Vastly oversimplified, and completely irrelevant for the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, but an interesting diversion from the topic, nonetheless. Diversion is always an interesting tactic, when used by one party in a debate.
Let's look at the implications of your statement. By the same logic, Bush's first 6 years, during which the opposing party held complete control in both houses, removes blame from Bush completely? Hey, it's your argument...
Ever heard the phrase "steering the ship of state?"
I hold Bush responsible for the stuff that happened during his administration, after a "honeymoon" transitional period. Clinton handed him a lousy economy that was already in a nosedive...Bush did not correct the problems, and the worsening continued. By the same token, Bush handed Obama an economy that was bottoming out...after a honeymoon/transitional period, it became Obama's problem. 3/4 of his presidency is not a transitional period...it is politically expedient blame.
I don't see any inconsistency in that position.
I understand quite well, actually, both the theory and the practice. Heck, one of my degrees is in political science!
EDIT: I just went back and re-read your comments. Were you asking for my help in understanding how things work? Was there something that confused you...something you needed explained? I'd be delighted to help you in any way I can.
I promise not to use any big words...I'll keep it understandable.