I'm getting confused - I thought the apologist story for the inadequate economic policies of the Obama Administration was that the Obama Administration saved the economy from hitting bottom. Now Jon Chait tells us that actually Obama had the bad luck of having the bottom hit after he became President:

[A] useful lesson for liberal[s] who compare President Obama with President Roosevelt [--] The latter's political success owed an enormous debt to the fact that he took power after the economy had hit bottom and begun to rebound. Indeed, Obama's situation is more like an election that took place in 1929, leaving him to take the oath of office in early 1930, just as the bottom was falling out.

So 2010 is 1932? Remember that Hoover was in the Presidency for only a matter of months when the Stock Market crashed, starting the Great Depression. In a way, Obama was lucky that the Financial Meltdown did not take place 6 months later - he could really be on his way to being considered a Hoover. Of course, these silly Obama apologias are not to the point - which is that the Obama Administration has done an inadequate job, to say the least, on the economy. Argue if you like that the GOP obstruction is why, but you have to accept the bare facts that the stimulus of February 2009 was inadequate to the task. FDR, perhaps because he could, provided bold leadership on the economy. Obama has not, maybe for good political reasons. But he hasn't.

Speaking for me only