Gina, how could have President Obama been more "presidential" in recent budget debate? What would you have done had you been in his situation to be more "presidential"?

I'm not a big fan of either party these days, but it's deeply frustrating that the media continues to criticize both parties for the debt ceiling debacle.

Objectivity and intellectual honesty are not the same thing. There was only one party whose members were denying that any default or concomitant downgrade from a ratings agency was no big deal. And there was only one party that publicly stated that their mere, theoretical willingness to raise the debt ceiling should be seen as compromise, despite the fact that the debt ceiling had been raised many times before with little controversy.

It's really popular these days to criticize both parties, but I just don't see how any objective description of the debt ceiling debacle can be seen as a failure by Democrats or President Obama to compromise or listen to differing viewpoints.

The credit rating is baloney. It's an attempt by S&P to seem relevant and credible and fend off regulation. It was completely complicit in the financial meltdown that led mortgage crisis which led to recession which led to the bailout which led to ... well, we all know the rest. And its never been held accountable.

Look into this beyond venting and you'll see the self-serving nature of the rating, which, btw, is not shared by the other two credit ratings agencies, and has been roundly criticized.

Not sure what you want Obama to do about this. S&P was in the negotiations making crazy demands for even more cuts, which it didn't get. That's NOT the way democracy is supposed to work--secret deals, no transparency, no discussion--and S&P calling the shots? No thanks.

Theresa, you hit the nail on the head. S&P had to stay relevant. They were the worst of the worst in rating all those mortgage-backed derivatives as AAA and are directly responsible for the calamity that we've all been forced to live with as a result.

I will admit, as someone who hosted hundreds of people in my home in Alexandria in 2008 to help elect Barack Obama in Virginia, I am not 100% happy with the "leadership" he has provided. But on the manufactured articial debt "crisis" he actually seems to have handled it about as well as he could have, short of invoking the 14th amendment and ignoring Congress--something legal scholars advised him against, and which could have also initiated and even worse "crisis of confidence" by starting a Contsitutional battle b/w executive and legislative.

But what really disturbs me about this column is the overt and disrespectful tone toward our Presidency and our government. While certainly there are many things broken in Washington, without faith and esteem in the system of governance our forefathers gave us, we are indeed lost. We've been through hard times, tumultuous governance, war, and hardship before. We'll come out of this OK, again. But since the Nixon days, Americans themselves have begun to display massive and increasing disrespect for our Presidents and the Presidency itself. This is sad and dangerous because our Nation is so blessed, we are so lucky to live in the country we do, and we have power for change.

We need to understand that the system we have is STILL the best in the world, and while it's not perfect and never will be, the problem I see in Washington is a DIRECT reflection of the entitled, disrespectful, and sadly uninformed state of the American people themselves. WE ARE WHO WE ELECT. That's pretty scary when you look at the Tea Party degenerates who want simply to cripple and ineffectualise our government.

But here's the good news--we still have the power to change course, to get informed, to understand that our system isn't broken but that we as a people have let ourselves down.

No, I am not upset with our system. And the leaders in Washington are who we elected to go there. We need to change them. We need to remove corporate money from politics.

We need government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is columns like this that perpetuate disinterest and disrespect and hold us back.

One more thing--the leadership Obama displayed was by agreeing to 99% of what Republican leaders what they wanted, and still having them say no. Honestly, the President was not the problem in this situation.

The long-term solution cannot involve only spending reductions. It has to involve increasing taxes for those who are doing well, especially. Tax burdens are the lowest in almost 100 years. There remains oodles of wealth and privelege that is contributing less and less every year--just drive around Montgomery County and you can see it! This is the only way to fix our long-term imbalance. But we are not broke, and there is no crisis.

The leadership I am waiting to see from Obama is the guy who will finally stand up and say "enough, it's time to govern like adults", end the Bush tax cuts, and put us back on the road to fiscal responsibility. If the Tea Party were truely interested in fiscal responsibility rather than trying to embarass the President and Democrats politically, the debt deal would have been done months ago.

IMHO, what Obama and the rest of the Dems needs to stand up and say is the middle is no longer the middle--it's the right, if not far right (as opposed to extreme right). Unless and until that happen I will be looking seriously at all third-party candidates, especially those who will get us out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (remember that war?).