Given Obama's sheer brazenness on this, Dickerson's summary is actually pretty polite:

Obama laughed at the notion that his critics like John McCain had pushed him into a stronger position. "I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplore the violence," he said. But the president's statement on Saturday contains no such tough language.

That's true. You can check it yourself. The statement included a grand total of zero "deplorings," let alone any "condemnings" or "denouncings." It was passive boilerplate that would've been appropriate in almost any situation on almost any day. "We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost." He could have been talking about a space shuttle disaster.

For the record, the speech also had a grand total of one "justice," Sullivan's hosanas to the contrary notwithstanding. Is it possible that Obama's supporters are literally listening to different speeches than the ones that you and I hear?

The left needs to make a decision though. Either The One was perfect because his non-interventionist flip flop was timed in an exquisitely nuanced way, which squares with the apologias they were spinning during the early days of the protests. Or The One was perfect because he was always hardline on the regime and the protesters were buoyed by his support, which is what Obama now seems to be claiming. Obviously he's perfect. I'd just like a little clarification on why.

References:
* "Appalled and Outraged" [Dickerson / Slate]
* Statement from the President on Iran, June 20 [WH]
* Andrew Sullivan Can't Count [New Ledger]

Previously:
* Obama Drops Preconditions On Iran Talks, Will Let Them Keep Enriching During Negotiations
* Obama Figures Out The Real Problem With Iranian Nuclearization (Plus: Obama's Foreign Policy Kneejerks Provide Excellent Illustration Of Exactly How He'd Screw Israel)
* Obama: Since We All Know That Engagement With Iran Won't Work, How About A US Nuclear Umbrella For Israel?