Going before reporters here in Italy, President Obama called his first G-8 summit “highly productive,” even as he conceded that summit leaders didn’t agree on every issue and not every problem was solved. Obama cited “meaningful” progress on issues like climate change and nuclear proliferation and disputed reports that the summit had failed to meet expectations by not issuing sanctions on Iran for the “appalling events” in the wake of last month’s disputed election there.

“This notion that we were trying to get sanctions or that this was a forum in which we could get sanctions is not accurate. What we wanted is exactly what we got—a statement of unity and strong condemnation,” Obama said, noting that the statement was even more important because Russia, a key trading partner of Iran, had signed onto the declaration. “My hope is, is that the Iranian leadership will look at the statement coming out of the G8 and recognize that world opinion is clear.”

The president said the leaders will re-evaluate Iran’s behavior at the upcoming G-20 summit in Pittsburgh in late September. Speaking of that, Obama acknowledged criticism of the summit process and said he had his own beefs with how things work. “There is no doubt we have to update and refresh and renew,” the president said, noting that many of these institutions are simply outdated. He noted that he had attended “a lot of these” during his six months in office and said he supported “streamlining them and making them more effective.” “We need to make sure that they’re as productive as possible,” Obama said.

Here's more from President Obama's interview this morning with the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven:

On Russia, Obama was asked why he plans to meet with former Russian President Vladimir Putin in addition to talks with current leader Dmitry Medvedev. “(Putin) still has a lot of sway…and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated — that's it's time to move forward in a different direction,” Obama told the AP. “"I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the U.S. is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process.”

Also on foreign policy, Obama said he was “not reconciled” with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. The president also expressed some reservations about his recently announced policy of putting some high risk Guantanamo Bay detainees in “indefinite detention” as the administration moves to close the prison next year. “It gives me huge pause,” Obama said, suggesting he may not follow through on the policy.

In perhaps his most interesting comments, Obama weighed in on the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action this week, in which it decided in favor of a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who sued the city for reverse discrimination. The ruling overturned a verdict laid down by an Appeals Court judge named Sonia Sotomayor. (Maybe you’ve heard of her.) SCOTUS, Obama said, was “moving the ball” on affirmative action, but he noted that the court had ruled out the use of racial preferences in hiring. Still, he spoke sympathetically toward the white firefighters, telling Loven, “I’ve always believed that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue that it has made out to be in news reports.”

In addition to the Michael Jackson comments, Obama also weighed in on life at the White House. His biggest pet peeve: having to wear make-up all the time. "The shine police," he groused. On the plus side, he raved about the White House pastry chef, who “makes the best pie I’ve ever tasted."

When President Obama met Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for the first time last April, both men called for a new day in relations between the two countries. Obama said he wanted to push the “reset” button, while Medvedev called for an end to the “drift” in the U.S./Russian dynamic. They pledged to forge a more pragmatic relationship than their predecessors, George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, who bonded personally even as ties between Russia and the U.S. sank to new lows. Obama did not want to be “buddy buddy” with Medvedev, a senior administration official told reporters at the time. The White House, according to the official, wanted to forge something “more substantial,” a rapport of “candor and frankness” that would produce real results.

As Obama prepares for his first visit to Russia next week, the boundaries of that new relationship will face its first real test. Obama and Medvedev are expected to announce some progress toward the renegotiation of a crucial arms control treaty that aims to cut down on nuclear weapons stockpiles. But despite all the conciliatory talk these past few months, the two sides continue to face significant differences over several issues, including how to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a proposed U.S. missile shield in Europe. In recent weeks, the Russians have suggested that Obama will not reach his goal of reducing nuclear arms unless he drops the U.S.’s missile defense plans. But on Wednesday, the White House signaled in some surprisingly tough talk that it would offer no such concessions on that issue or another hot topic for the Russians: a U.S.-backed push to add former Soviet states Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, a move Moscow strongly opposes.
 
Asked in a briefing what “reassurances” Obama might give Medvedev on those two issues, Michael McFaul, the president’s top adviser on Russia, unloaded. “We’re definitely not going to use the word reassure in the way we talk about these things,” McFaul told reporters. “We’re not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense… We don’t need the Russians.” They would be no concessions on those issues “in the name of reset.” McFaul insisted.

Remember that internal discord over how President Obama is handling Iran? Forget it! Everything is swell! On the record, at least. Here's White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs at the briefing this afternoon:

QUESTION: Robert, on Iran, is there an internal debate in the White House now between those who clearly support what the president is doing in terms of the hands-off approach and those who think that the president needs to have some stronger language? Is that ongoing in the White House?

GIBBS: There's no debate in the White House.

QUESTION: Is there division at all? Is everyone on the same page on this or are there those who think that the president -- internally -- that the president...

GIBBS: Everybody's on the same page. There's no difference of opinion.

And later:

QUESTION: You said there's no difference of opinion. But we've been led to believe this president seeks out different opinions from his advisers. You've got these incredibly knowledgeable people sitting around the room. He can't find a single person who does anything other than nod "yes," Mr. President, "you're absolutely right on this"? How can there not be some difference of opinion on this?

GIBBS: Well, there is a belief by all here that -- that this is a debate, as I've said, I think, everyday for the last five days -- four days, plus my statement, that the American people and this government are not going to pick the next leader of Iran. That's something that the Iranians have to do. We have to ensure that we express our views. As I've said about ensuring that people can demonstrate; have their causes and concerns heard, and that's what people here believe.

QUESTION: Is there nobody who believes you ought be a little more open in supporting the demonstrators? Nobody's expressed that opinion to him?

GIBBS: Everybody's on the same page.

QUESTION: Just absolutely verbatim? Nobody...

GIBBS: We walk around like robots.

The revolution won't be televised - it will be twittered, apparently. NBC's Libby Leist is reporting that the State Department has asked Twitter not to shut down for regular maintenance because tweets have proved useful in monitoring the situation in Iran. From Leist:

The official said that Web sites and cell phones had been shut down and journalists were being kicked out, so the U.S. wanted "to highlight to [Twitter] that this was an important means of communication -- not with us -- but horizontally in Iran." It was a lower-level official who called Twitter -- not the Secretary of State, the official stressed. "I don't want to convey the impression that the State Department picked up the hotline, told them not to do it and it’s because of our intervention that it didn't happen," he added.

I've previously noted my disdain for Twitter and refusal to Tweet, but the idea that it is helping information circulate during this turbulent time in Iran is actually making me rethink my stance. Despite many conversations with fervent Twitter converts (I'm looking at you, psuedo-arch-enemy Michael Scherer), this the first time I've seen a genuinely useful and politically meaningful role for the service. Bravo, I say.

Speaking to reporters at the White House this morning, President Obama went a teeeeensy bit further on Iran than he did in his remarks yesterday, saying that he had “deep concerns” about the election. (On Monday, he said he was “deeply troubled” by the violence.) Here’s what Obama said, courtesy the White House:

It was only -- let's see -- I think seven hours ago or eight hours ago when I -- I have said before that I have deep concerns about the election.  And I think that the world has deep concerns about the election.  You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.
 
Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections.  What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people.  That is not how governments should interact with their people. 
 
And my hope is, is that the Iranian people will make the right steps in order for them to be able to express their voices, to express their aspirations.  I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past, and that there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy.  How that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide. But I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the White House has been very careful about how it responds to what is happening in Iran right now. Speaking out for the first time since Friday’s disputed election results, President Obama said late yesterday that Iranians have a right to have their votes counted, but didn’t go further—and quickly noted why. “It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be, that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football,” Obama told reporters. “Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television.  I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected.  And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.

The last thing the White House wants to see is Mahmoud Ajmadinejad accusing the United States of trying to intervene in the election, as he did with Israel in the days before the vote last week. But not everybody agrees. Speaking on the Today Show this morning, Sen. John McCain, Obama’s former GOP rival, said the president should be speaking out more forcefully about what’s happening in Iran. “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights,” McCain said. “They should not be subjected to four more years of Ahmadinejad and the radical Muslim clerics.”

But as NBC’s First Read notes, Obama’s response isn’t much different than how George H.W. Bush responded to the violence in China’s Tiananmen Square 20 years ago. Should Obama get tougher? Will he? We’ll see the president several times on camera today, beginning with an Oval Office press avail with the president of South Korea. Later today, he’s doing a round of TV interviews to talk about his plan for stepped up regulation of the financial services industry. He’ll no doubt be asked about Iran. Will his language change?

OLIVIER LABAN-MATTEI/AFP/Getty Images

The Boston Globe has assembled some of the best photos of the protests today and over the weekend in Iran, the biggest street demonstrations in the country since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The AP reported earlier that at least one protester was shot and killed by police. Some reports put the number as high as seven.

Just a warning: these photos show some violent confrontations. Some, especially toward the bottom, are pretty graphic.