Andrew Leonard, tells antsy bloggers like me to calm the hell down:
...there is at least one crucial difference [between the Bush response to the banking crisis and Obama's response]. Geithner has delivered an actual, actionable plan to the American public and Wall Street. [Bush's Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson never achieved even that much.Andrew Sullivan makes the argument that Obama's got this and we need not worry:
In dealing with the economic crisis as a whole, the Obama administration has put into play a steady flow of initiatives that should, in theory, all work together. In addition to the stimulus, the housing plan and credit relief for small businesses, there's also been a budget proposal addressing long-term issues that even Paul Krugman found impossible not to praise...
All along, it has been universally agreed that the most glaring weakness of the Obama portfolio has been the lack of detail on how Geithner intended to tackle the banking system. But there is a difference between a lack of detail and utterly contradictory confusion. If we can hold our breath long enough to calmly assess the last two months, one can see that amid all the noise, the Obama administration has been moving carefully forward in one direction.
If the rebound is as marked as the downturn was severe, the feelgood factor could kick in with a vengeance. Think of a president who, on facing the voters for reelection, can point to a recovery from the nadir of 2009, thousands of troops returning from Iraq and universal healthcare. Not too shabby a prospect.
Give him time. Then give him hell. That’s the philosophy most Americans understand – and they’d like this new president to succeed. They also know how deep this hole is and don’t expect it to disappear overnight. They won’t suspend judgment, but I suspect they won’t rush to it either. How’s he doing? As Koch might say: come back in a year and we’ll talk.
