NYT business writer Floyd Norris blames Obama for the current economic crisis. Or we should say, he suggests Obama isn't doing enough to fix it, or isn't doing enough to create the impression a fix is on the way, even though, of course, Obama is not yet president. Writes Norris:
By resigning from the Senate before the current session began and allowing it to appear that a sense of drift could prevail until he is inaugurated, Mr. Obama may have missed an opportunity to exert leadership.
This just doesn't make any sense. By remaining one of 100 senators (and not dedicating all his team and energy to creating a new administration) Obama could have sent a strong message that he was in charge? Did we mention that makes no sense? And do we even have to note that if Obama didn't resign from the Senate that the press would likely be harshly criticizing him for creating "a sense of drift" by not focusing on his next administration?