Dan Froomkin has a suggestion for the media covering Obama’s Wednesday press conference:

President Obama holds a prime-time press conference tomorrow night to mark his 100th day in office, and if the major news organizations really want to make it interesting, they won’t send their White House corrrespondents.

No, I’m not suggesting a boycott. What I’m proposing is that, depending on what they want to probe, news organizations should send the beat reporters — or even columnists — who have the deepest knowledge and expertise in the subject at hand.
[...]
So if the New York Times or The Washington Post decide that their top priority tomorrow night is to probe Obama about his highly speculative bank bailout proposals, they should send someone who could really mix it up with the president — like Paul Krugman, or Steven Pearlstein.

If they decide the most important thing is to pin Obama down on his views on accountability for torture, they should send Scott Shane, or Joby Warrick.

If the goal is getting Obama to explain his thinking on complicated policy matters, to push him beyond the things he’s said before, to call him out when he’s being vague, or he’s exaggerating, or he’s just dead wrong — then it’s time to call in the experts.

This will obviously never happen because what good is being a White House beat reporter if you don’t get to be on prime time TV every once in a while.

Froomkin then gets at the key question, one I’ve been asking for well over 100 days:

Most significantly, it seems to me, Obama really owes the American public an explanation of how he arrived at his financial rescue plan. We need to hear not just that he has confidence in his economic advisers, but why. In particular, he needs to explain why we shouldn’t think that he’s been coopted by Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner into going soft on Wall Street. (Italics are Froomkin’s)

I won’t be holding my breath.