The latest on car nationalization: “Eighty percent (80%) of U.S. voters want the government to sell its stake in General Motors and Chrysler as soon as possible. . . Support for ending the government ownership is so strong that 64% favor a proposal that would force the government to sell the auto companies within a year. Only 26% are opposed.”

Now he tells us: “President Obama says he thinks unemployment will hit 10% this year. . . In January, the incoming administration predicted in a white paper study that without a huge stimulus package, unemployment would reach just over 8%, and would be contained at under 8% with a stimulus package.”

A break in the dam: Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill says the White House didn’t follow the law she drafted in firing an inspector general. Byron York has been following another story of “politicizing” law enforcement.

Obama is very disturbed on Iran, “concerned” on the debt. Too bad he’s not president or he could do something rather than just emote. Oh, wait.

Why was the Palestinians’ reaction to Netanyahu’s speech so over the top? Maybe the Obama Effect: “The harsh response of the PA is the direct result of high hopes that its leaders have pinned on the administration of US President Barack Obama. Reports about a looming crisis between the administration and Netanyahu over the future of the Middle East peace process, combined with Obama’s conciliatory approach toward the Arab and Muslim worlds, created the impression in Ramallah that the Israeli government had no choice but to accept all the Palestinian demands. Briefing reporters on the eve of Netanyahu’s speech, some of PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s top aides predicted that, in the wake of increased US pressure, Netanyahu would be forced to give in, freezing settlement construction and accepting the two-state solution.”

The Wall Street Journal  editors notice that we have managed to cede the moral high ground to the French on Iran.

Dan Senor and Christian Whiton list all the things we could do if we really wanted to bolster the protesters.

Ever so timidly, the Washington Post editors try to tell the president that “however the crisis ends, it may require rethinking of the administration’s Iran strategy. There is a connection between the regime’s internal character and its external conduct.” Do we think the light bulb has gone on? Not yet.

David Frum: “Among other casualties of the violence in Tehran: President Obama’s foreign policy hopes. If he persists now in his deal-making efforts, he’ll be acquiescing in fraud and violence. What is happening in Iran now is this year’s Tiananmen Square, and if Obama tries do business with the regime afterward, he’ll open himself to exactly the same criticism Bill Clinton meted out to the elder George Bush: of coddling tyrants.” But as Frum points out there is no “Plan B,” so coddle he must.

Obama said yesterday that North Korea “has a track record of proliferation that makes it unacceptable for them to be accepted as a nuclear power.” So now we can tell a country it can’t have nuclear weapons? That’s a far cry form his pussy-footing around with Iran, most recently in Cairo. Then he was saying no country has a right to tell another it can’t have nukes.  It seems the only constant rule in operation is: don’t annoy the mullahs.