Boy that was quick. Just two months ago, Obama was promising tax cuts and more government benefits. In his inauguration speech, he told us to be disciplined and sacrifice. Typical politician.

Obama’s problem is the problem of all politicians: How to handle the disappointment of voters when they finally realize the promises were just campaign blather. The more you promise, the greater the disappointment.

Personally, I have found life better when you under promise and over deliver. Unfortunately, that’s no way to get elected. Thus the vexing problem of democracy.

A friend of mine was so excited about Obama’s speech. “Did you hear? It was great!” she exclaimed. I responded, “I’m way too busy to listen to political pomposity. I had enough of that during the campaign.” She looked at me dourly. “You’re what’s wrong with this country.”

I let it go at that, but I would argue the reverse. I did read the text of the speech and listened to a bit on You Tube. It was not a bad piece of speech writing, typical high-falutin’ inauguration style. Obama’s got a great speechifying cadence. How that unique skill qualifies him to run the country is beyond me.

I don’t dislike Obama at all. As a Harvard grad, I love to tell my friends that Obama’s election is the endorsement of four more years of Harvard rule. Bush, like Obama, is also a Harvard grad.

Another friend began his anti-Obama moan and I spouted, “What you don’t understand is that it’s not about Democrat versus Republican. It’s about Harvard.”

Jesting aside, I am not a card-carrying Republican. I am a registered independent. I appreciate the Republican party’s lip service about too much government. As Reagan said during his inauguration speech: “Government is not the solution. It’s the problem.”

That being said, I’d rather suffer through Democratic bumbling than live in a country with arrogant one-party rule. The Republicans have shown to the American people that their allegiance is to money, pork and power, not ideology. Why is anyone surprised? It has always been this way and always will be. Go read Machiavelli.

I am not a cynic. I am very optimistic and idealistic. I am just a realist. Remember the joke about the snake who promised not to bite the man but did anyway. “What did you expect?” said the snake. “It’s my nature.”

What gets me is the unbelievable mainstream media bias against Bush and for Obama. It’s laughable. Bush can do no right and Obama can do no wrong.

One reader e-mailed me the following:

Typical Headlines On This Date Four Years Ago:

"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft"

Headlines Today:

"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Nothing like fair and unbiased coverage of the news !!!

I responded: Writers are liberals. There's nothing anybody can do to stop that. It's just the nature of things. It's always been so and always will.

Writers are idealistic changers of the world. That’s their nature. Of course they’re going to be biased against Republicans and for Democrats. Getting mad about it is like getting mad at the weather. Save your anger for something you can change.

The reality about Bush is this: Since nobody knows how much danger Saddam would have wreaked, nobody will ever know whether stopping him was justified. Same thing with Al Qaeda.

As far as blaming Bush for the “weapons of mass destruction” misinformation, Democrat Clinton and the Democratic Congress believed the same thing. The lesson to be learned is that huge federal bureaucracies like the CIA can make huge colossal mistakes. (Another truism that will always be.)

My gripe: We spent some $300 billion and 4,000 lives preventing - maybe - another 9/11. If the soldiers lives offset the lives lost in another 9/11, then we spent $300 billion for nothing. Even if we stopped two 9/11s, that comes to $100 million per life saved. That’s an inefficient way to save lives.

The government will spend taxpayers’ money like that. But taxpayers won’t.

The government spent $3,000 per household to prevent - maybe - another 9/11. The risk of dying in such a terrorist event is one in 100,000.

Yet Americans won’t pay an extra $10,000 for safer cars when they have a one in 100 lifetime risk of dying in a car wreck.

Every day Americans make decisions between money and the risk of death. When we speed, we vastly increase our risk of death, only to save a few minutes worth a few hundred bucks a year.

Yet the government thinks nothing about spending $300 billion to minimize a risk that is vastly smaller than death in a car.

In the immortal words of Chuck Berry, “It go to show, you never can tell.” If that $300 billion somehow prevented a rogue nuclear weapon from annihilating a major city, then it was money very wisely spent.

So rather than vilifying Bush and idolizing Obama, can’t we just accept reality? Neither man is a devil or a saint. Life is full of murky choices, the results of which we can never tell.