The Press-i-dent
OK, I'm coming close to my theory, albeit simple and obvious, on reactions to Bush's press conference. Those who generally like Bush thought he did great, and those that generally don't, he confirmed why. But I'm coming to one aspect that keeps arising over and over: the value or meaningless-ness we place on the notion that Bush has resolve.
Let's look at a handful of reactions:
NY Times:

Mr. Bush was grave and impressive while reading his opening remarks, which focused on the horrors of terrorism and the great good that could come from establishing a free and democratic Iraq. No one in the country could disagree with either thought. But his responses to questions were distressingly rambling and unfocused. He promised that Iraq would move from the violence and disarray of today to full democracy by the end of 2005, but the description of how to get there was mainly a list of dates when good things are supposed to happen.

The Weekly Standard:

Not only that, he began the session with reporters by gobbling up 17 minutes of time they consider theirs. He devoted it to an opening statement--it was actually a speech--in which he said basically one thing: We're not flinching in Iraq. He was heroically on message, relentlessly repetitive, but effective in his own way.
...
If one was expecting a Kissingerian strategic case for America's intervention in Iraq, one wasn't going to get it from Bush. His argument was simple. Freedom in Iraq is good for Iraqis, good for America, and good for the world. And though we've had some tough weeks recently, we're sticking in Iraq and with our plan to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.

And Glenn Reynolds provides us more responses:

Rene: "Bush doesn't have the polish and command of facts that Clinton had nor does he have the stage presence and comforting voice of Reagan. However, as I see it, he exudes resolve."

Here's an online transcript of the press conference, which makes my liveblogging pointless except for a few interspersed comments.

Andrew Sullivan: "I found the president clear, forceful, impassioned, determined, real. This was not an average performance."

Virginia Postrel: "George W. Bush is not the most articulate of men, but he is really good at one kind of speech: laying out in simple language the way he's thought through a policy decision."

I heard Bill Kristol, editor of Weekly Standard, did not like the conference--saying something to the effect that Bush made no solid policy statements regarding just how we'll proceed and succeed in Iraq. But I just heard that on the radio- so no verifying.

So, my point:
in these comments, and in comments on this weblog, we find those, like me, that think the President shovels out BS when answering the press. Alternatively, you find those that think the President speaks with resolve, firmness, real-ness, and on and on. I think the Weekly Standard essay speaks the praise-line well: Bush is not dragged down by these elitist press corps into complex folds of policy ("elite" is, of course, used in his article). Rather, Bush has a clear message- he is pro-freedom, he will stick it out in Iraq, and we will turn over sovereignty on June 30.
In his refusal to ramble on beyond his simple talking points, Bush is showing resolve--he will not slide away from the war plans merely in response to political pressure. Thus, we have a tough leader that does what he says he'll do.

The other side sees in all this talking points, scripted by Rove, that do nothing to teach those of us interested what exactly is going on. The skeptics also wonder who Bush is arguing against? Who's saying freedom's a bad thing? And if Bush is saying we will now wage war in all unfree nations, what nation is next on the long list? Most importantly, though, the skeptics wonder why this grand plan of democracy in Iraq changing the middle east was not delivered as the need for the war in Iraq. As far as I can figure, the notion is this: Democracy in Iraq will work to reshape the Middle East in such a way as to change and modernize that part of the world, thus decreasing the supply of those that would become terrorists.
That's a big-time proposal, and one we know has been in Wolfowitz's dreams. But I beg you to find the speeches delivered before the war that make this out as a reason to wage war in Iraq. Please.

The problem is- I can't figure out what commentators mean by Bush's resolve. If it is his repetitions of "staying the course," what does that mean? Even Kucinich would not have the troops just up and go without some other finger to stop up the pike. Of course we plan to keep Iraq secure. More reasonably, the notion is that Bush isn't changing his war plans at every political crossroad.
But he is.
What is the plan from which Bush is not waivering? (other than his plan, all along, to invade Iraq...regardless of what inspectors revealed).
See the Meyerson article linked to below. U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has now been granted greater control; We, and not the Iraqi oil fields, are paying for all this; 130k instead of 30k troops are still needed in Iraq- with more to go; and this war is less and less about warding off chem-filled missiles aimed at us and more and more about changing the geo-political structure of the world.