Washington Post columnist David Broder thinks Barack Obama is trying to do too much -- and that it's his own fault:

Obama, on the other hand, came into Christmas Day with an overloaded set of self-imposed tasks. He was winding down one inherited war in Iraq and expanding another one in Afghanistan. He was renegotiating our relations with other powers in the world and attempting to enlist their help in confronting outlaw regimes in Iran and North Korea. And simultaneously, at home, he was being pressed to rescue a badly wounded economy while lobbying a reluctant but allied Congress to pass controversial, ambitious changes in health care, climate control and financial regulation.

Raise your hand if you think dealing with two “inherited” wars and rescuing a “badly wounded economy” constitute “self-imposed tasks.” How about dealing with financial regulation and a badly broken health care system? Anyone think those are optional? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Broder contrasts Obama's purportedly full plate with the ease with which President Bush shifted into fighting terrorism:

Bush reacted with anger and a determination to punish the people who wreaked the havoc.

...

For Obama to establish a new priority would obviously be much more difficult than it appeared to be for Bush. And this new priority would be a much less comfortable fit for Obama than leading a war on terrorism was for Bush.

Seems like there should have been room in there somewhere to mention that as “comfortable” as Bush was punishing “the people who wreaked the havoc,” he was also pretty darn comfortable punishing the people who didn't. Or that Bush's obsession with the people who didn't wreak the havoc probably contributed to the fact that Osama bin Laden remains free to this day.

But Broder didn't bother mentioning either of those things. I guess that's why he's called the “best of the best.”