The Left’s disappointment with Barack is that they actually think the guy can change the world, as does he. And maybe he can, but ironically it won’t be with the vision the Left has of how he can change the world. But on the economy, it has become obvious that the Administration has either not done enough or that at least some of what it has done is not working. Paul Krugman wrote an editorial yesterday warning that if Obama doesn’t get his team to take some new drastic steps, the economy is in for a very severe period from which it will be quite difficult to extricate ourselves.

is.gd/1m9k3

The gist? That Obama, like Herbert Hoover, took office with high expectations a certain amount of political naivete. His ‘community organizer’ experience causes him to hesitate to make enemies and cause disagreements with anyone. Obama lacks clear policy vision, and moving without concrete direction is going to bring any type of recovery or resolution to a deafening halt. He’s too much of a nice guy, and leaders – like FDR, who was mentioned extensively as a cunning politician whose New Deal were simply HOOVER’S ideas expanded – leaders, especially Presidents, need to know how to show muscle.

The article bears a certain level of truth. Our President isn’t sure which card to play on Iran, and we’re watching him Check when it’s his turn to raise. The emptiness of his rhetoric was revealed during the election protests. When he finally did make a statement in favor of Mousavi, I wonder: who was it for? The Iranian students, or friends and foes in Washington?

We’ve gotten used to US as the world’s policeman. Clearly, lines were stepped over during the Bush years, but I’m apprehensive about Obama’s decision making skills, or lack thereof, as his time continues. What’s it going to take for this guy to show some fucking guts?

Yes Shuel, you are exactly right, and this is Obama’s problem, and why he’s gonna mess things up really bad.

Shmuel: “And did the notion of an Israeli attack become remote because of his intentions to engage the Iranians in dialog (something he’ll probably do after the rebel youth are all quelled).”

What’s your point?

“Or just stay anonymous and you don’t have to be a man.”

Then he proceeds:

“Nice reduction of everything to a contest.”

I stand by the post as written. Your comments have missed the mark entirely and my assumptions are on target.

Shmuel, you’re a hoot.

But thanks for the flattery. Krauthammer. Will. Very nice.

No consequences? What’s your time table? Losing the next election will be quite the consequence. Losing the house or senate will be quite the consequence. Losing an invaluable ally and one of the few countries engaged in the War on Terror would be a consequence. War in the middle east will be quite the consequence. Being walked all over by foreign leaders who think you’re weak will be quite the consequence.

NPR and MSNBC: It’s not the site they love. It’s the disdain. Here’s an idea – if you’re gonna put it all out there and give us your opinions like Krauthamer, Will, Cohen, and ALL the others – put on a sack, write your name instead of the silly term you use that seems an attempt to lend legitimacy to your claims and at the end of your pieces write your credentials in smaller font and italics. Or just stay anonymous and you don’t have to be a man.

Like I said, that’s a threat.

How is Rahm Emmanuel a supporter of Israel? It’s lost on me. If he’s a supporter, Israel doesn’t need enemies.