People wonder if he is decisive. It is clear he is decisive in terms of his own career: He decides to go for president of the law review, to move to Chicago, to roll the dice for a U.S. Senate seat, to hire David Axelrod, to take on Hillary, to campaign with discipline and even elegance. When it comes to his career, his decisions are thought through and his judgments sound. But when it comes to decisions that have to do with larger issues, with great questions and not with him, things get murkier. There is the long trail of the missed and "present" votes, the hesitance on big questions. One wonders if in the presidency he'll be like the dog that chased the car and caught it: What's he supposed to do now?

I feel sorry for whoever wins the presidential election on Nov. 4. He faces a colossal mess. The housing bubble is still deflating, with no end in sight. The unemployment rate is rising, making consumer loans of all descriptions -- mortgage, auto, credit card -- vulnerable to rising delinquencies. (...) Neither candidate has offered much of a vision for addressing the credit crunch sinking an economy that was already taking on water. (...) For the next 11 days, the two candidates will regale us with their vision for the future. They will promise, if elected, to work hard each and every day for the American people. They will inspire us with their rhetoric and scare us with distortions about the other guy. Whether they know it or not, they won't be fulfilling many of those promises come Jan. 20. The next president of the U.S. will be handcuffed by events and constrained by deficits. He'll be playing defense. And he won't have a deep bench to work with. The only bright spot is the prospect of escape in four years if things get worse before they get better.