I think Froomkin has it about right

When he says this about the Chimperor Disgustus and his minimal interaction with the press as viewed by the majority of Americans:

President Bush's fundamental challenge as he tries to regain his political footing is that most Americans don't trust him anymore.

In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, for instance, 53 percent of Americans said they do not consider him honest and trustworthy. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found 52 percent of Americans believe the Bush administration intentionally misled the public in making its case for war in Iraq. Serious stuff.

And yet, when Bush faces the press corps -- either en masse, in a news conference, or in the occasional sit-down interview -- the central issue of credibility typically goes unexplored.

That may be why so many Bush critics are so frustrated with the mainstream media coverage of the president -- and why you hear so many fantasies about how Jon Stewart, or a roused Oprah Winfrey, would do a better job.

Here is my main thought.

Bush is neither bright, nor quick on his feet when challenged. I am not convinced he actually understands half his policies, and the half he does understand he cannot justify as beneficial to the nation beyond tired bromides. He is the recessive gene of the far right wing. There is no doubt the man has been well served by his political operatives to the same extent that the nation has been harmed. But none of that changes the key facts -- he is an incurious and stubborn man of at best average intelligence at the time the nation demanded and demands much more.

If the press insisted on follow up from Bush, if they stopped feeling sorry for him and thinking he is so badly outmatched that they are picking on him if they challenge him a tad that would be great (and if their editors would shut the fuck up that would be great too). Be a fucking reporter, he's the President of the United States, not a special olympics competitor.