbats in tin-foil hats, but I think Obama realized it was worth nipping this one in the bud. To counteract the far-right caricature of Obama as some sort of tyrant who is taking over the economy because he just loves big government to death, and (of course) that he wants America to become less free and to fail spectacularly (you may think this is exaggeration, but sadly, it's not); Obama used a question from Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Weisman to paint an entirely different picture. This should go a long way to further marginalizing the "Obama's a socialist" rumor, especially among moderates willing to listen to what the president actually says rather than what somebody else tells them he's going to secretly do.

The question Obama was asked was: "You are currently the chief shareholder of a couple of very large mortgage giants. You're about to become the chief shareholder of a car company, probably two. And I'm wondering, what kind of shareholder are you going to be? What is the government's role as the keeper of public -- public trust and bonds in -- in soon-to-be public companies again?"

Obama took on not just what was ostensibly being asked, but the dark undercurrent as well:

Well, I think our -- our first role should be shareholders that are looking to get out. You know, I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we're going to be.

We are in unique circumstances. You had the potential collapse of the financial system, which would have decimated our economy, and so we had to step in.

As I've said before, I don't agree with every decision that was made by the previous administration when it came to TARP, but the need for significant intervention was there, and it was appropriate that we moved in.

With respect to the auto companies, I believe that America should have a functioning, competitive auto industry. I don't think that taxpayers should simply put -- attach an umbilical cord between the U.S. Treasury and the auto companies so that they are constantly getting subsidies, but I do think that helping them restructure at this unique period when sales -- you know, the market has essentially gone from 14 million down to 9 million -- I don't think that there's anything inappropriate about that.

My goal on all this is to help these companies make some tough decisions based on realistic assumptions about economic growth, about their market share, about what that market is going to look like, to prevent systemic risk that would affect everybody, and, as soon as their situations are stabilized and the economy is less fragile so that those systemic risks are diminished, to get out, find some private buyers, and ...

Obama was interrupted by a followup question that was mostly unintelligible. It didn't slow him down, however:

I don't think that we should micromanage, but I think that, like any investor, the American taxpayer has the right to scrutinize what's being proposed and make sure that their money is not just being thrown down the drain.

And so, you know, we've got to strike a balance. I don't want to be -- I'm not an auto engineer. I don't know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same.

So my job is to ask the auto industry: Why is it you guys can't do this? And, in some cases, they're starting to do it, but they've got these legacy costs. You know, there are some terrific U.S. cars being made, both by Chrysler and GM.

The question is, you know, give me a plan so that you're building off your strengths and you're projecting out to where that market is going to be. I actually think, if you look at the trends, that those auto companies that emerge from this crisis, when you start seeing the pent-up demand for autos coming back, they're going to be in a position to really do well, globally, not just here in the United States.

So I just want to help them get there. But I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector, if -- if you could tell me right now that, when I walked into this office that the banks were humming, that autos were selling, and that all you had to worry about was Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, getting health care passed, figuring out how to deal with energy independence, deal with Iran, and a pandemic flu, I would take that deal.

And -- and that's why I'm always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government. No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that's not the hand that's been dealt us.

And, you know, every generation has to rise up to the specific challenges that confront them. We happen to have gotten a big set of challenges, but we're not the first generation that that's happened to. And I'm confident that we are going to meet these challenges just like our grandparents and forebears met them before.

In baseball terms, this was a "walkoff" question, since it was the final question and (being president and all), Obama gets the final word. As such, it was an excellent closing statement.

Obama doesn't often personalize things in this fashion, preferring to use "we" rather than "I" in his speaking style. But this was from the heart: "I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do."

He pivoted to praising American ingenuity, always a crowd-pleaser: "I don't want to be -- I'm not an auto engineer. I don't know how to create an affordable, well-designed plug-in hybrid. But I know that, if the Japanese can design an affordable, well-designed hybrid, then, doggone it, the American people should be able to do the same."

And he finished by reinforcing his original point: "I'm always amused when I hear these, you know, criticisms of, Oh, you know, Obama wants to grow government. No. I would love a nice, lean portfolio to deal with, but that's not the hand that's been dealt us." By almost mocking this viewpoint, Obama frees everyone else up (mainstream media, I am looking in your direction) to do the same. By laughing at the caricature of him as secretly wanting to take over every single business in the country, even your uncle's gas station, he masterfully reframed the issue. These things are being pushed onto his plate, he is saying, and he would much rather not be dealing with them, but he simply isn't going to stand by and let the American economy collapse, so he will reluctantly do what he thinks is best and is necessary to get us through this period.

It's not going to convince your uncle with the filling station in a red state -- who believed all the conspiracy-theory emails about Obama he saw during the election period -- but it might go a long way towards getting your cousins and your grandfather to ridicule him for still believing crazy stories.

-- Chris Weigant