It seems amazing that folks reading Weidner's article can miss the same fundamental reality he has in his sophomoric attempt to get attention by trying to point out how an otherwise effective President may not be reelected.

Weidner would have you believe that the President has the power to force the banking industry to lend their money, all of it mind you, like they did until the house of cards crumbled, and that he can also require businesses large and small to hire millions so that the unemployment rate will instantly drop to an "acceptable" level.

Not only are those actions completely impossible for a President, but those of you who now criticize Obama for not having accomplished this would have been the first to holler "impeach him!" if he even tried to amass and use such power.

And it's ironic that to support another one of your frequent categorical generalizations about the President's inability to lead, you cite an author who lists a number of ways Obama has been effective.

So, it seems your passionate dislike for the President, stated in post after post, can obscure anything, even total contradictions.

Weidner is correct in crediting Obama with effective actions. They are actions within the Constitutional prerogatives of the Executive. He has continued to stretch his influence through arm twisting and media appeals, which every strong President has done. With the seriousness of the nation's problems and the gridlock in Congress, It's an understatement to say that's the kind of effort we need now.

Oh, by the way, are you all upset about the idea of of a $4 trillion budget trim to accompany dealing with the debt ceiling? In today's poll, 58% of Republicans liked what has loosely been dubbed the 'Obama plan'.