Obama insists he has idea what to do.

Jonathan Marks, from the Politico, who has done his share of trying to cover for Obama, seems to have become quite exasperated at the thankless task.

Which leads him to post this, part of an article titled "Obama outraged at being accused of not supporting something he doesn't support":

Obama, on the trail in New Mexico, had this to say of McCain:"And today he accused me of not supporting what the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank did with AIG despite no evidence whatsoever that that’s what I had said."

To recap, when I wrote earlier today that Obama supported the bailout, I quickly was instructed by his staff that this was not the case. He just didn't oppose it, I was told.

Now he's so adamant about not opposing the Fed's move that he's complaining about McCain's portrayal.

Where, I wonder, is the line between not opposing and, ya know, supporting.

The fact is that in all of Obama's speeches, he has yet to say if he supported the AIG bailout, or opposed it. He is afraid to take a position, in case (like the surge) he comes up completely wrong again.

On the other hand, the much more experienced Sarah Palin, who has HAD TO MAKE REAL DECISIONS in her job, has made a clear statement on the bailout, as has John McCain. (Joe Biden said something about giving people toasters and how we are unpatriotic if we don't pay more taxes).

We can't afford a President who votes "Present". I guess since Obama has betrayed his economic advisor, he can't really say what position he holds until he finds somebody on the Democratic side who isn't hopelessly tainted by the corruption that led to our current monetary crisis.

Of course, by next week we'll hear how Obama actually caused the bailout to happen. Because if there is ONE THING that Barack Obama is good at, it is denying what he has done, and taking credit for good things he had nothing to do with.