For a guy who promised change, pledged a definite end to the mess in Iraq , and lambasted his opponents for not stating a timetable to withdraw our troops and for refusing to end tax cuts they'd earlier opposed for the wealthy, well, at least you can still say he's not adverse to change. Now that the election's over and re-election's the new priority, he appears entirely willing to change those other positions.

With his administration now safely in the hands of Clinton graduates, most of whom matriculated from the Democratic Leadership Council, there won't be any more embarrassing remarks like that “spread the wealth around” slip. The new message will be better managed. And in four years, who'll remember the hypocrisy of it all? Keeping the party in power keeps the perquisites of power in the party.

You've gotta love the Obama-FDR comparison. I'll give it to the president-elect, he's smart enough to realize how critical it is to diminish expectations now that he's got the job. And he's not overstating the depth of the abyss into which we're free falling.

But almost a century later, it won't be Okies on the road to California fleeing the Dust Bowl, or a generation shattered by the experiences of World War I, that respond to this crisis. It will be the children of affluence, and the children of decades of neglect, with little investment in the status quo, who will fight over a rapidly shrinking pie.

Roosevelt was not faced with the prospect of class warfare. The poor, in the 1930s, were largely an agrarian community disrupted by forces of nature as well as collapse of a convoluted financial system. The soup kitchens and breadlines of the cities were populated by urban folks who were only recently removed from the same 19th century way of life.

Today, things are much different. The progeny of the late 20th century have none of that earthy character. They grew up in the Age of Entitlement. They are unlikely to look back on the last forty years and laugh at themselves. We are no longer a nation of rural people. We are largely urban beasts.

Writing to you from southern California, last week's news included the murder of an innocent young man who was killed for wearing the wrong color jacket. Gangs, made up of different ethnicities, and sub groups of the same, are a reality beyond police action. This is the urban beast.

Mr. Roosevelt had a great asset when he turned to restoring a struggling nation, a large number of people who were used to hard work, were self reliant, and hoped to regain their independence. By comparison this is a fish bowl full of sharks, capable of schooling like piranha, looking for any weakness in others to strike.

Mr. Obama will be hard pressed to deal with this reality when unemployment hits double digits, families fall apart, and civility gives way to more primal needs, like food, clothing and shelter.

Maybe he's smart. Maybe bailing out the affluent from their idiotic investments and speculations; maybe continuing to give them a break on their taxes so they have more money for luxuries is better than putting it in the hands of folks who will spend it on necessities. But I doubt it.

I laugh at the spin masters characterizing the forthcoming administration as the “New New Deal.” The way things are unfolding, it will more likely be remembered as the “Re-Deal.”