I have to agree that I am disappointed for many of the same reasons. National Security Letters are a travesty in a democratic society.

I am really trying to figure Obama out. He is smart, and he can be effective, but I don't see vision behind his actions. That is the most confounding thing to me. When he had majorities in the Senate and the House, he could have let the Bush tax cuts expire. Sure, the GOP could filibuster, but he could have taken a stand, and veto any extension of cuts for the highest income earners. Apparently, he now wants to make it an election issue, but I have no faith in his stance now. At the time, his argument was that unless Congress came to an agreement, unemployment benefits would not be extended. I don't think so. Too many states would be upset about that to let it continue for long, Republican or Democratic states alike. There may have been a short gap, but if his veto position was crystal clear, and all the GOP had was a filibuster, who would have been blamed for the unemployment benefit gap?

A similar thread has run through his financial policy concerning the banks and mortgage lenders. I see a missed opportunity. A strong democratic President with majorities in Congress would have split banks that were 'too big to fail' into smaller banks. We all agreed that 'too big' was the problem, the banks needed the tax payer money, he could have played that card.

And finally, as you mention, when it comes to the 'War on Terror' he has changed some window dressing, but in large part, the same policies that were established in the Bush administration continue. So much so that staunch Liberals and Tea Party Republicans have common ground when it comes to the erosion of our rights.

I really wish that a Democrat would challenge Obama in 2012. There are going to be a lot of people that have no candidate.

BTW, really awesome post thenewgreen.