Demand the withdrawal of all support funds from the banks and such.

Force themselves onto the cameras. 'Fight hand to hand' if it comes to that.

Make Obama break his stride and shatter that grin of his. Force his face into the ugly maw of the mess he keeps feeding.

medicare for all.

If you don't want to make the only proven and logical decision, you hold meetings, followed by consultants' reports, followed by blue ribbon commissions, until the problem hopefully goes away, or you get to retire.

It's a stall. The stimulus was too small and not adequately purposed, and everyone who has studied the response to the Great Depression knows it. We are beginning to see them repeat the one big mistake that FDR made, trying to reduce the deficit before the economy was healthy enough, so we can anticipate a double dip, a W recession that will last longer than normal.

The banks aren't lending, so there is no private capital available for expansion. The government is the only source of funding to create jobs, so the government had better get to it.

Corporations are the problem. Wall Street is the problem. The first step is to acknowledge what the problem is or you can't possibly design a solution.

Bryan is right, of course. It's to give the appearance of doing something, as opposed to doing something.

Oh, lambert, you brought back memories: "Maybe Obama could ditch the arena concept, ditch the oratory, and try holding small town halls where he fields whatever question is asked for a couple of hours and demonstrates his mastery of policy and detail." Is it mean of me to recall the time Obama ran away from debating with Hillary?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/27/... "Hillary Clinton wants to debate her opponent so badly, that she’s even willing to do it 'on the back of a flat bed truck.' During an outdoor rally standing before the U.S.S. North Carolina, Clinton said the debate doesn’t have to be in a 'fancy studio.' . . .

"Clinton first proposed a Lincoln-Douglas style debate at a rally in South Bend, Ind., over the weekend where she offered to scrap the moderator and have a 90-minute debate where each candidate would ask the questions. The Obama campaign did not agree to Clinton’s proposal saying that Obama prefers to spend the next few days campaigning rather than preparing for a debate."

lots of demonstrating concern, not much action to create some job. sigh

It was one of the most impressive displays of policy finesse I've ever seen. For two hours, he stood in a town hall in New England, on a stage, shirt sleeves rolled up and answered every question that came his way. the auditorium wasn't full and people would come and go. Liberals, conservatives, wingnuts - he took 'em all at face value.

Couric asked Palin what newspapers she read and much was made of Palin's bizarro answer. I wish to god someone would have asked obama what economics texts that he had read and to synopsize what he learned. I don't think he could have done it. And we're paying the price.

His decisions on wiretapping and surveillance don't reflect his supposed knowledge of the Constitution, and his Justice Department is working like crazy not to have these policies tested in courts.

His grasp of economics doesn't seem to be much deeper than John McCain's, and he doesn't seem to understand the real conditions of the communities he represented as a "community organizer".

He doesn't seem to be pushing filling important posts in his administration that are directly involved with the current issues, like the Medicare director.

So far he doesn't seem interested in getting involved with Congress over legislation.

Frankly, he keeps running around for photo ops and feel good town halls, rather than dealing with problems.

I get the distinct feeling that he thinks he is supposed to be a mediator rather than a leader. At some point he is going to have to make a decision and then stick by it. The Republicans and Blue Dogs have already figured out that they can get pretty much anything they want just by saying "no", because Obama will keep moving towards their position. The liberals are the only ones who are expected to compromise; the liberals are the only ones who get leaned on.

I'm not looking for a "manly man", but a competent bureaucrat would be nice.

If your frame of reference differs significantly from that of the people whose support you want, a debate is dangerous. Recasting your answer from what you believe to what your followers want to hear slows you down. Remember George Bush stammered around and misspoke when talking about social issues ("food on your family") but was clear and direct when threatening to inflict harm. Obama would have a similar problem. He has clearly acted against his own prepared speeches, from use of national security arguments to guard government secrecy to the cronyism of his appointments to the enriching of powerful interests. In a debate, he would too often be trying to formulate the popular answers ("Government should be transparent") when he in fact will cut secret deals with banks, big pharma, and the like.