Well, in a very small nutshell, my personal opinion would be that the current administration has done a good but not outstanding job of dealing with the crisis. This is drawn from a few points.

• Obama showed a sophisticated and assertive interest in the crisis prior to his election, corresponding with Robert Wolf, Paul Volker, et al. during his campaign. When McCain "suspended" his campaign to meet at the White House to tackle the issue, those present at the meeting report that Obama was well-prepared with ideas and was fluent on the issues, in contrast to McCain who seemed nervous and fumbled with a few notecards. (This is from the Frontline documentary).

• Obama has a predilection for academic achievers that informs his decisions for cabinet positions. Ron Suskind's book casts doubt on whether Larry Summers, who is highly decorated academically, was the best choice for NEC advisor. Summers' polarizing personality led to some personal friction within the economic advisors and even brought up gender inequality questions re Christina Romer

• When it came to TARP funds, Obama provided funds to the banks free of almost any conditions. Besides public shame, this did almost nothing putative to the banks or their preceding actions. This seems to be agreed upon as a huge missed opportunity, though Tim Geithner argues that strict conditions might have lessened already weak confidence in the banks' solvency.

• The bailout and subsequent stimulus were good calls that saved the economy from a much worse fate, but in retrospect hasn't been large enough. Arguments can be made for both sides, but Robert Reich stresses that more stimulus must boost consumer spending before any attempts at deficit reduction should be attempted. I tend to agree.

Personally, I'm an Obama supporter and think he has accomplished quite an amazing amount despite the circumstances. Frontline does a good job at painting how dire the situation really was when he got elected.

Hope that helped!