"Are you sure you are not talking about Bush II? On a more serious note, I do not want (nor does it exist) a leader who knows everything on every subject. I want to someone who first and foremost listens to different viewpoints, asks questions, and makes the best decision he or she can (even if it is imperfect), given what this person heard from people who are more knowledgeable than him or her on a given subject."

Unfortunatly, Obama has less experience at business than Bush. And no, that does not mean that he is going to be a worse President. That would be difficult, if not impossible. Obama's jusgement is not in question, only his experience. A good leader has to be able to judge the validity of what is being said to him. That is learned through experience at leadership. Obama has no experience at leading, only at winning elections. He is learning ont the job. He doesn't have tools to know if Geithner is BS'ing him or if he is actually a visionary. I don't expect a leader to be an expert on every subject, but I would like my leaders to be minimally knowledgable in subject which are critical to me. Right now, Obama would not be hireable as CEO of a large multi-national corporation, yet his is leading the largest nation through the most challenging economic conditions we have seen in decades. That's scary.

Here's another thought. Obama doesn't know anything about economics. He has never worked in economics, studied economics, or even worked in a high level in a business that was geared toward making a profit. He has no experience in economics. His leadership style is to hire the right people and let them do their job. This is why some of us opposed Obama as President. Because his lack of experience is making him very dependent on the knowledge of others and he is unable to judge the validity of what they are telling him. His ONLY option is to trust the people he has chosen. Don't assume that he has some inside track info on saving the economy. There is nothing in his past that would indicate that.

We seem to be doing the same thing that got us into trouble in the first place - putting short term profits through the stock market in front of long term health of the economy. That was what individual companies did, and that is what is destroying the American economy. Companies focus on stock values to the detriment of the long term health of their businesses. They stop hiring qualified people who will take the company forward and start hiring "wizards" who will up the value of their portfolios by 10% in a year. When does it end? Is a market crash really the end of the world? Yes, seniors will suffer, but they are buffered by social security. Meanwhile, the people who are suffering from the existing economic models - the working class, whether blue collar or white collar - are not buffered by anything.

Let's reasses what we want. Instead of judging this plan by what the stock market profiteers think, let's judge it by what it is likely to do to the economy in general.

The whole point of this is the get back the money that was paid out to people who really, really didn't deserve it. Of course there are ways around it, but at the very least it sends a message that the American people object to the unfair compensation being given to these people. I can't see Obama not signing it - too many people will notice. Besides, given the votes, it's likely that his veto would be overridden.

I'm betting he's being tried as an adult, even though he is not an adult. We need to get over our obsession with juvenile sex. Forget the gender disparities - somebody needs to point out that sex at 14 is not all that uncommon, and it's not uncommon for girls that age to date "older" men. We're not talking about a 40 year old pervert - this "man" is 17, 3 years older than his "victim". Obviously the sex was consensual, or he would be tried for rape, not statuatory rape. So ... 40 years for having sex with a sexually, if not emotionally, mature female? Damn.

The quickest way to get to safety if you're attacked is to run away screaming for help. I realize that this is not considered very brave, but it's the standard recommendation of self defense experts everywhere. Every last one of them will tell you that escalating the attack by hitting back is the very stupidest thing you can do for the purposes of safety. I realize that there are a million movies and songs telling you otherwise, but the best defense is not to fight, it's to run.