The editorial does summarize that "taken as a whole and stripped as much as possible of ideological blinkers, Mr. Obama's record on foreign policy is not as bad as his critics say (I guess this includes their editorial board and its columnists.)  It is just not good enough."  

It is difficult to ascertain just what the criticism actually is--Ted Cruz is dismissed as knowing little about foreign affairs, and John McCain is acknowledged as knowing much about foreign affairs, but has a military solution for each and every problem.

As for the columnists enlisted to the echo chamber, Frank Bruni's treatise on America the incredible shrinking country,  hits its high point at  vapidity and thereafter becomes more downhill than the Obama administration he sees.

Maureen Dowd, picks up on the trend in her predictable way--attacking Obama through the Clintons whom she attacks, too, or, occasionally,  with praise that is faint.

 As a rarity, Tom Friedman brings something to the conversation, perhaps this week is his turn for sanity.   Friedman, at least, points out that some issues  are a product of actions taken by previous administrations, such as Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton's expansion of NATO that helped to propel Putinism, and W's. to weaken our foreign role with wars and our domestic roll by not paying for them (in fact giving tax cuts.)

Of course, Obama has been at the helm since 2009, and has made some miscalculations that did not entirely hinge on the past--the initial Libya intervention, come to my mind and the initial plan to bomb Syria.   But the "cautiousness" that Obama is faulted for is a strength not a weakness.  In dealing, for example, with a country with nuclear weapons, thinking it through is hardly a vice.

It wouldn't be possible, would it, that there just isn't much interest in poking "fun" at the state of government and the presidency these days?  After you scratch all the "aren't drone killings funny" bits, and after you cross off the jokes about Big Brother listening to and watching everyone, what's left seems like it would fall pretty flat.  Maybe there are a few smug chuckles and chortles in the area of income inequality - but there's nothing special about that, is there?  John Boehner's tan and Joe Biden's teeth are really old news.  How about jokes about what the women look like?  Did they do a riff on the George-Bush-looking-for-WMD's with one on Obama looking for his balls?  Anyone offer to check Michelle's purse for them?  How about Hillary's cankles - did they come up to uproarious laughter?  Maybe not - that's kind of been done to death.  

I didn't see it, haven't really read much about it; guess I just don't have much interest in watching a roomful of people who are already playing more footsie on a day-to-day basis than I think is good for the state of government and accountability, doing more of it out in the open wearing Armani and Valentino and the really sparkly jewelry, and gloating over having better celebrity friends than their colleagues, and calling it all "fun."

I'm sure the cocktail weenies were spectacular, though.

It really gives me confidence in the integrity and independence of the press.

It's kind of a relief that they don't let no vagabond peons in this lovely affair.

And the jokes - had me rolling in the aisles.

I like a conmmander-in-chief who can tell a good joke.

W. used a pretty good joke teller. That's what made me want to have a beer with him. 'Til that pinko Colbert went and ruined the whole thing.

Obama ain't the king of cool for the H'wood crowd anymore.

The WHCA's annual dinner, begun in 1920, has become a Washington, D.C., tradition and is usually attended by the President and Vice President.[1] Fifteen presidents have attended at least one WHCA dinner, beginning with Calvin Coolidge in 1924.[1] The dinner is traditionally held on the evening of the last Saturday in April at the Washington Hilton.

Until 1962, the dinner was open only to men, even though WHCA's membership included women. At the urging of Helen Thomas, President John F. Kennedy refused to attend the dinner unless the ban on women was dropped.[4]

Prior to World War II, the annual dinner featured singing between courses, a homemade movie and an hour-long, post-dinner show with big-name performers.[1] Since 1983, however, the featured speaker has usually been a comedian, with the dinner taking on the form of a roast of the President and his administration.

The Dinner is a scholarship benefit for gifted students in collegial journalism programs.

Many annual dinners were cancelled or downsized due to deaths or political crises. The dinner was cancelled in 1930 due to the death of former president William Howard Taft; in 1942, following the United States' entry into World War II; and in 1951, over what President Truman called the "uncertainty of the world situation."[5]

Dinner criticisms

The WHCD has been increasingly criticized as an example of the coziness between the White House press corps and the Administration.[6] The dinner typically includes a skit, either live or videotaped, by the sitting President in which he mocks himself, for the amusement of the press corps.[6] The press corps, in turn, hobnobs with Administration officials, even those who are unpopular and are not regularly cooperative with the press.[6] Increasing scrutiny by bloggers has contributed to added public focus on this friendliness.[6]

After the 2007 dinner, New York Times columnist Frank Rich implied that the Times will no longer participate in the dinners.[7] Rich said that the event is "a crystallization of the press's failures in the post-9/11 era" because it "illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows."[7]

In recent years, the dinners have drawn increasing public attention, and the guest list grows "more Hollywood".[3] The attention given to the guest list and entertainers often overshadows the intended purpose of the dinner, which is to "acknowledge award-winners, present scholarships, and give the press and the president an evening of friendly appreciation."[3] This has led to an atmosphere of coming to the event only to "see and be seen."[3] This usually takes place at pre-dinner receptions and post-dinner parties hosted by various media organizations, which are often a bigger draw and can be more exclusive than the dinners themselves.[

Weren't they the first to start airing the thing?

And of course once it started being televised...

The judges of the Merriman Smith Memorial Award, which recognizes deadline work in both print and broadcast, honored Peter Baker of the New York Times and Peter Maer of CBS.