Joan and other haters,

how many times has Obama taken the long view to doing things that haven't been appreciated by the media and world at large? Joan, I have a number of your columns where you have admitted (honourably I might add) that Obama has more than once proven your doomsday scenarios wrong.

How many times did different people give him advice and counsel and urge him to take this action or that action and how many times has Obama continued doing things in his own manner and come out on top?

This presidency is less than 4 months old and it is completely absurd to me (as an us politics and Obama obsessed British citizen) that he is not being given enough room to do what he was elected to do. His term is 4 years not 4 months and to be fair he deserves the chance to be judged, not by history, but only after he has completed his first term. Otherwise all the doomsayers on the left are really no better than the ridiculous right wing nuts who claim socialise and fascism at every turn.

Also, there never seems to be any recognition that running a country is hard; running the US is even harder; running the US when you don't really have ultimate power to run the US is almost impossible. All we should ask and expect from our elected officials is that they try their best and give every fibre of their being to governing the country in a fair and balanced manner. What upset people about Bush was that (a) there was the feeling that he never really tried his best - the abdication of responsibility to Cheney et al is a prime example, (b) his best wasn't nearly good enough, and (c) you always got the feeling that there was an ulterior motive to what he did (whether money related or otherwise). I don't get that feeling from Obama and until I do, I will continue to be as patient as he deserves.

GIVE HIM A BREAK!

This may be a stupid question but what are the specific complaints about the new gentler kinder military commissions. I couldn't give a rat's a**e about what the things are called so long as the defendant has equivalent rights to the ones available in normal courts?

Also, can we move away from the immediate presumption of evil motive on the part of anyone who takes a decision that one doesn't agree with. I know that was the reflexive reaction to Bush (and deservedly so, given his history) but Obama has given some clear indications that he is thoughtful, well meaning and that he seeks to find a solution that has general application to all Americans (even if one might disagree with where he comes out ultimately).

This is where I think paralysis in elected officials comes about. Any decision, whatever it is, is invariably met with howls of disgust from any particular group of people which inevitably causes decisions to be made within the wider context of whom do we want to piss off the least.

That is what I understand by Obama's self stated "pragmatism". He will make decisions based on what works practically, not on the basis of what will piss people off the least.

Glenn, you are a lawyer, why is there then an objection to Obama using perfectly legal avenues available to him (ie the right to try to appeal a Court ruling)? I understand there is a moral objection and it is disappointing that he first said he'd do it and then changed his mind but does anyone think he did so on a whim? In the abstract, isn't it comforting to know that he is someone who is not fixed mindlessly onto one decision but is able to listen to people and change his mind? You may not agree with where he has ultimately come out, but surely this sort of process is exactly what we want and expect from politicians?