Yes, I'd agree that those are Obama's priorities. I'd suggest that practically any President we could imagine would have those priorities, the differences between them would be in terms of how they tackle them.

Can I be boastful and remind you of what I wrote nearly 3 years ago when discussing Obama's policies ?

It was Matt Taibbi who first identified the real problem with Barack Obama, that he is a largely self-satisfied exponent of the status quo. Jerome's recent (and necessary) evisceration of his foreign policy statements only underlines the fact that, should Obama become US President, nothing much will change. Not on the foreign policy front, and, especially, not on the domestic front.
[....]
But it's different for Obama, they believe in him: And he can't deliver on those expectations; nobody really could, but he won't even try.

We knew back then that Obama was the second most centrist of the Primary candidates and it should be no surprise to us that, by and large, he's not really changing Bush's policies. For one thing, he's too busy fixing the emergencies he's been saddled with. For another, he's got a hostile Senate who wouldn't allow him to do too much anyway. But finally, he's not somebody who would want to do "radical" policy shifts in the first place; he really is the consensus guy who wants everybody to get on and do the thing they'd already agreed upon and take credit for it.

It's tough that this is not a time of consensus, but we deal with the President they got......

keep to the Fen Causeway