The Occasional Observer

Blagojevich is refusing to go. The longer he stays in office, the longer this story remains front page material. And the longer questions swirl about Obama and shady Chicago politics.

Not so good news: Obama's inability to lead. This scandal is the latest example; he called for blag's resignation only after numerous other dems did so. Similarly, he refused to issue an opinion on many other topics during the campaign until after McCain or Hillary did. Why is this not so good news? Well, ordinarily I'd say it's great news. If he can't lead, he can't raise our taxes and spending, and he'll be seen as inept. This is all well and good, but with the specter of a major WMD attack by 2013 standing at 50-50, I'd much rather have a strong leader in office who will immediately know how to respond, and won't need polls or on-the-job training to explain it to him. Oh, and if you want to read the douchiest article you've ever seen, read this response. This article contains more misinformation, wildly incorrect assumptions and head-in-the-sand type reasoning than most I've seen, even for CNN. There are so many holes in this guy's logic it's hard to know where to start. Most specifically his assumption that terrorists' capabilities are somehow frozen in time and will never progress. Yeah, that's the smart bet. I'd certainly base all my homeland security decisions centered on that premise. What a d-bag.