President Barack Obama is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces and with this responsibility he I believe he should be focused on the issues of national security first. Ecological disaster is an imminent problem in the Gulf of Mexico but not an issue of national security so the gulf oil spill should be on the Presidents list but not at the top.. his first priority of these two choices, I feel, should be to protect the United States from terrorism.

He has made it clear in saying "Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill," Obama said. "We are dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster." (Reuters)(Reuters Video)

And with that statement of responsibility and the usage of the word "We" I believe President Obama is handling the scenario well enough and his time should be focused on the terrorist threats to America.

I want to be clear in that if the Times Square Car Bomb had not occurred and made the news then his focus could remain entrenched in the ecological and economical recovery of the Gulf coast and the preventing of any loss of life or economy there but in the context of the news happenings in recent weeks and days the President should protect the US from the people who would choose to destroy and terrorize it first.

Obama also said "The oil that is still leaking from the well could seriously damage the economy and the environment of our Gulf states and it could extend for a long time. It could jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who call this place home," (Reuters) and that is true the economy of the southern states along the gulf coast is at great risk of long term disaster and should be protected but firstly we need a secure United States that is free to focus on the problems of environment and economy.

If we are not safe then we can have no real long term recovery of any kind.

Edit ~ I know it has not been reported but I do not put it out of the realm of possibility that a terrorist organization actually had a worker(s) on that oil rig placed there to cause the oil spill in an effort to distract and divide our resources and if this is the case or this is at all the privately suspected case then the President would have to remain equally focused on all threats, the Time Square Car Bomb and the BP Oil Spill both included.

I feel he should be more involved in the oil spill. The bomb didn't go off and except for Police work to catch the people that did it it is over. The Gulf is an ongoing disaster that is getting worse everyday and until it is under control he should be deciding what resources need to be sent there. Also BP made a statement that they do not operate the rig and are trying to limit their liability as they say they are only responsible for the oil. The Police will handle the investigation of Times Square and there is nothing for Obama to do there and if it grows then it will become a military matter and will be handled by them except for the speeches.

I'll get around to answering your question, but first I'm going to question the question. :)

-- Quote

Obama refused to delay the debate, saying he believed it was more important now than ever. ``Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time,'' he said.

-- /Quote

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKlUQBFTohtY&refer=home

If you can't handle two such issues at the same time you can't be a successful President, and you probably can't be the top decision maker in any kind of large organization.

However in those situations you do have one going for you... you are far from alone, and have many people you can deploy. For example, the President has cabinet members and a multitude of agencies for dealing with homeland security, the environment and emergencies.

Sure he may need to give overall direction to them, get briefed on their thinking, alter their priorities, and above all be the public face of the administration communicating what's happening to the public.

Anyway, by the standards of what Presidents have to deal with, neither of these events are that huge as emergencies go. They're not a financial system meltdown, they are not Iraq invading Kuwait, they're not 9/11 or Katrina.

So my truthful answer to your question is: both and neither.

A President should be able to cope with both things at the same time. In fact neither are on the scale that they warrant dropping everything else to focus on them entirely. If a President dropped everything anytime an event of that magnitude happened, nothing of real long term importance would get accomplished.

Because stuff like that happens all the time.

Of course, the fact is politicians do have a tendency to drop everything for the matters of the moment. That is one reason among others why it is so hard to make progress on things such as reforming healthcare, bringing peace to the Middle East, dealing with global warming etc.

The public is also responsible for this tendency, as it suffers big time from "boiled frog syndrome", and pays little attention to major existential threats that take a long time to play out, but freaks about one time dramatic incidents.

Neither of these particular incidents tells us anything new about the threat level from terrorism or ecological dangers that go with the oil industry.

Anyway, now I'm finally going to answer your question in the way that you asked it, and pick one and only one to focus on.

Focus on the Times Square bomb.

Why? Because that is what freaks people out more, and leaders have to address how people feel. Also it would be unwise politically to appear to be too relaxed about the threat of terrorism, and give critics another stick to beat you with. In order to keep achieving important things, you also have to keep as much public support as possible.