Micah Sifry at Salon has a searing critique of Obama that I thought was fairly well written. I don't agree with all of his points, and I would have preferred a more thorough examination of Obama's policies in the piece. Then again, that's not his point, which is:
By the end of his campaign, Obama had a real populist movement in his hands, but he has not been a populist president and is showing no signs of changing.
Meaning that the comparison is less about policy, and more about evidence of a growing disconnect between the record numbers of regular joes who voted for him. For many of us this was no surprise. I remember heated arguments with my father pointing to Opensecrets.org and noting that Goldman Sachs had contributed more money to Obama's campaign than anyone else. I then compared him to Edwards whose biggest campaign contributor was a reputable non-profit (my apologies, I forget who).
They had a very clever campaign, but as much as I hate to admit it, my view of the election aligns with some fairly common conservative commentary. Meaning The Next New Thing and Thank God Bush is Leaving. (Many people like to claim race as a factor, but my approach is to simplify it. Our highly media driven society is obsessed with "new" and "first" and "originality" what did a rich, white, old, and definitely not "new" but at 4th or 5th sequel, McCain possibly have to offer against the shiny new "it" guy.) The Thank God Bush is Leaving, requires no explanation. So attributing the groundswell of support to the campaign is a bit overdramatic.