At what point to you call someone a failure?

When speaking of politics it is almost as ambiguous as defining a good or bad Weather Man. You here things like, "Unemployment will peak at 9% in 2009" follow some days later by "Unemployment could hit 10.5% by 2010". Much the same as "The five day forecast calls for a high 85 with winds out of the NE" followed days later by, "Tomorrow we are looking at 95 and sunny".

I understand that as we get closer to a date certain, any date certain, we have more information on which to base predictions. but when the prediction is to the extent of which people will be unemployed and it changes by millions of people each week, I think we have a problem.

I thought all the stuff Obama did in the first 100 days was supposed to stop all this unemployment by making the system a flush with money to be lent out so business could grow if not at least continue as usual. I thought that by opening our minds to the possibilities of hope and change we would see some change, and in that we have...

Iran has now test launched their newest toy, that's a change all right. Obama has changed his mind on everything from earmarks (of which he promised none and for which he delivered 8000) to releasing those held at Gitmo that we are not releasing to the closing of Gitmo all together that we apparently are not doing now. Ah yes, change is in deed in the air.

But at what point has he really failed? Like a good Weather Man, he said his administrations points of view would EVOLVE as information changed. So has he failed by breaking promises at an alarming rate, or simply evolved as needed. When a cold front dips south that was unexpected, is the Weather Man to blame when he changes the forecast from the 7 day outlook, just two days before date certain? Or did he simply update the information he had, fed it back into the computer and Wham-mo, a new forecast?

But what if the promises of good weather were from him personally? what he said he would cause the weather to change? does he fail if it does not in fact change? Of course he does not, because we all knew he really couldn't change the weather to begin with.

So again I ask, when Obama said he would change this and that, the economy, the would opinion of us, the way the war was being ran and so on and so forth, can he really be held responsible to the dismal failure his execution of these items has been?

Seems to me that as a matter of fact, the earmarks could have been vetoed, the base could have been closed or not on his say alone and the dumping of good money after bad into the economy has produced nothing but more slide, perhaps failure is something at which he excels.

But what would I know; I'm just an Average American...