I can't say I disagree. Independent of his policies, the extent of the personality worship is disconcerting. In fact, I think the branding you're pointing out is a direct result of that: "hey, people ate this up during the election campaign, so let's use it to help sell our legislation!"

Of course, I don't see it holding up for too much longer. Once he's had to make enough pragmatic decisions that piss people off, the shine will fade. Hell, the media is already starting to show pictures of him that aren't quite so flattering (ie, in the middle of saying something so he looks funny), which I'm given to understand didn't happen so often in the election campaign.

I suspect this'll pass fairly soon, just like the Conservative government up here gave up their ridiculous "Canada's New Government" schtick after a year or so.

Comparing Bush to Hitler was an overreach, but at least they were referring to the fact that the Iraq War was killing many people. At other times he was compared to Goebbles for his use of propaganda, which was an exaggeration, but not markedly so.

It would make more sense to compare Obama's health care plan to Stalin or Mao, than Hitler. Cult of personality? A bit of a stretch to then compare him to Hitler...not exactly the most striking element of Hitler. Many leaders have been charismatic before. In fact, in Australia the debate has been for some time over the analysis that our politics is beoming "Americanised" because we are basing our politics around the leader, instead of the Party. This seems to have been a feature of US politics for a long time.

For the left everyone is Hitler, except the guy with the moustache who gases people.

La Rouche, anyone? And don't forget the Paulians.

As opposed to wars fought by non-Hitlers which never kill anyone.

I can certainly see the logic here.

Actually I found it ridiculous that the left decided to use "Hitler" as the bogeyman when the very invasiont hey opposed* was supposed to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Anyone who knows a bit about the history of Iraq and of Saddam's can see the irony here. The left apparently couldn't.

(*They opposed the invasion, not the war. There were no huge protests against Saddam murdering Kurds or Shiites in Iraq or against Saddam selling goods that were meant for Iraqi hospitals on the open market. The left SOLELY protested against ONE SINGLE ASPECT of the war, not the war itself or the other aspects of it.)

What George Bush said about Iraq was widely believed by European governments as well as known to the Clinton administration.

The problem with Goebbels (the real one) was not that he believed and repeated what the previous administration thought they knew, but that he made up stuff.

Bush's comments about Saddam Hussein and his regime were correct.

The problem with Goebbels was not the propaganda, but the fact that he was spreading lies.

Stalin and Mao were both worse than Hitler when it came to how they treated their own people. But any such comparison is not only inappropriate but also senseless.

I think the attacks over his policies were personal a long time before he tried this rebranding. The right-wingers have always used things like "Hillarycare" and "Obamacare" to stop the differenciation between the proposed plan and the politician who pushes him forward.

Yea, the left doesn't do that.  It's not like we heard about "Bush's War" a gazillion times. You know, that one that was voted for by both parties?

Ever hear of Bushism's?

I heard "War for Oil" a lot more than "Bush's War", to be honest.

Personally I'm tired of politicians on both right and left being labeled as "Hitler". It's giving Adolf a bad name.