I am curious, though, whether you'd still try to argue that the healthcare bill (either the Senate or House version) is something that Bush would've done. No Bush wouldn't have done it. But I'll also point out that the "no other reason than to save face," lobbying-influenced mish- mash that we're going to end up with isn't what anyone would do either. The compromise bill that's going to come up isn't going to do one thing to help those who need it the most. It's just going to result in another bloated government bureaucracy that's going to shove health care down people who aren't going to be able to use it. Particularly, since, for instance, there's not much to do militarily. Yeah, and this is a huge cop-out. So Obama wasn't even in the Senate to feel the political pressure to vote for or against the initial authorization, but he could step in later and use it to campaign? Then, after being elected, you're saying that there's not much he needed to do because Bush already took care of it for him in the later part of the conflict? Wow, that's a sweet deal for Obama, to be sure. The point is that Obama could have been the non-apologetic, non-negative connotation liberal that he set himself up to be. I think the expectation was that after Bush, Obama was going to step in and show the Neo-cons how to truly do things. In fact, Obama was elected to be the anti-Bush. It would have confounded conservatives to be sure, but it would have been a true shift. But that's not what happened. I'd say more than anything, Obama is justifying what the neo-cons had been doing, or at least he's providing fresh perspective on how difficult the decisions being made were. Unless one is being a pure hypocrite, it's difficult to characterize the previous administration as a war criminals for things like wire-tapping, Gitmo, missile strikes, and so on, when the current administration is simply continuing the exact same policies. As for the other purely liberal-sided issues, like robust mass transit, sweeping climate regulation, Palestinian/Israeli cooperation, a new era of European relations, etc.. Obama has dropped the ball on. In a nutshell- so far Obama has continued, practically untouched, all of the most controversial neo-con policies, and carried out none of the more liberal ones. If I voted for Obama and his promise of change, I'd be frustrated as hell right now. But like I said earlier, those are the reasons that you voted for him. If you're happy with his level of performance without any of those things happening, then more power to you. There must be some kind of mental hard-wiring that prevents those who should be criticizing him the most from doing so. As for me, he's acting in the exact manner that he acted when he was a politician back in IL, and which was predicted like clockwork.