Is Obama worse than Bush?
Partly one's answer depends on the baseline: If hope and change was the expectation, well, it's hard to see how that was anything but a con. To which the answer from Obama's remaining supporters is, in essence, "Presidenting is hard work." I'm not sure that answer is good enough.
There's also the view that Obama is, in essence, the legitimate heir than of, in that he's rationalizing and consolidating everything Bush did. From a moral perspective, judging them as individuals, that makes them the same; from a systemic perspective, that would make Obama a good deal worse. "I come not to abolish but to fulfill...."
And more in the sneaking suspicion category would be the view that Bush represented the end of an era, and Obama represents the beginning of an era: A "pivot," to use one of Washington's favorite words, from something old to something new. That would, perhaps, make Bush and Obama incommensurate, or at least complicate the value judgment. Was Napoleon I worse than Napoleon III? Was Czar Alexander worse than Mao Tse-Tung? They functioned under different systems; how can one say?