I agree, that Obama really cannot do much on the oil spill.  What he could do is bring more assets to bear - provided there was a plan to use them (the deep sea submersibles).  Just like Bush with Katrrina, his hands are pretty much tied as far as action.  He is not master of his own destiny

The criticism appears to be coming along 2 tacks.  One, perhaps best vocalized by James Carville, is that he is doing nothing.  When he should be at least down there visiting the people and being the head cheerleader.  Obama does not know what oil is, much less how to clean it.  But his lack of any action is a perception problem for people in that they do not think he cares about it.

The second tack of criticism appears to be along the lines of "the left - and MSM - was unfair in its assessment of Bush, so we will return the favor".  Tit for tat.

The latter is just a knee jerk reaction that will have no lasting effect on Obama.  Those who subscribe to it are not going to support him in any case.  But the former is the killer.  It is coming from his side, and that is causing him to lose support.  And his clever way of dealing with it is only going to blow up in his face.  he can blame the feds on Bush, but he has had 16 months to put his own people in charge and a filibuster proof congress to do it with.  And he has failed.  No lawsuit is going to stop the oil flow.  The time for that is after it is over, not while it is gushing.

I'll say this: 

Do not, ever underestimate the environmentalist movement.  They're the left's version of the Christian right.  They can/will turn on Barry if he doesn't react to this how they want. 

And---that could be bad. 

For Obama, or the US?

That is a good analogy.

Yeah, I'd buy that analogy. Their both religious in their beliefs. Al Gore/Pat Robertson, different stories, same plot.

OT: I see Tipper left ol' Al. Wonder who gets custody of the polar bear.

Interesting article. Finally someone who gets it. I think he is responsible for not reacting more strongly to this issue, not for the spill itself (not directly either). To be honest while BP could have avoided this, in the end things like this can and will happen and the difficulty of stopping it should be considered when criticizing BP for not being able to close it. I seriously doubt anyone has a plan for any situation that will work right off the bat every time.

This is the price we pay in order to improve our lifestyles. We are all responsible in a way.

is it male or female?

Transgender... but that' a different topic.

It's worse than that.  Both are totally fuggin' nuts and both are likely to unhinge as soon as their fantasy based view of the world isn't validated. 

Fuggin nuts?  Perhaps, but unhinged?  No, I do not.  Screaming and yelling is not going unhinged.  Blowing up buildings and cars is.  Whether you want to agree or not, so far, society says murder is still a lot worse than rhetoric.  That may change, but is still true today.

Because both Environmentalist nuts and 'Christian' nuts have never murdered anybody? I mean, look, both groups have elements that I would call terrorists, both groups have elements that I would call hate oriented organization, and both groups have moderate tools that think the beliefs have some merit. 

Both are nuts. 

Now you are changing the rules.  No one said anything about absolutes.  We all can find examples of self professed individuals committing violent crimes.  That is not the issue or point.  What is the issue and point is their manifesto.  One side clearly advocates violence as the means to their end (ALF, ELF), while the other side's manifesto advocates turning the other cheek.

Some members of ALF, ELF, Sierra, Greenpeace (yes them too - see their manifesto on violence) refuse to commit violence to achieve their ends.  On the other side, some members of the Christian right resort to violence to achieve their goals.  But in both cases, they are going against their leaders, their manifesto and their body in general.  That is the difference.

Yes.  But the difficulty is that the rhetoric of the 'christian values' types, often times has 'end of the world' type ramifications - hence why it's difficult to get them to back down and the extremism is so pervasive. 

Religious fundamentalists are bad.  They can gussy it up with "we turn the other cheek" and "we're the religion of peace".  I know people desperately want to believe that hardened Christians aren't a bunch of ass backwards cavemen, it's just that they clearly are. 

They may be "ass backwards cavemen" (interesting phrase), but that is not the same as saying the are advocating violence.  That is my point.  And the reason the left actually laughs at (well there are other reasons as well) the religious right, while the center does fear the loony left.

Agreed. 

My point, more or less, is that the Christian fundamentalist leadership is aware that they have a largely stupid and highly volatile constituency.  You'd have to be the former to buy into that stuff, and the latter seems to be a function of other social conditions.  Yet, we don't see a proactive approach to de-stage the "ZOMG END OF DAYS IS COMING" type mentality, which really only has a few results. 

I think the center also fears the Christian right crowd, for what it's worth.  It's not like people I know are inviting the nearest 'Christian' to cocktail parties, emmk?  And it's not like it goes unnoticed that, for the most part, the Christian right has philosophical similarities (violence advocacy, of course) to Islamic Fundamentalists.