Interesting facts about the various successes of Obama

[alhoon]

http://jeff61b.hubpages.com/hub/14-F...ople-Dont-Know

The gist:
Under Obama:
- Unemployment was halved
- Various economic stuff are better (deficit was halved, spending increases lowest since Eisenhower, The recovery better than even under Reagan etc)
- for 95% of Americans income taxes are lower than ever in the past 50 years
- lower dependence on foreign oil
- Various safety stuff are better (no attacks in USA by Al Qaeda, fewer soldiers outside USA etc)
- The slowest rate of increase in healthcare costs since 1960

Keep in mind that many stuff in the article are a bit too optimistic, but it's elections in a few days after all, so...

Well, I always had my trust in Obama. He did well. Let's hope that the Republican Senate won't overturn his positive steps.

[conon394]

Well I think the key problem for him and the perceptions of him is that he is essentially a centrist technocrat. Well it really would not matter what he did to FOX news and hard right, but being centrist hurts him on the hard left where he failed to sweep in European socialism while the splits in the Republican party mean he can't really find many centrists there to deal with.

The simple fact is Obama lives in bizzaro world.

On the Left he gets hate for not trying and envitably failing to pass National Care french stly - which would have never ever passed and everyone knows that. So he gets no accolades from his base for achieving the ideal of national care in a form that was viable, some that every previous democrat since Truman has failed to do.

On the Right aside from the loons like birthers etc, he gets say no applause for a very light approach to regulating Fracking at the federal level even with the drum beat of hate from the Green - types in the Democratic umbrella. Similarly he cannot win with a moderate approach to pot legalization at the state level. By more or less ignoring it you would think he might win claps from the Republicans on states rights - nope. At the same of course a massive uturn in Federal policy is not likely possible w/o risking purple democratic seats in congress. The reality on the ground, having other states watch Colorado and WA state - get a windfall of tax revenue, reduce money spent processing and locking minor drug offenders, etc speaks for itself - but it slow motion and takes time. So either he is letting junky hippy types run around w/o law and order or he is not doing everything the left wants with a wave pink pony land wand.

I dunno maybe its the rise of the internet and or talk radio and the demise of national news. It just seems like to many people live in an echo chamber they prefer and thus centrist and compromise are well just weak or something. Everyone must really believe what you do or at least they just need to taught to or something and failing is better than an incremental success.

[Roma_Victrix]

On the Left he gets hate for not trying and envitably failing to pass National Care french stly - which would have never ever passed and everyone knows that. So he gets no accolades from his base for achieving the ideal of national care in a form that was viable, some that every previous democrat since Truman has failed to do.

He applied absolutely no pressure to Congress to consider including the Public Option in the Affordable Care Act. I'm assuming that's because the health insurance industry is a big enough lobby and campaign donor power that he didn't want to cross them so much that they'd drop support for Democratic candidates and double down on financial support given to Republicans come election time. By shying away from that fight he killed the Public Option in the crib.

However, I'd have to say most of his domestic policies are okay, aside from my distaste for the continued growth and power of the intelligence and domestic surveillance programs that had existed under Bush. It's really in foreign policy that Obama has fumbled time and time again. His general caution in approaching matters is wise enough, but his failure to appreciate or predict the consequences of inaction in certain arenas has become quite apparent. On the jobs front he has done well and under his administration the economy has started to turn around, although much of the former middle class has still been left behind.

[mrmouth]

Well I think the key problem for him

Is that people have no ing concept of anything, anymore. You can have 70% of people say that the country is "headed in the wrong direction" while polling hugely positive about everything that would fall under that category.

No politician is going to get a fair shake because we have successfully killed any semblance of intelligence in this country with respect to politics. And I'm not counting the nutjobs on either side. We've stifled logic in your average middle class household.


While I cannot wait until this administration leaves office because after nearly 8 years I will get sick of anyone, and his foreign policy flat out sucks, when we actually make a list of this administrations accomplishments people on all sides should at least be happy with how they have clawed back some consumer protections, in a consumer society. It's not enough but, special interests and the lobbying machine would never allow for "enough".

When you look at a full list of this administrations accomplishments it's actually fairly staggering how much they got done. When you factor in this congress - it's nothing less than amazing.

[alhoon]

When you look at a full list of this administrations accomplishments it's actually fairly staggering how much they got done. When you factor in this congress - it's nothing less than amazing.

I remember a list made of what Obama has achieved in the first 100 days of his presidency and it was indeed inspiring. Is there perhaps an actual list of what this administration has accomplished?

[conon394]

He applied absolutely no pressure to Congress to consider including the Public Option in the Affordable Care Act. I'm assuming that's because the health insurance industry is a big enough lobby and campaign donor power that he didn't want to cross them so much that they'd drop support for Democratic candidates and double down on financial support given to Republicans come election time. By shying away from that fight he killed the Public Option in the crib.

Oh come on the Public option was never viable [ look I know in every possible way availability, outcomes, life expectancy, health, cost etc the French system is better but that is simply something to many people don't believe in America *] - he needed to many conservative democrats for passage it just was not going to happen. Also he did actually have a public option element in expanding Medicaid and look how that worked between the Red States and the Supreme court.

* for example here is rational look the the French system which is not truly a single payer system...

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.c...ype=blogs&_r=0

But that kind of rational view makes no head wind in US politics. However the Obama plan does provide the basis for moving in that direction.

Consider the Senate (for now) Minority leader and his obfuscation on how his state and the people he represents are benefiting is acting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_6054850.html
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...ionsenate.html

[Caligula's_Horse]

People place far too much emphasis on the American president's role in economics. The real power in that sector, and most others for that matter, lies with congress, which is paralyzed by internal divisions and filibusters and is up for sale in recent years. Therefore, the vast majority of change can be attributed to changing circumstances rather then change in leadership.

Where Obama has more effective power though, is foreign policy, where he's been a disaster.
He'd been busy alienating allies, trying to make friends with hostile groups that are just waiting for a chance to stab him in the back, and by removing the threat of military action and going light on sanctions, turned US disapproval into a mere annoyance.

[alhoon]

Where Obama has more effective power though, is foreign policy, where he's been a disaster.

I disagree on that.

- Yes, Russia pushes in Ukraine. Would more harsh sanctions stop them? I really don't think so. More harsh sanctions would have hurt EU and Ukraine even more. So, by pushing for even more tough measures, he would have made Russia even angrier aaaaaand he would have received a solid "nein, please screw yourself" from EU.

- Iraq is not really Obama's fault.

- With his approach on Iran, I agree with him; there is no need for military action threats.

- With Syria? While I don't agree it's what was at the time, best for USA. Obama is president of the USA not of the UN. His first question in 2011 was "Would invading Syria help USA?" instead of "Is stopping a bloodthirsty dictator the right thing to do?". After the painful lessons of Libya and the majority of his countrymen being against an invasion... he didn't invade. That gave birth to ISIS and left hundreds of thousands dead. HOWEVER had he invaded Syria, ISIS could well be there still today, fighting USA soldiers as the insurgency did in Iraq in 2004-2005.
So, effectively it's not Obama's decision I don't agree with. It's the USA majority of 2011 that I disagree with

- With China? What more could Obama do to dissuade them? Look how much more focus has been in the pacific lately.

What allies has Obama alienated?

If you want to talk about Iraq, Obama was the one who pulled out against the wishes of his generals. It's a war that I've disagreed with from the beginning, but to leave Iraq like we did destabilized the region and that is undeniable.

USA was asked to leave and Obama has promised to do so to his voters.

[conon394]

Where Obama has more effective power though, is foreign policy, where he's been a disaster.
He'd been busy alienating allies, trying to make friends with hostile groups that are just waiting for a chance to stab him in the back, and by removing the threat of military action and going light on sanctions, turned US disapproval into a mere annoyance.

Try to be more specific because I'm not seeing a lot of disaster. Which allies have we alienated? Light on sanctions on Whom? Threat of military action against Who? You really wanted to walk into the Syrian Civil war morass for what? While US infrastructure crumbles - give some poor sod with 2 tours in Iraq, and 2 or more in A- stan another 2 years in another miserable civil war to go get PTSD in? Really? Or where else war with China what? Did you notice that whole aggressive move to detach Burma from China's orbit. We invaded Iraq and achieved none of our objectives after spending massive amounts of blood and treasure - Obama made one red line in Syria and rolled with what Syria's patron (don't forget their veto and international law and all that) - Putin - offered and achieved a relatively cheap gain. One that our can't criticize conjoined ally we have to fund no matter what can hardly argue about (that would be Israel).

More directly

and by removing the threat of military action

A good thing because military action has become the only the first and only policy tool all too many people in DC seem to be able to want to do or consider.

[Venomousmonkey]

Unless you included the people who are still unemployed but dropped out of the system, then you don't have anything. That's how the modern unemployment is calculated so unemployment is much higher. Obama doesn't share all the credit/blame he shares it with congress which both sides always seem to forget.

If we had gone through with the tax hikes that the democrats proposed when the Bush tax cuts would have expired then we would be much worse off than we are now. As well as Obama funding the Syrian rebels which dragged out the war and help facilitate the rise of I.S.I.S. Those two events are what Obama pushed for himself. I do commend him on compromising.

If you want to talk about Iraq, Obama was the one who pulled out against the wishes of his generals. It's a war that I've disagreed with from the beginning, but to leave Iraq like we did destabilized the region and that is undeniable.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I'll give Obama Ukraine, because that's a European problem, making following the European's lead acceptable, even if Ukraine was sacrificed in the process and Russian imperialism left unchecked. Its unpleasant, but I can understand wanting to keep good relations with Europe at the cost of a nation that isn't very important to the US.

Obama's problem in Syria is not that he failed to resolve the conflict; that particular war is of little interest to the US. His failure is threatening to attack should chemical weapons be used, then chickening out, proving to the world that his threats can be scoffed at.
I had a lot of problems with Bush's foreign policy as well, but it can be said to his credit that he could send an armed fishing sloop and generals would shake in their boots. Obama can send an entire carrier task group and no one's impressed, because they know he'll never use it. This alone dramatically reduces the US' ability to shape world events; the threat of violence is a very effective negotiation tool, even if it rarely comes to blows.

As for Iraq, while I fully agree he inherited a bad situation, he did manage to make it worse. Under Obama, all the funds and equipment that went into the Iraqi army proved worse then useless, as not only did the Iraqi army remain a bad joke, all its stuff fell into ISIS' lap. Let me also remind you that Obama originally refused aid to the Iraqis when ISIS invaded, choosing to use it to leverage Iraqi politics instead and even once he decided intervening, waited for an international coalition to support a simple bombing campaign he could have at least started himself with no issue.
He also didn't do much to persuade Turkey to join in against ISIS, leading to a situation where not only are the Turks not helping despite being extremely well positioned to do so, but are actually funding ISIS by buying its stolen oil.

Then there's the whole Iranian fiasco. With military action out of the picture (including simply bombing the nuclear program, no invasion needed), the Iranians are free to play for time, sign agreements they could simply waive off a few years down the line, all while retaining nuclear breakout capacity. So a few years down the road after an agreement has been signed and the attention died down, Iran, which let me remind you funds terrorist groups and chants "death to America" in the main square of the capital every Friday, becomes a nuclear power.
And that's assuming Iran doesn't get its nuclear program bombed by either Israel or Saudi Arabia first because unlike the US, they feel a nuclear Iran is not an acceptable risk, prompting a regional war that's bad for everyone the world over. This is actually a major point of contention which has lead to a wedge being driven between these two countries and the US in recent years, in addition to the pressure Obama is placing on the Israeli government on the Palestinian issue to no one's benefit (it hurts the relations and won't lead anywhere).

Then there's Egypt, where the Americans under Obama decided to support the anti democratic Muslim Brotherhood just because they were democratically elected. Never mind that the new post-brotherhood military backed regime is a lot more pro-western, and doesn't fund terrorist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt used to. Apparently, being pro-western and against repressing minorities isn't good enough, you also need to win a free election against religious fanatics to gain US support.

Amazing how many of these problems come from the middle east. Now if only I didn't live there...

[alhoon]

Obama's problem in Syria is not that he failed to resolve the conflict; that particular war is of little interest to the US. His failure is threatening to attack should chemical weapons be used, then chickening out, proving to the world that his threats can be scoffed at.
I had a lot of problems with Bush's foreign policy as well, but it can be said to his credit that he could send an armed fishing sloop and generals would shake in their boots. Obama can send an entire carrier task group and no one's impressed, because they know he'll never use it. This alone dramatically reduces the US' ability to shape world events; the threat of violence is a very effective negotiation tool, even if it rarely comes to blows.

He proved by practically killing OBL without waiting for Pakistan that when he wants to, he acts. I believe you over-estimate the importance of threat of violence and you underestimate the importance of not being seen as the schoolyard bully. With middle-class around the world liking USA more, there are more people that invest in USA, that go to USA to study etc. Not important? For the time perhaps. But it creates ties. Some upper middle-class guy from Spain that studies in a good university in USA may one day become a minister in his country. 100 businesses worth 10M Euro each doing business with the USA is like one billion Euro company doing business with the USA.
People in countries like mine are less affected by anti-American slogans and less likely to vote anti-American governments.
These little things are hard to see but add up in the long run. Nobody likes the schoolyard bully and USA have a lot to gain from good will, and attacking with the backing of a Coalition, at least appearing to have a modicum of respect for international law.


On Iran, I agree with Obama's view. Yes, there's anti-American chanting in the squares. There are also sanctions in place that USA suggested and enforced. Nuclear Iran? It doesn't scare me. It's not like Nuclear North Korea did much anyway. With Obama's policies on Iran, the "Death to USA" screams are lessening. By waiting for a coalition in Iraq and at least leaving sliiiightly ajar the door of working with Persia on ISIS problem, those chants will lessen even more.
Iran funds terrorists? So does Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Including funding ISIS. So does Pakistan. Including funding Al Qaeda.


Egypt? USA didn't support the Muslim brotherhood at all, even though they were democratically elected. If anything they were kiiinda pro-coup. They certainly were quick to forget that general Sisi is a dictator. If anything, it was kinda hypocritical for the "bombing to bring democracy!" USA to ignore such a coup just because the dictator is closer to their interests.

Israel? I don't think the rhetorics mean a lot: USA will still support Israel, and Israel will still offer nothing to USA than problems and political campaign funds from very rich people. Obama doesn't alienate allies here. It makes USA's enemies a liiittle bit less angry (less terrorist attacks on USA) at the cost of money for the campaigns of democrats.

[Caligula's_Horse]

He proved by practically killing OBL without waiting for Pakistan that when he wants to, he acts. I believe you over-estimate the importance of threat of violence and you underestimate the importance of not being seen as the schoolyard bully

On Iran, I agree with Obama's view. Yes, there's anti-American chanting in the squares. There are also sanctions in place that USA suggested and enforced. Nuclear Iran? It doesn't scare me. It's not like Nuclear North Korea did much anyway. With Obama's policies on Iran, the "Death to USA" screams are lessening. By waiting for a coalition in Iraq and at least leaving sliiiightly ajar the door of working with Persia on ISIS problem, those chants will lessen even more.
Iran funds terrorists? So does Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Including funding ISIS. So does Pakistan. Including funding Al Qaeda.

Egypt? USA didn't support the Muslim brotherhood at all, even though they were democratically elected. If anything they were kiiinda pro-coup. They certainly were quick to forget that general Sisi is a dictator. If anything, it was kinda hypocritical for the "bombing to bring democracy!" USA to ignore such a coup just because the dictator is closer to their interests.

Israel? I don't think the rhetorics mean a lot: USA will still support Israel, and Israel will still offer nothing to USA than problems and political campaign funds from very rich people. Obama doesn't alienate allies here. It makes USA's enemies a liiittle bit less angry (less terrorist attacks on USA) at the cost of money for the campaigns of democrats

You'd be surprised when it comes to threatening to use force. It alienates the ones you threaten of course, but chances are that if you felt things got bad enough to threaten (and potentially follow through), there wasn't much in the way of good will to loose. You will however, gain the support of the enemies of those you threatened.
A stupid thug is essentially setting himself up to be knocked down the moment his military might falters. A smart thug leverages his power base and shapes how the world is run, and gains many an ally in the process.

The US was also originally anti Sisi and pro-Muslim brotherhood. Military aid and cooperation was cut for a time after Sisi took power, and the military crackdown on armed Muslim Brotherhood supporters condemned--this hasn't exactly strengthened ties between the two nations.
A pragmatic leader would have supported Sisi unconditionally, seeing as he's much, much more pro-western. A die hard ideologue like Obama though is like to do something stupid like preferring the Muslim Brotherhood because they were democratically elected (once) with a narrow majority and have closer ties to Turkey, never mind their terrorist background and backing or prosecution of minorities or their anti western stance.

As for Israel, congress is still staunchly pro-Israeli, partially because of the Jewish vote and partially because the Jewish lobby is very wealthy and influential in the states. Obama's administration on the other hand, has had a pretty rocky relationship with Israel. Now, this is partially because Netanyahu is an idiot, the blame isn't all on Obama. However, Obama has condemned Israeli military operations that don't concern him and put pressure to negotiate with the Palestinians even though its obvious its pointless and may only lead to civil unrest in the west bank after the talks (inevitably) fail.
All Israel ever really wanted out of Obama is to stay out of its internal affairs. Is that really too much to ask for?

As for a nuclear Iran, sure North Korea hasn't done much with its nuclear arsenal. Yet. Let me remind you that North Korea is not a particularly stable country, and when it falls apart, no one knows what'll happen to its nuclear arsenal. Iran might be more stable, but they also have a longer history of funding terrorist groups and opposing US interests, not to mention religious fanaticism. Nuclear weapons also make it very difficult to threaten Iran with military force in the future, allowing to do things like Russia did to Ukraine with impunity.
The rhetoric also has more impact then you think. Anti western groups, especially the violent ones, gather a great of their influence with this sort of rabble rousing.

Besides, when it comes to the threat of a potential nuclear war, its usually best not to take any chances. Saddam Hussain used to have a nuclear program in the 80's; Israel bombed it, and that was the end of that--Israel didn't make any enemies it didn't already have, and the threat of nuclear warfare was lifted.
Even if it triggers a conventional war now, its still much, much better then a nuclear war later. Its like paying a price to buy your way out of a game of Russian Roulette--a wise purchase even if the cost is steep.

[alhoon]

Interesting viewpoint but I'm not convinced. I'll not restate my previous arguments, instead I'll focus on the parts of your posts that I have things to add.

I sincerely don't remember USA being pro-muslim brotherhood. There was dread in the air when it was obvious they will win and there was some very lukewarm condemnation when Sisi took power that was quickly set aside within months. I don't believe it endangered USA-Egypt relations.
With Iran, I really don't mind the military intervention option being removed. It practically also removes Iran's need for a nuclear weapon. Why spent so much time and suffer so many sanctions when you're not under threat to be invaded? On the contrary, I believe USA should try to work closer and closer with Persia, to build at least some kind of two-way dialogue.
Persian oilfields are vast. At the time the only reliable guys with oil from Africa to Middle East are the Saudis and that gives them a great advantage. Having at least some goodwill with some factions in Iran would help put some pressure on Russia even if still many squares hold "damn the USA" gatherings.

Israel now... they ask USA to not intervene in their interior matters, but they also ask for tons of foreign help and receive top-notch military gear that others would get like a decade later. If they want USA out of their hair, then they should also accept that there will be no help. Non-intervening in one's affairs also could be extended to Iran. USA doesn't just block them because of the suspected nuclear program.

North Korean nukes are 1: firecrackers of a few KTons 2: have dreadful delivery systems. Set a modified Israeli Iron Dome in South Korea, and it would effectively neutralize NK's nukes.

[Venomousmonkey]

So let me get this straight, were exactly does Obama's responsibility begin? I'm still not sure if you meant that the lackluster response to ISIS was a mistake. (Which was committed by both sides) Which you responded by bringing up Osama bin Laden.
Which is nice for the front against Al-Qaeda but these are two different animals. The lackluster response and lack of air strikes again I.S.I.S helped facilitate it.

That is undeniable as the fact that people on both sides are responsible. (John Mc Cain for supporting weapon flow to Syria) As well as the people in our country calling to not attack them.
"I sincerely don't remember USA being pro-muslim brotherhood."

Yea, that wasn't a correct statement I admit. We were against the general not for their opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood. But the fact that hundreds were shot in the streets and hundreds more sent to jail. That is what created the chasm.

[Caligula's_Horse]

Interesting viewpoint but I'm not convinced. I'll not restate my previous arguments, instead I'll focus on the parts of your posts that I have things to add.

I sincerely don't remember USA being pro-muslim brotherhood. There was dread in the air when it was obvious they will win and there was some very lukewarm condemnation when Sisi took power that was quickly set aside within months. I don't believe it endangered USA-Egypt relations.
With Iran, I really don't mind the military intervention option being removed. It practically also removes Iran's need for a nuclear weapon. Why spent so much time and suffer so many sanctions when you're not under threat to be invaded? On the contrary, I believe USA should try to work closer and closer with Persia, to build at least some kind of two-way dialogue.
Persian oilfields are vast. At the time the only reliable guys with oil from Africa to Middle East are the Saudis and that gives them a great advantage. Having at least some goodwill with some factions in Iran would help put some pressure on Russia even if still many squares hold "damn the USA" gatherings.

Israel now... they ask USA to not intervene in their interior matters, but they also ask for tons of foreign help and receive top-notch military gear that others would get like a decade later. If they want USA out of their hair, then they should also accept that there will be no help. Non-intervening in one's affairs also could be extended to Iran. USA doesn't just block them because of the suspected nuclear program.

North Korean nukes are 1: firecrackers of a few KTons 2: have dreadful delivery systems. Set a modified Israeli Iron Dome in South Korea, and it would effectively neutralize NK's nukes.

I'd be careful making friends with the Iranians. In addition to the usual post-colonial anti-western atmosphere, there's that bit of bad blood that involved the current regime toppling an American backed dictatorship. Plus all that rhetoric you hear in American flag burning rallies, lets just say the Iranian government wouldn't have bothered with it if it didn't hold a fair bit of sway over their supporters.
And for a final nail in the coffin, allying with Iran involves alienating your not-Turkey Sunni friends (and Israel), which collectively have a lot more oil, economic and military power. In fact, merely not preventing Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions is driving a wedge enough already. The US is nice and across the Atlantic; Iran's closer neighbors on the other hand, are feeling quite threatened.

Also worth noting that North Korea is a failed state with a starving population, rusting eastern block scraps gifted to them by the Russians decades ago serving as military and infrastructure, and very limited international connections for parts and know-how. Iran on the other hand, is a very different beast; if they set their mind to building nuclear weapons, they could conceivably achieve bombs which would in fact make the North Korean nukes look like firecrackers by comparison, complete with a practical delivery system. Let me also remind you that no ICBM interceptor (or indeed any other defense system) has a 100% success rate, and with nukes, even one getting through is unacceptable.
Even if Iran has no intention of nuking Israel, a cold war style Mexican standoff only needs one convincing looking false alarm to turn into a blast-out. Worse still the best defense against a nuclear power is mutually assured destruction achieving precisely that type of standoff, possibly prompting the Saudis to build their own nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to attack. Which would of course cause the other major powers in the region to start feeling threatened themselves...

And of course any one of those regimes could turn unstable; Saudi Arabia's monarchy in particular is only as good as their finite oil wells. A nuclear Pakistan is already bad enough; lets not add to it, if at all possible.

Iran isn't building nukes because its afraid of some imminent invasion. It might have started out that way, but by now, its become a matter of national pride and prestige, among the leaders as much as the common people. The current agreement under works, reached without threat of military action as leverage and accordingly lenient, still leaves Iran as a "nuclear fringe" power, capable of (secretly) rescinding the agreement and constructing a bomb within months at any time. You can see why its neighbors would be nervous.

[mrmouth]

I remember posting one during the last election cycle to simply combat the idea being pumped out by the Right that he handt actually achieved anything. Again, the vast majority of what he achieved should actually appeal to those people and it backs the notion that he is actually moderate-liberal with a fairly right-leaning tendencies.


Robert P. Watson who teaches American Studies at Lynn University has compiled a list of 244 accomplishments by President Obama:

http://robertwatson.us/obamas-record/


My personal favorite: Ended the Bush-era practice of having White House staff rewrite the findings of scientific and environmental regulations and reports when they disagreed with the results (2009)

[Phier]

Anyone can make a biased list of failures too.

Right...

http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/...-as-president/

Or left....

http://www.alternet.org/visions/10-o...est?page=0%2C0

[craziii]

Obama would forever be on my list cause he wasted 2 years of total govt control. that is all. and that is more than enough.

[O'Hea]

I'm among the few people in America who actually like centrist technocrats, so I think Obama's main failures have come from being tonedeaf and overly conciliatory. Obamacare is a good example: he passed on single-payer in favor of a program he thought would be easier for conservatives to swallow, because he didn't understand that conservatives didn't actually want any health care reform to pass. His liberal supporters felt cheated and his conservative opponents didn't appreciate the gesture. That one effort burned up a huge amount of political capital and made it just about impossible for him to push anything else through.