Government surveillance. Government secrecy. Willingness to tolerate war crimes and "move on". Torture. Gitmo. The Bush Doctrine itself.
Not that I subscribe to the "no true Scotsman" style of argument, but ... Obama liberals, as opposed to liberals, don't seem to have noticed the lack of follow-through on what I thought were pretty cogent criticisms of Bush's entire oeuvre.
Obama changed his support for FISA updates and telecom immunity in the summer of 2008, well before the election. So some (I doubt more than a small vocal minority of progressives and civil liberty types) were upset for that, but I don't see them flip-flopping o. that.
> move on
Obama did not campaign on bringing Woo et al to justice. Progressives certainly angry about that.
I'm unaware of Obama's deviancy from his proclamation to end support for the Bush/Woo policies. I doubt myself that torture has actually ended, but we have no evidence like we did with Bush.
Some democrats do indeed perceive Obama to be the king that Bush was, but he has a little problem with Congress there...
> Bush Doctrine
Neo-Wilsonians would argue they aren't Neocons. I'd agree, they're not as smart as the neocons, and that isn't a complement. But given Democratic support for "containment" of Saddam via weekly bombings and Kosovo, I really don't think the mob of Dems have flip-flopped on
The question isn't whether Obama did X, Y or Z. It's whether Obama supporters will rationalize his actions and support them even when they are consistent with policies they opposed under Bush. Likewise whether Bush supporters now oppose similar actions by Obama (or previously under Clinton) that they supported under Bush.