The government bailouts are not the solution, merely a stopgap measure. What we need to do is to redistribute wealth downward, and break our dependency on oil. Both of those are in Obama's plans. Not easy, but not impossible. As I said, it requires only the political will.

No, I'm simply refusing to assume to the contrary without giving them a chance to be. If you decide ahead of time that a diplomatic solution is impossible, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's talk to Iran, let's see what we can do to head off having that country develop nuclear weapons. With cooperation from our allies, we can impose some pretty serious consequences -- still well short of war -- for noncooperation, and also offer some nice benefits for being reasonable.

Hitler was bent on war, thinking he could win. That is the one and only reason why Chamberlain was unwise to try to negotiate with him, and even that doesn't fly because there was no way Chamberlain could have known that. In that one almost unique instance, diplomacy and "appeasement" were the wrong move -- in hindsight. Normally, that's not the case.

If Iran's leadership is truly irrational and impossible to negotiate with, then this effort won't succeed. But there is no reason to suppose that to be the case up front, without even trying.

Strange as this may seem to some people, we can do a lot more with the power of our allies behind us than we can if we try to go solo. Restoring our image abroad means, among other things, that when Obama sits down to talk with Iran, he'll represent not just the U.S. but also the EU, Canada, Australia, Japan -- all the richest and most powerful countries in the world. That will carry a LOT more clout than Bush is able to exert at this time.

As for your last sentence, I don't know of any other potential leader who could handle Afghanistan if Obama can't. I'm not however going to say that Obama can automatically. Afghanistan has been a royal pain in the ass for every country that has ever tried to deal with it.