One thing apparent after watching President Obama’s press conference yesterday: they have his back. Still.

USA Today notes that there was not one question about the economy. I tuned in late but, as far as I can tell, the president also escaped being asked a single question about the real issue at stake in his HHS mandate: religious freedom.  

Instead we were treated to questions about Rush Limbaugh’s very unfortunate but since-apologized for remarks about Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law gender activist. This was to showcase the president as a champion against mean and sometimes (gasp!) overweight Republicans who hate us and want to take us back to the Dark Ages.

Even Michael Kinsley, hardly a Rush fan, sees through the “insincere push to crush Rush.” But the president invoked his two daughters, Malia and Sasha, in explaining why he had called poor, shrinking violet Sandra after she was insulted by Limbaugh (and, just for the record, I never defend calling a woman certain names).

But here is what the president said:

"The reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha and one of the things that I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones that I may not agree with the on," Obama said during a press conference Tuesday. "And I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because they're being good citizens."

Okay, if I had a daughter, I might hope that, when she grew up and became a good citizen, she could find a loftier cause than beating Jesuits into paying for her contraception. Conservative writer Michelle Malkin, by the way, says she’s been called worse that what Limbaugh called Ms. Flake and not yet heard from the president.

By the way, did anybody think to ask the president why the White House called Barnard College, the venerable women’s college in Manhattan, to ask if he could deliver the commencement address? Couldn’t have anything to do with the real war—the democrat war for women’s votes—that is going on, could it?

But these antics pale in comparison to the moment when the president was asked to discuss something serious: the situation regarding Iran, on the verge of having nuclear weapons, and Israel, which may be on the verge of having to attack Iran, if it hopes to continue to exist. Here is the president’s narcissistic reply:  

When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.

What’s next? L’etat c’est moi? As explained later, what the president meant was—well—pretty much nothing (Danielle Pletka agrees). He just wants supporters of Israel to get off his back and let him coast to re-election. The president also made the disgraceful and untrue comment that the GOP contenders are making “casual” statements about attacking Iran. This has to be projection: it is President Obama who seems never to have come to grips with the seriousness of the Iranian situation. Also, in l'etat c'est moi vein, the president cited his re-election as the reason he is concerned about gas prices.

At least Nero had a fiddle.