President Barack Obama sees an irony in his relations with the US business community. "On the left, we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business," he said in an Oval Office interview this past week. "On the business side, we are perceived as being anti- business."

The criticism from the left, he realises, goes with the territory; from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama, Democratic presidents always disappoint their party's left wing.

The business criticism frustrates him. The US Chamber of Commerce and some corporate chieftains have portrayed this administration as government-loving, free enterprise-hating radicals.

This depiction is not reflected either in Obama's record or the 35-minute interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek. He professes to be a "fierce advocate" for a pro-growth, dynamic free market.

This was more than just trying to appeal to a business audience, as he stresses the need to temper these views with protection for consumers and investors. "There have to be some rules of the road in place in the financial sector that will create an even playing field," Obama says, noting a need to "restore a sense of balance to the compact between business, government and employees." That isn't an anti-business attitude.

To be sure, there are legitimate criticisms. On trade, the president waffles, saying he cannot complete pending accords with South Korea, Colombia and Panama until important details are threshed out.

The South Koreans are cutting trade deals all over the world; it is the US that is the outlier. Colombia has a courageous government that is making progress on human rights while battling terrorists; it needs the economic support.

With strong labor opposition, it's tough politically for a Democratic president. Yet getting the North American Free Trade Agreement and supporting China's entrance to the World Trade Organisation was difficult for Bill Clinton, and he did it.

Articulating a coherent economic policy remains elusive. In the BusinessWeek interview the president was asked to distill his economic message. He spoke about sustainable economic growth that requires innovation, smart energy policy, health care and an educational system that generates the most productive workers.

The parts are fine; there is not a unifying theme. It should all be about jobs. The president believes this; too often he does not convey it.

However, neither the policies nor the pronouncements are radical or hostile to businesses. The stimulus plan, most economists believe, was essential, and has ameliorated the bleak jobs picture. The only debate is: Should it have been somewhat smaller or larger?

Critics have a field day characterising the cap-and-trade bill as job-losing and government grabbing. Yet during the interview with the president, 30 feet away in another session were General Electric Co. chairman Jeffrey Immelt, Duke Energy Corp. chairman Jim Rogers, Honeywell International Inc. CEO David Cote and others making common ground with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and energy coordinator Carol Browner on energy policy.

That is hardly a socialist cell.

The Obama health-care plan did not envision any government takeover, was small-business oriented and contained a few serious cost-control measures, incurring the displeasure of Democratic liberals and labour supporters. However botched the effort, it was not a march toward UK-style national health care.

Nowhere is the Obama approach more evident than on the economy and finance. For starters, he is smart. As kind as former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, in his recent book, was to President George W Bush, it is clear Obama's predecessor was a bystander on major economic policies.

No one would say that of the current White House occupant.

He is knowledgeable. In the BusinessWeek interview, talking about the "Volcker Rule" to limit the scope and activities of big banks, or about risky leverage or executive compensation, he is conversant and comfortable. In another interview, I once asked him a reasonably complicated question involving bond yields; fortunately, he was far more informed than the questioner.

Albert Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.