Your post fails to answer the question about hating Tim Geithner in the most direct way, which would be an examination of what his critics say about him on the merits. Instead, it is weirdly process-oriented and seems to boil down to the claim that Geithner has enemies and a bad PR strategy. Engaging the actual arguments of his critics wouldn't go amiss here, because otherwise it's just a standard MSM "Why Is Everybody Mad at the Nice Man?" piece that assumes the merits are too hard for the writer and the readers.

I've actually written a lot about the merits of the case and been clear that I think Geithner is doing a bad job. But whether it's just Geithner failing or a consensus effort that is being blamed on Geithner isn't obvious, at least not to me.

Moreover, that doesn't obviate the fact that there's a weird amount of leaks around Geithner. Process matters too, particularly insofar as it gives a window into the construction of substance. There are a lot of knives out for Geithner -- have been since the beginning -- and it's notable.

I have been one of the admirers of Summers and thought he should have been Treasury Secretary. But we accepted the political compulsions for Obama to appoint him in White House instead of the Treasury position. Generally there is feeling that Summers may be more intellectually powerful than Geithner.

But we can not negate Summers role in dismantling Glass-Stehgall. We have to understand that Summers is not all infallible and stop eulogizing him. Let him do quietly what he needs to do, what he can do well.

My hunch is, Geithner will shine, having said all this. His bank plan does have backing from many critical thinkers. Let him get his time and the guy will deliver. He is a hard working, smart person and more important I am not really taking Obama’s judgment so low.

By the way, as Market starts going up Geithner will be more acceptable. For traders, it is the noise of cash register is what all that matters. So we better shut all this gossip.

Geithner's being set up a fall guy because the administration has made a conscious decision not to address the financial crisis in any meaningful way. The emerging consensus is that nationalization is the only viable solution, but Obama's deemed that politically unacceptable. That leaves Geithner to administer a plan that everyone knows won't work. The latest evidence that Obama's given up on solving the financial crisis is Romer's appearance on MTP. Gregory asks her whether we need to fix the banks before we'll see improvement in the real economy. No, she says, we expect improvements in the real economy to fix the banks. That's their plan: muddle through and hope that a pathetically undersized stimulus saves the day. Their not dumb enough to expect this to work, so Geithner's eventually going to have to take the fall.

One more point we have to keep in mind. In times of War, the post of Defense Secretary gets elevated. But still then Defense Secretary has to share real power with Pentagon Chiefs, the commanders running actual wars, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. Similarly in times of financial war the position of Treasury Secretary is unusually highlighted. But otherwise that cabinet position is lightweight in the Capitalist System of America. Even now, Geithner has to share power with Fed Chief Bernanke (who has the maximum ability to make the difference); White House Economic czar (in this case Summers) and even Hillary at State who actually made the opening solves for the crucial financial stability with China. If you were to read some traders note where those guys likened how Eisenhower Administration forced Great Britain to back off from Suez Canal crisis using the sheer power of bonds owned; you will realize how catastrophic it can be when China decides to harm USA in retaliation to some flash point by dumping Fed bonds even if it ruins China. In those cases, all that Media would be talking will be Hillary, Geithner who? The point is the power of Treasury Cabinet Position is already not omnipresent and whatever is there it is shared with so many other cabinet positions. So give the guy break and let us not worry for one single post.

Final comment, about bank nationalization. I want to make a provocative statement - Obama Administration has implicitly turned the wave of ‘nationalization now’ as propagated by messers Paul Krugman, Roubini, Martin Wolfe and Simson gang. Banks are unlikely to be nationalized in USA. Further, if you really care; go read Marc Chandler on RealMoney.com and see how really the recovery would come without banks being nationalized. You got to remember; all the chorus of ‘nationalize now’ is by the gang who DOES NOT manage money actively notwithstanding their Nobel Prizes. Whereas folks like Chandler and Kass, they live by what they preach and ready to put their money on the line. All those folks are implying bank nationalization will not be required. Let these critics continue to hammer Obama for not nationalizing banks meanwhile Obama Administration will quietly handle the issues. The issue of bank nationalization seems ‘passé’.

Umesh,

I hope you're right about the underlying issue, though I'm solidly in the Roubini / Krugman camp. But on a meta level it's disturbing that you make your argument by telling people to go to realmoney.com, which prominently features the thoroughly discredited Jim Cramer. It's disturbing in general to hear you appeal to authority of practical financiers -- those who MANAGE REAL MONEY, as opposed to that academic "gang who DOES NOT manage money actively." Do you seriously still believe these idiots know what they're doing? The whole trader mentality and cult of Wall Street has to go. I don't care that they're greedy -- they'd take that as a compliment -- I care that they're stupid. And they're really fucking stupid.

Of course Jim Cramer and Santelli’s of this world are wrong and laughing stock. But I am expecting you and many other independently minded folks to be critical in evaluating credibility of folks I quote. I seriously urge you, Ezra and any other to see what Marc Chandler and Dug Kass talk. I have been following RealMoney for more than 7 years with all its ups and down. We do not have to take JJ Crammer as the word there. Folks from Anirvan Banarjee to Paul Kedrosky and many other serious folks who manage serious money contribute there.

Do we talk American Prospect stupid just because Ezra fell flat on his face in case of Daschle? No. Or even the guru of American Prospect John Podesta who missed badly in the vetting business of Geithner, Daschle and many other folks? No, we don’t. We can not get all things right all the time. So just because credibility of JJ Cramer is in shambles does not mean that his publication does not have saner minds. Chandler is the celebrated foreign exchange manager getting Dollar calls right for so long.

The larger point is what Shiller touched in another way – animal spirits matter. This means we can not have a bunker mentality in terms of ‘let the market go to toilets’. Any serious occupant of White House has to be cognizant of what happens on Wall Street and make happenings over there relevant to Main Street. You may want to listen to the speech President Obama gave last week to business guys. That is the approach we need.

Listening to Wall Street does not mean doing always what they say. We all know the clay feet of market guys in general. But just because Meredith Whitney got her ‘short bank’ calls right all along does mean her call of ‘no recourse other than nationalization’ is any more rigorous than messers Geithner and Summers. In her case, her nationalization call has much less relevance to her trading strategies.

Market has multitude of opinions all the time. Some are credible folks and it pays to give attention to those folks. My own blog is full of criticizing these market guys and their shenanigans. But my interest is always where Money on Wall Street intersects with Main Street. Because that is the junction where stop signals are operated by our Pols. Get them totally wrong; we have solid crash. That is where we always focus to change the things. Loathing Wall Street - true, right; but less consequential in the end to what our Pols get right.

That's a fair enough point. I'll check out Chandler and Kass.

I'm writing from Australia, where, historically, we have less cultural aversion to nationalization, so in general I'm not scared of nationalizing, but I suspect it may be besides the point.

What we need to do is stay focussed on the critcial and urgent need ro neutralize (sell-off, write off, and otherwise defuse) the bad assets/debts still in the system. I've seen it written that AIG alone have $100B in postitions that need unwinding.

We need to opportunistically use whatever ownership and/or management models will best get python to swallow, digest and excrete the toxix asset pig. If nationalizing will do that. Fine.

Actually, there are already signs of a turnaround:

http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/a-possible-turnaround/

But of course, the people who either backed other primary candidates or who want the system to crash so a glorious worker's paradise can emerge from the ashes are too busy sticking knives into people they never liked to notice much.