So, chatter continues about the apparent "snubbing" by President Obama of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I haven't written about this as yet, but as one of a handful of US-UK dual national bloggers, I keep getting asked to weigh in. So, here goes.

First, here is some of what has been written about the apparent snubbing-- note that the below comes from journalists with British broadsheet papers, and not their somewhat more excitable tabloid counterparts.

Toby Harnden, writing at his Daily Telegraph (i.e., conservative-leaning paper's) blog: So farewell then, Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister has now departed these shores after a two-day visit marked by diplomatic acrimony over the scale and extent of his welcome from President Barack Obama and a well-received speech before Congress... Obama "congratulated the Prime Minister on his speech to Congress", though it's doubtful he watched it. When White House mouthpiece Robert Gibbs was asked about it this afternoon, he responded: "I didn't see the speech. I don't know that the President saw it. I don't know that anybody at the NSC saw it"... The White House is irritated that the British seemed ungrateful about the way Brown was treated - their view is that Obama uttered every platitude about the "special relationship" that could be imagined, gave Brown lunch and invited the the press into the Oval Office and gave them 22 minutes of his precious time.
...

Ugh.  Fulham 0-4 Man U (this puts Man U into the FA Cup semi-finals).  Coventry 0-2 Chelsea (this puts Chelsea into the FA Cup semi-finals).  St Mirren 1-0 Celtic (this takes Celtic out of the Scottish Cup).

Arsenal plays Burnley tomorrow.  I'm hoping that will be the bright spot this weekend... [intro]

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]