What's the difference between a "catastrophe" and a "dire situation?"

Flash back a year in time and you may remember Senator Hillary Clinton was going to win on the "inevitability" factor. Then Senator Barack Obama challenged her on judgement, offering his sound judgement in opposing the invasion of Iraq.

Of course, we all know Obama won his argument - judgement is more important than experience. And I not only agree with him on that point, I also liked his judgement on foreign policy. For example, as Reagan spoke with the Soviets, I think it makes sense to speak with the Iranians.*

But his good judgement appears to end at American shores. Not only did he lose his appetite for fiscal responsibility and begin showing poor judgement since Election Day on fiscal policy... I now realize that he didn't even have good judgement on economic policy before Election Day.

I stumbled across this Forbes article today:

This is a moment of national crisis, and today's inaction in Congress... (is) exactly why the American people are disgusted with Washington. Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to join together and act in a way that prevents an economic catastrophe. - Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on September 29, 2008

And now that we've "prevented" that economic catastrophe, The Swamp is reporting:

"Clearly, the situation is dire, it is deteriorating, and it demands urgent and dramatic action," Obama said, noting that the economy lost jobs in every month last year, with 2008's total job losses amounting to 2.6 million, the worst drop since World War II. (January 9, 2009)

Obama is planning on selling his plan to the American public. My question for him:

Why should I trust your judgement on economic policy this time?

Tim White

* Preconditions or preparations... whichever it is, I don't care. Communicating is helpful.