As for the "nonsense" of whether Obama's administration is equivalent to a third term for Bush, I find that to be more bluster on your part than anything else.  I'll let Glenn give you the highlights:

If a historian were to write about the events of the first nine months of 2009 when it came to transparency issues as they relate to the war crimes of the Bush years, the following is what would be written.  Just remember this was all done with an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President elected on a promise to usher in "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and "a new era of openness in our country."  There's no blaming Republicans for any of this:

In February, the Obama DOJ went to court to block victims of rendition and torture from having a day in court, adopting in full the Bush argument that whatever was done to the victims is a "state secret" and national security would be harmed if the case proceeded.  The following week, the Obama DOJ invoked the same "secrecy" argument to insist that victims of illegal warrantless eavesdropping must be barred from a day in court, and when the Obama administration lost that argument, they engaged in a series of extraordinary manuevers to avoid complying with the court's order that the case proceed, to the point where the GOP-appointed federal judge threatened the Government with sanctions for noncompliance.  Two weeks later, "the Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, [tried] to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

In April, the Obama DOJ, in order to demand dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Bush officials for illegal spying on Americans, not only invoked the Bush/Cheney "state secrets" theory, but also invented a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim to insist Bush officials are immune from consequences for illegal domestic spying.  The same month -- in the case brought by torture victims -- an appeals court ruled against the Obama DOJ on its "secrecy" claims, yet the administration vowed to keep appealing to prevent any judicial review of the interrogation program.  In responses to these abuses, a handful of Democratic legislators re-introduced Bush-era legislation to restrict the President from asserting "state secrets" claims to dismiss lawsuits, but it stalled in Congress all year.  At the end of April and then again in August, the administration did respond to a FOIA lawsuit seeking the release of torture documents by releasing some of those documents, emphasizing that they had no choice in light of clear legal requirements.

In May, after the British High Court ruled that a torture victim had the right to obtain evidence in the possession of British intelligence agencies documeting the CIA's abuse of him, the Obama administration threatened that it would cut off intelligence-sharing with Britain if the court revealed those facts, causing the court to conceal them.  Also in May, Obama announced he had changed his mind and would fight-- rather than comply with -- two separate, unanimous court orders compelling the disclosure of Bush-era torture photos, and weeks later, vowed he would do anything (including issue an Executive Order or support a new FISA exemption) to prevent disclosure of those photos in the event he lost yet again, this time in the Supreme Court.  In June, the administration "objected to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security."  In August, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder announced that while some rogue torturers may be subject to prosecution, any Bush officials who relied on Bush DOJ torture memos in "good faith" will "be protected from legal jeopardy."  And all year long, the Obama DOJ fought (unsuccessfully) to keep encaged at Guantanamo a man whom Bush officials had tortured while knowing he was innocent.

That's the record which an historian, wedded as faithfully as possible to a narration of indisputable facts, would be compelled to write.  And those are just disclosure and transparency issues relating to Bush-era crimes.  None of that has anything to do with ongoing assertion of detention powers, habeas corpus denials, renditions, transparency issues generally, the Democrats' active efforts just this week to prevent abuses of the Patriot Act and FISA, etc. (for those with Twitter, just read Marcy Wheeler's infuriating account from the last two hours of how key Democrats in the Senate -- led by Dianne Feinstein and Pat Leahy -- just gutted virtually every effort to rein in Patriot Act and FISA abuses that were sponsored by Feingold, Durbin and even Arlen Specter:  NAJIBULLAH ZAZI!!!).  And now this war on transparency is all culminating with a White House-backed effort -- spearheaded by key ally Joe Lieberman -- to sweep aside two federal court rulings and to write a new exemption for FOIA that has no purpose but to prevent the world from seeing new and critical evidence of systematic American war crimes.  If the stated goal of Democrats had been to use their newfound control of Government to protect and suppress Bush-era war crimes, how could they have done any better?

Now, really: does what Obama's doing sound like a drastic and much-needed departure from the Bush policies, or does it sound and appear to you, as it does to me, that Obama has strengthened and legitimized some of the most repugnant policies of the Bush years?

Do you mean to say this David Swanson is a Limbaughesque twaddler?

David Swanson is a U.S. author, blogger, and activist. He is the author of "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" (Seven Stories Press, Sept. 1, 2009) and of the introduction to "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush," by Dennis Kucinich. Swanson served as press secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. [snip] In May 2005, Swanson was instrumental in making the Downing Street Memos known in the United States and discussed in Congress. He co-founded a coalition at AfterDowningStreet.org...

And this Glenn Greenwald is also a Limbaughesque twaddler?

Glenn Greenwald is an American constitutional and civil rights lawyer, author, and a columnist/blogger, at Salon...He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The NY Times, The LA Times, The American Conservative, The National Interest, and In These Times.

Greenwald is the author of three books: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006) and A Tragic Legacy (2007), both New York Times bestsellers; and Great American Hypocrites (2008). In March, 2009, he was selected, along with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. His commentaries "on surveillance issues and separation of powers" have been cited in The NY Times, WaPo, in United States Senate floor debates, and in House "official ... reports on executive power abuses"...

2nd worst great player infielder is a better description.

Now where is the ranking for shortstops on offense?

"Clinton Says She Will Not Run Again
For the first time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview that she would not run for president again.

But if you really want a New Yorker to claim as a Mr October. Try Carlos Beltran.

Career BA .283
Post Season BA .366

Career Slugging % .496
Post Season Slugging % .817

Just as impressive is Bobby Brown from the Yankees from 1946 thru 1954.

Career BA .279
Post Season BA .439