I watched about 45 minutes of the hour long-special that was President Obama's first press conference. Transcript here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/09/obama.conference.transcript/index.html.
First, Obama, like all politicians, dodged the majority of questions asked by the fawning media. It is not change to dodge questions by referring to non-existent reviews of policy. It is not change to continue to refuse to outlien specifics. It is not change to provide two "measures" of improvement that are unmeasurable. How do you measure something like "4 million jobs saved or created"? Or "credit-markets loosening up"?
Second, way to blame Bush for pretty much everything that's wrong. Ever. However, the crises happened on the watch of the Reid-Pelosi Congress and Bush had very little to do with Fannie, Freddie, and the crisis as a whole (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/02/08/barrons-editorial-bush-had-nothing-do-financial-crisis).
Third, A-Rod, really? Way to waste your role as a reporter.
Fourth, the President failed his economic history by insisting that Japan failed to make their infrastructure investment too big thus leading to the lost decade. See the New York Times for more information (yes, that's right, the New York Times refutes Obama's argument): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06japan.html.
Fifth, many economists actually do oppose your plan, President Obama:
Included is Notre Dame's own Barry Keating.
Sixth, Obama looked weak. You looked weak with fear-mongering. ("Greatest crisis since the Depression"? "Unprecedented"?) You looked weak on Iran and Terrorism. You were less the leader, than the campaigner. You need to govern and lead, not grovel and beg for votes with grandstanding (10 minute answers?) as you did leading up to November.
Finally, could the media also get a spine? The entire conference looked horribly scripted, down to the notecards and Obama's list of reporters to call-on.