Barack Obama appeared at Eastside Community Church in Zanesville, Ohio, to announced his plan for involving faith groups in social services. Predictably, reactions have been mixed and have, so far, fallen into a few categories:

Been there, but never got to do that: Perhaps the two most germane commentaries came from John DiIulio and David Kuo, both dissatisfied former heads of Bush's faith-based office.

DiIulio referred to Obama's "principled, prudent, and problem-solving vision" and said the nominee's ideas reminded him of "much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore's and then Texas Governor George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject in 1999."

"Many good community-serving initiatives can be built, expanded, or sustained on the common ground that Senator Obama has staked out for us here," he added.

Kuo, according to the AP, "called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver."

When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy, said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. The question is commitment.

Putting it all in perspective: Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff called Obama's vision "significant " and said that "In effect, he's out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President's specialty areas--connecting faith and public policy."

Mother Jones' Jonathan Stein said the plan lacked detail and speculated that "[t]here's no reason to suspect that Obama's outreach to evangelicals is insincere, but that doesn't mean I can't point out that it's also politically advantageous. (Translation: This isn't necessarily a pander, but it has the effects of one.)"

And Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report compares Obama to Bush: "By all appearances, Obama’s vision is consistent with what Bush’s plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need, and the integrity of religious institutions."

No surprises: Tapped's Tim Fernholz calls Obama's "religious outreach...an organic part of his ideology" while Ben Smith over at Politico writes that "Obama's planned speech today on strengthening government support for religion isn't really a move at all, just an emphasis on a stance he's always held that got less attention in the primary."

Two sides of the same worried coin: Citing disparate reasons, several bloggers expressed definite concern. Dr. Bruce Prescott at Mainstream Baptist compares "promoting faith-based initiatives" to "skating on thin ice" and says Obama's plan would "simply be a different form of religion being blessed by the President in the public square."

Over at Street Prophets, Pastor Dan isn't sold, pointing to a high price tag, Kuo's support and the furthering of "a potent stream of patronage" as sure signs of trouble.

Finally, the it's-all-good response: Rev. Chuck Currie of the UCC, an Obama endorser, points to Obama's promise not to make Bush's mistakes and lauds him for the "willingness to address poverty so directly and to look outside the box for answers to America’s most pressing problems."

CBN's David Brody sees today's speech as part and parcel of an approach to faith that has consistently outpaced John McCain's. Looking at it from a local perspective, Brody says: "what’s really not to like if you’re a religious institution looking to help in the community? If Obama’s plan goes according to plan, they’ll be more money for the taking and a better and more effective way to access it. Sounds like a deal."

What'll day 2 bring?