There's really not much I can say that isn't said here.
I'll add that I always found Obama and Bush's comparable lack of experience, especially in the realm of, say, foreign affairs, disturbing. Obama's White House also still contains the Office of Political Affairs, once overseen/headed up by Karl Rove (for what it's worth, John McCain had committed to abolishing it).
There's a lot of continuity between the old regime and the new... and not a lot of change, unfortunately.
UPDATE: The WSJ points to more continuity.
UPDATE NO. 2: Obama apparently felt the need to point out to the NY Times today that he is not a socialist (via Politico). This ties in with the above because, well, he's arguing that on the basis that the Bush administration initiated TARP (and the buying up of bank shares) and pushed through Medicare Part D (two things I doubt he objected to even nominally, behind closed doors, but that's by the by). Anyway, Obama is right-- both things are true-- though whether or not either Bush or Obama's approach constitutes "operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles" (emphasis on "entirely") is I think more open for debate than either Bush, or Obama, might like.
Let me be clear: I wouldn't call either of them socialists. But fiscal and economic liberals doesn't feel off the mark. And anyway, the point here is, Obama's right to identify the continuity he did in his call to the NYT. More evidence of George W. Obama, I'd say... [intro]