Is Obama's approach to banks "radical" enough

"Obama and his top economic advisers have been careful to avoid the idea of nationalization, which worked effectively in the case of Sweden?s banking crisis. But as David Leonhardt wrote in The New York Times Magazine, ?When private markets are failing, is bank nationalization still a radical idea?? So far, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and senior economic adviser Lawrence Summers have followed a plan of lending capital to the banks and letting them resolve their own problems.

Experts say the bailout infusion strategy has the advantage of possibly being cheaper than a nationalization strategy in which the federal government determines which banks are solvent, marginal and insolvent. The government would temporarily take over the insolvent banks, wiping out shareholders, removing the worst assets to a ?bad bank? and then letting the bank move ahead.

If the current bailout strategy fails, the stock market continues to slump and credit markets remain nearly frozen, then the public will turn against Obama.

So far, Washington?s message to Wall Street is that the federal government will help keep the financial system afloat but the financial community will have to clean up its own mess and take the heavy losses that the toxic debt entails. The question for Obama and his economic team is whether, in this gradual strategy, the United States risks following Japan?s ?lost decade,? when the dithering response of the Japanese government to its banking crisis crippled the economy for years."

The two barometers of political success - Kevin O'Leary - POLITICO.com

So which strategy do you think is better; nationalization or bailout infusion? With conservatives trying to paint Obama's economic strategies as being too left wing, wouldn't it be ironic if his banking strategy fails because it's not "left wing" enough? And what, out of curiosity, is the Republican alternative to these two approaches?