My prediction is President Obama will go down in history as one of the best Presidents

[bigdarryl]

We ever had he will be our Reagan 25 to 30 years from now

[safeinOhio]

1. Save a place

on Mt. Rushmore.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. I agree!

[yuiyoshida]

30. I wonder if there is even room at Mt.Rushmore?

And anyone skilled enough to do it?

[Jamaal510]

57. The wingnuts would throw a fit, for sure. eom

[randr]

2. Certainly the one with the least amount of proven corruption

within his offices.

[Hissyspit]

10. It's amazing to me how much that DOESN'T get mentioned.

[brush]

16. YES!

Never a peep from the MSM or even other dems — certainly not from the repugs.

[BlueCaliDem]

3. My prediction, too, and not only because I support him (although that has a lot to do with it), but

simply because of what he's been able to achieve despite unprecedented Republican and Democratic obstruction that Congress used in order to stop him from helping the American people.

If ever there was a modern president who should be added to Mt. Rushmore alongside Washington, T. Roosevelt, Jefferson, and Lincoln, it's Barack Obama.

[StevePaulson]

11. Yep

Insane obstruction. Still accomplished a lot with every single Republican working to make his administration fail at every opportunity.

Obama is our nations 4th greatest president.

Washington
Lincoln
Roosevelt
Obama

[randome]

5. I noticed quite a dichotomy on DU yesterday.

Some threads saying he needs to take more notice of what the majority of Americans want and some saying he needs to sell us more on his ideas.

I don't want to be 'sold' anything. Obama is not just another salesman selling us this week's "Trending on Twitter" model. He saw the state of government when he came in (a fucking mess) and he's changed how it works. It's debatable, of course, whether his attitude and philosophies will remain after he's left office.

But good on him for making the effort.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[calimary]

23. Not just another "fucking used car salesman"?

I, too, think history will be VERY kind to him. He will indeed be listed among the greats. And there won't be anything in most of those history books about the piss-ants who tried to hobble him. NO ONE will remember their names.

[randome]

32. Well, you and I will remember their names but not in the way they would want.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[calimary]

38. No kidding. I INTEND to remember their names - so I can trash talk them til the day I die!

And hopefully so I can use them as an example of who NOT to support on Election Day.

We're SUPPOSEDLY a nation of good sportsmanship. Yeah, myass. I know. That was sent to Death Row with the "Sore Loserman" taunt and then killed off completely by Yertle and friends (cuz the poor things didn't get their way) during Barack Obama's first inauguration night in 2008, and then the teabagger-tantrum-throwing babies (cuz the poor things didn't get their way) in 2010.

[Scurrilous]

6. Agreed.

[unblock]

7. my prediction is the republican reaction will go down as a bigoted holdover from an era gone by.

the country was finally ready mark its long, slow progress toward racial equality and acceptance by making a black man president.

republicans chose to represent the minority among us who were not.

they adopted tactics and rhetoric virtually unheard of when any white man was president.

from questioning his legitimacy as president, to calling him a liar during the state of the union address, to stonewalling everything, even to the point of republican-run states turning down massive federal funds simply to throw obstacles in his way.

president obama will go down in history as handling blatant and relentless bigotry with a huge smile, a sense of humor, and a level of grace that completely escapes even the best the republicans have to offer.

[calimary]

39. Beautifully stated, unblock!

[Rilgin]

40. look at your history

I have two points of disagreement.

First, I would respond to your statement "they adopted tactics and rhetoric virtually unheard of when any white man was president." You then recited a list of accusations made or obstruction tactics used by the GOP and you lay it on race. You forget your history. It is true that our country has become more jaded and partisan but every democratic president in the last 50 years has been obstructed each of them in different ways but each of them in significant ways.

You kind of forget that the democrat President before Obama (Bill Clinton) was impeached by the Republicans. Impeachment seems like some kind of significant obstruction. Now, he was not accused of being Kenyan or subject to racial attacks. However, he was accused of the "murder" of Vince Foster and others. Books were published with those accusations. I do not think that Obama has been accused of murdering someone in the white house. Clinton was also accused of being a soviet spy from his time in Oxford during the vietnam war. So he faced accusations of being a spy and murderer.

I think you might revisit your thoughts that attacks on Obama are unheard of when white democrats are in office. All of them are and will be attacked with whatever the republican politicians and pundits believe will charge their base.

With regard to obstructive tactics, during Clinton's time in office, the Republicans actually totally de-funded the government amongst other obstructive tactics some of which continue to be used against Obama. I cite these not to claim that the Republicans have not obstructed or used offensive tactics against our current president, just to get you to think that maybe it is not all race, maybe its just the fact that Obama has a little d for democrat next to his name. The quantity and quality of both the attacks and obstruction has changed over time but that is somewhat a symptom of how divided our country is and the division of the media.

BTW if you go back further in time to Carter, you see a less partisan country and a less adversarial politics but you still had obstructive tactics and personal accusations thrown at Carter, only cause he was a democrat. I am a believer for many reasons that it extended to making deals with Iran to keep hostages till Reagan's inauguration. Before Carter, you had JFK and he was assassinated. It also occurs with each nominee as well. Before that you had Nixon and his hit lists and plumber units.

Not much of what Obama has faces is truly unprecedented, it has been going on and increasing since JFK. It will continue with our next president if he or she is a democrat as well.


Second, I do not agree with the major point of this thread. I do not think President Obama has been a great president. I think he may be a nice and intelligent man and is clearly a good politician from the standpoint of running races. He also gives great speeches and is thoughtful policy wonk. However, it is within a fairly narrow framework. He is a conservative democrat. Like almost all of this kind of democrat, they are strong on social issues and conservative on all economic issues. I do not think he is a great president because he has not actually changed economic society with his policies or enactments.

He has gotten some bills through congress against opposition. Some of the laws represent progress on social issues however I think it is primarily society that has changed and the policies that were actually enacted reflect the change in society. With others, there is still obstruction in society and battle to be fought and I believe that Obama and most democrats are generally good on such social issues even if not accompanies by a legislative victory.

However, the same is not true in the economic realm and it is this realm that divides democrats over Obama's greatness. Obama has signed some bills (ACA and Dodd Frank). Conservative and Moderate Obama supporters trumpet passage of these bills as major accomplishments against Republican opposition. However, the true test of an accomplishment is not passage of a bill but results of the bill in society. Passage is not much of an accomplishment if it does not achieve results. Passage of the bill was an accomplishment. However, bank consolidation continues and more importantly so has income inequality which should be the main goal of all current economic reform. We continue to chase oil as the main energy source which is praised by Obama in his speeches. There are other areas of disagreement within the democratic family (the TPP, Keystone and our Intelligence policies). He seems on the right side now on climate change but we have not actually seen progress. In these areas, I do not think we are progressing and some things (the TPP in my opinion) are moving in a horrible direction. For some of us, his accomplishments seem somewhat like setting up a more efficient bailing system for the Titanic.

[unblock]

43. i didn't mean to suggest republican opposition is *all* about race

but it certainly plays a big role.

having said that, i'm not buying that republican opposition against democrats in general has nothing to do with race. democrats have become identified with support for minorities, and republicans have become a happy home for bigots, and their leaders use that to their advantage quite often.

republican opposition to white democrats and their economic policies have often used "dog whistle" racial attacks, not because the particular democratic leaders involved are minorities, but because the democrats==blacks meme serves their interests in appealing to their bigoted base.

to bastardize parlance of the 1950's, clinton was attacked in no small part because he was a black sympathizer and the leader of a black sympathizing party.

[Rilgin]

44. Agreement in part

I can agree with you in part. Republican attacks have used anything available to charge their base including racial resentments and antagonism. However, your original point was not that republicans have fostered resentment amongst white middle class voters. That has occurred for many election cycles including during Clinton's time. As you have pointed out republicans have used racial dog whistles for years. Human, as a species, clearly have tribal elements and a lot of our political history for centuries is demonizing one race or another for political gain of a party or candidate. Republicans are not alone in that endeavor. History can give you some understanding that the current race conflicts in America are not the worst in history nor are they unique.

Your initial point that I responded to was a claim that Obama has faced unprecedented levels of opposition or vitriol. And you lay that on his race. Maybe that was just a throw away line and your real point was your clarification. My point is that your original point is not just wrong but it leads us to not understand the opposition. It does not really matter the race of the candidate or office holder, those individuals are attacked by Republicans using whatever is available. The attacks on Obama are not unprecedented. Some are things Republicans have done for years and some are just new tactics to acheive the same goals. However, they are not worse than previous attacks, they are just different.

[unblock]

47. i disagree. just because republicans have attacked and been obstructionist before doesn't

mean that what they've done to oppose obama isn't unprecedented.

shouting "you lie" at the state of the union address was certainly a shocker.

ongoing challenges to his very legitimacy as president (the "birther" nonsense) is something they never did to clinton. they threw all sorts of faux scandals at him trying to tar his reputation, and yes, they filibustered and shut down government; but they never said clinton wasn't legitimately entitled to *be* president.

if your point is simply that it's a different in amount rather than a difference in kind, fine. it's still fine to say 3 feet of snow is "unprecedented" even if we've had 2 foot snowfalls before.

[Rilgin]

49. I guess you dont want to get it

You want to cite the time that one idiot right winger who yelled "you lie" as being worse then bringing articles of impeachment for perjury against a sitting president. Really think about it. If you didnt know it, perjury is an accusation of lying. They accused Clinton of lying over and over. Do you think outside of the public articles, republicans did not accuse Clinton in all sorts of venues of lying? In impeaching them politician after politician stood up on the floor of the house and senate and hit on Clinton. This is not to say that this stopped with Clinton. Obama has faced a discrete number of public right wing disses including the one you cited and has faced different obstruction tactics (most notably the constant filibuster). However, the attacks are not unprecedented, they are and were entirely predicatable because Obama is a democrat.

Moving on, do you think it is worse to be accused of being a liar or a murderer? Think hard before you answer that. Pat Robertson who was a republican candidate for president published a book accusing Clinton of involvement in the murder of Vince Foster. Lots of right wing republican types adopted those memes just like the idiots in the right wing adapted the Kenyan meme. It is one and the same. Do you really not understand that from the moment he took office, Clinton was under constant attack just like Obama. Some of the attacks were worse and some not as offensive.

Further, understand, they actually brought articles of impeachment against Clinton. You seem to think a clearly disrepectful outburst by an idiot right winger was more impeding or important than the leaders of the republican party bringing articles of impeachment against a sitting president. Again, answer the question. Which is a bigger attack, calling a president a liar or instituting procedures to remove him. And know that lots of democrats, including both of us probably, accused Bush and Reagan of lying.

Similarly, you are right, they did not contest Clinton's legitimacy as president or accuse him of being Kenyan. However, they have not accused Obama of being a murderer. Clinton also faced numerous charges of corruption, most of which were totally made up but none of which were used other than as political attacks on Clinton. I can only remember a few: Whitewater and travelgate. However, there were numerous others and eventually the republicans just settled on impeachment.

By your standard, I could claim that because they did not not accuse Obama of being a murderer they are acting better now because they never did _________ (fill it in )to Obama and did it to Clinton.

Know also that historically challenges to legitimacy is not unique or unprecedented. JFK's legitiacy was challenged on the basis of Chicago Voting corruption. Bush's two terms were also challenged by democrats as I am sure I should not have to remind you. Cheney was illigitmate since the Vice President should not be from same state as President (ie.l he was not Kenyan but was from Texas and not Montana as claimed). Challenging legitimacy is again a usual tactic just what you attach the legitimacy challenge on is different.

Ultimately, the right wing attacks against Obama were not just unprecedented, they were predictable and the same as all prior attacks. They were part of the same right wing hit machine that has operated for years against any democratic office holder. And if you think I am saying this as a Clinton supporter, you are wrong. In general, I did not like Clinton or his presidency because of things like NAFTA and the triangulation approach to policy that resulted in a movement of this country rightward. I feel about him the same as I feel about Obama. There are things I respect and things I like about both administrations but both I think moved us in the wrong direction on economic policies. However, I think we are doomed to fail in fighting the right wing if we adopt claims like yours that Obama has faced unprecedented levels of opposition.

[unblock]

56. sidebar, but there's no prohibition against the president and veep being from the same state

the prohibition is only, specifically, on the electors in the electoral college -- they can't vote for both a president and a vice president from their own state. so with shrub and cheney both being from texas, electors from 49 other states could have all voted for both of them, it was only the texas electors who couldn't vote for both of them.

and, of course, the prohibition doesn't apply to the other means of gaining those offices, succession or appointment.

in practice, in the case of the election of 2000, the texas electors would have voted for shrub for president and someone other than cheney for vice president, anyone from outside texas. that would have made shrub president, but with no majority of electors for vice president, the senate would have to decide. in theory, they could have made lieberman the vice president, but in practice they probably would have given it to cheney as the public would have found the split result just too weird.


anyway, sorry for dooming our fight against the right wing with my use of the word "unprecedented" in a democratic internet board. evidently that was a truly horrible, horrendously disastrous word choice. i had no idea that it would have such calamitous consequences.

i deeply apologize.

[Rilgin]

61. Interesting Sidebar

Its good to learn something new. The electoral college is pretty strange in and of itself given the development of the Country.
Thanks for the knowledge although I am not sure if I will ever use it.

Your apology was good snark and I can apologize as well if I implied you individually were causing anything. I am not a Hillary supporter but recognize that its certainly possible/probable that she will be the next Democratic candidate and could win the election. If she or any other democrat becomes president, I think if you look at it you would expect he or she to face republican obstruction and personal attacks regardless of the candidates race. Your initial point confuses the motivation for attacking our presidents with the type of attack. The reason Obama is attacked and obstructed is not his race, it is his party and politics. The method is anything available true or not. The reason past presidents were attacked and obstructed were not the method of attack or meme (Kerry was not a coward, Clinton was not a draft dodger and murderer, etc etc). The reason the next president will be attacked will not be because of the meme used to attack him or her. My guess is it is mostly how big a threat that president will be to republican ideas then the dirty tricks will start.

[Fred Sanders]

8. Maybe, but just has too many paradoxes for some folks, paradoxes being so rare in folks and public policy

Protecting vast tracts of Alaska wilderness the size of New Jersey from oil and gas exploitation, instantly outraging Big Oil as announced through their political elected operatives, and in the same breath opening up off shore oil and gas exploration in parts of the shallow Eastern Seaboard, outraging Big Liberal - a paradox.

[brush]

17. Also included in the paradox should be the TPP

There seem to be a lot of giveaways to big business in it,

Just today on DU Robert Reich has a video posted on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017241414


If this happens, unless there's something we're not getting, it will stain President Obama's legacy — and I'm a fan.

[Shemp Howard]

22. Very good point.

Either Robert Reich is wrong, or the TPP really is a disaster. If Reich is correct, then the TPP will finish off what's left of the blue collar middle class.

This really is a puzzler for me. Reich is passionate about this. I can't believe he's misreading the situation. Yet I can't believe Obama would do anything to hurt the working class. What's the missing piece here?

[brush]

48. Yeah, I don't get it either

Why would he undercut his own reputation (he's built a good one in spite of all the repug opposition) to fork over this huge sop to the corporations?

We've seen over the past six years that unseen beneficial things come to fore following policies he put in place that have had repugs and some dems screaming in protest and running around with their hair on fire, like with the ACA and the stimulus programs. Both worked out very well down the line.

Hope this is another instance of things that will come out to bolster the lot of working people.

[yellowcanine]

9. Watch for Republicans to quit using "Obamacare" to refer to the ACA.

When that happens you know that his legacy is secure.

[StevePaulson]

12. When Republicans Complain About Obama

I tell them I will give them $20 cash if they can name one thing that was good for our country that Bush did a better job of than Obama.

Hilarious.

I have never paid anyone. Once I was standing in line at the
auto parts store. Some rocket scientist mentioned "Obama's
ruining everything". I asked him what Bush did a better job
of than Obama.

This dipsh*t said Bush "Kept my family safe from terror".

I replied "I guess your family wasn't in the twin towers".

He said "No one could have stopped that".

I said "Not if they ignored all them warnings".

He replied "Yer just a liberal".

I replied "And yer insane".

This whack job is probably still pissed off.

[Gman]

13. If he had the persuasion skills with the GOP

To get his agenda through, I would agree. But nobody has those skills. And furthermore, I don't know how much he tried.

[randome]

21. He's smart enough that I think he concluded he couldn't 'persuade' the GOP Clown Show.

That's the most obvious conclusion to take away from someone as smart as Obama and as clearly on the side of civil rights.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[George II]

14. I've been saying that for about four years, and agree with all but....

...."he will be our Reagan" - I think not - unlike Reagan, Obama is a GREAT President

[liberal from boston]

28. Reagan

Thank you George II -- you put into words my thoughts. Please, please do not equate Reagan with President Obama.

[Leith]

15. I Predict

That Republicans will try to "claim" him in 10 ~ 15 years like they are trying to do with Clinton. For example, the other day a rightwinger tried to tell me that Clinton worked very well with the Republican Congress. I asked him if that was the same Congress that hounded WJC's entire presidency with nonsensical scandal after ludicrous scandal and finally impeached him over sex led by, of all people, Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich. They will rewrite history yet again when it comes to Obama.

[brush]

18. And MLK. They quote him quite often nowadays . . .

when criticizing protest tactics.

[George II]

36. It's possible, but not likely. Remember, Clinton is white, these guys LOATHE Obama because.....

....of his race.

[Lean]

19. False Dichotomy

I would not compare Obama to Reagan. America is finally waking up to the fact that Reagan was a con-artist. Reagan's stature is falling with time. With 30 years of trickle-down, voodoo economics that has devastated the middle class, that is Reagan's legacy.

[calimary]

24. Welcome to DU, False Dichotomy!

Glad you're here! I won't compare him to reagan either, except maybe to compare how much better he was than reagan. He's kind of the anti-reagan. I hope to God America is finally waking up to the reagan bullshit. Even the Pope has called out the "sanctity of 'trickle-down'." (The other side LOVES to use that word, "sanctity." So I enjoy messing with it and jamming it back down their throats!)

[Ykcutnek]

20. Enough people are doing good enough under this President

that the insignificant critics who wallow in self-pity because of their own mistakes in life and want to blame it on everyone but themselves won't matter.

[Hekate]

25. I hope it's a bit sooner than that! This thread is a pleasant surprise this morning...

It's odd to me that intelligent liberals (or at leas those posing as such) have chosen to so resoundingly misunderstand the Reagan analogy all these years.

Obama never wanted to BE Reagan nor to replicate his policies. Never. But there is now no doubt that Reagan was a consequential president who changed the course of the Ship of State. That RR makes us grind our teeth is beside the point -- he sure changed things.

Obama came into office wanting to have a similar impact and to change the course of the nation, but in a way that would benefit the American people and not just the powerful rich. There's a lot of things he's done that are incremental and will take awhile to show their full impact, but according to some observers, those things are now inexorable.

Here's to optimism!

[AgingAmerican]

26. He will be Reagan?

Reagan was one of the worst presidents in history.

[DonCoquixote]

37. hewi ll not be our reagan

though he made the mistake of admiring Reagan,not seeing that a lot of ray gun was the smoke and mirrors done by people like the Kochs.

The president that will be the next Reagan, and by that I mean someone who finishes off the new deal and commits our nation to war, sadly, will be either jeb, Mitt, or Hillary. Hillary so wants to be the next Maggie thatcher or Angela Merkel.

[stillwaiting]

42. Not according to Obama. Or Hillary.

He is as far as I'm concerned however.

[One_Life_To_Give]

27. GW University Profs not exactly in agreement

To me it's way to early to judge. But to get some perspective looked to see what Professors of History are thinking.
Found a George Washington University piece where 3 of ten profs agree with you. Which is nice but not exactly an endorsement.
Still possible he will be remembered as simply the first African American President.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/13555/

[mainstreetonce]

29. He will also be

The best expresident in history. Move over MLK, a brother will be joining you.
Watch out NRA, the big gun is coming after you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

31. I'm hoping he won't be our Reagan.

That would mean that we would have to lie and distort just about everything relating to his legacy, and overcompensate for his failings by naming everything after him.

I don't think he's deserving of such treatment. His actual accomplishments stand out on their own.

[classykaren]

33. Yes if he forget TPP

[pampango]

34. Krugman has said essentially the same thing.

When it comes to Barack Obama, I've always been out of sync. Back in 2008, when many liberals were wildly enthusiastic about his candidacy and his press was strongly favorable, I was skeptical. I worried that he was naive, that his talk about transcending the political divide was a dangerous illusion given the unyielding extremism of the modern American right.

But now the shoe is on the other foot: Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

I'll go through those achievements shortly. First, however, let's take a moment to talk about the current wave of Obama-bashing. All Obama-bashing can be divided into three types. One, a constant of his time in office, is the onslaught from the right, which has never stopped portraying him as an Islamic atheist Marxist Kenyan. Nothing has changed on that front, and nothing will.

There's a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who ''posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit.'' They're outraged that Wall Street hasn't been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ''neoliberal'' economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have constrained even his much more modest efforts. It's hard to take such claims seriously.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008

[Hekate]

52. Plus 1,000,000

[Ernesto]

35. No Brainer!................n-t

[stillwaiting]

41. Wall Street is booming! nt

[ErikJ]

45. Reagan has the RWing Reagan Legacy Project that has turned him into a RW saint.

There will probably never be anyhing like that for Obama.

[AZ Progressive]

46. Are you kidding....

Obama hasn't changed politics the way Reagan and FDR and Theodore Roosevelt did. Each of these presidents set a precedent for future politics. Teddy's wave lasted for 20 years and led other presidents to be progressive. Ditto FDR's (which was 40 years.) We're still living in Reagan's political wave. Obama isn't much different than Clinton, which operated under the Reagan wave.

[malokvale77]

53. ^^^this^^^

Obama will be written in history as the first black president.

[Cha]

50. Kick for the President

[Thinkingabout]

51. Since I was not really proud of Reagan I completely remove him from the list.

President Obama has performed quiet well, I do not allow the detractors to change my opinion.

[doc03]

54. It depends on who writes the history n/t

[KauaiK]

55. I agree especially

given what he inherited from the Bush crowd, I think he's great.

[Jamaal510]

58. Point taken, though

Reagan was a hate-monger (especially against the black community), he popularized anti-government rhetoric, and he was a disaster as president for those who were poor. He set forth the very same economic agenda that Pres. O and the rest of us on the Left have sought to reverse for years.
With that aside, yeah...there's no doubt that O has had as much influence as Reagan, and some of O's harshest critics today might be singing a different tune in the future. Once presidents are out of power for a while, their popularity tends to go up, as well (even if you're Bush ll).

[Major Hogwash]

59. Undoubtedly.

Without any help at all from the Republican party, President Obama has rescued the American economy, ended 2 unnecessary wars started by his predecessor, created over 11 million jobs, and set us back on a path towards prosperity.
That's just for starters.

Because he also created the ACA national healthcare insurance plan, signed a bill into law that ensures that women will receive equal pay for equal work, he ended discrimination against gay people in the military and at the federal level, and he made sure to provide insurance to millions of children through CHIPS.

I am inspired by President Obama every single day he is in the White House!

[jimlup]

60. My wife has said this since day 1

He's the best president we will see in our lifetime and we are 57...

[ScreamingMeemie]

62. I hope he won't be our Reagan. Most people I know hate the man (Reagan).

[great white snark]

63. I don't want an our version of Reagan.

Reagan has been exalted into greatness by wishful thinking and sketchy recollection. Our President actually has many noteworthy accomplishments that will stand the test of time without unnecessary embellishment.

[Vattel]

64. Obama is the opposite of a visionary. He is a conformist.

That and his lack of expertise is why greatness eludes him. He has done many good things since taking office (e.g., normalizing relations with Cuba, early release for nonviolent offenders unjustly sentenced to years of prison, bailing out the auto industry), but he has also done many bad things (e.g., escalating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, taking part in regime change in Libya, failing to seriously address torture, usurping Congress's war powers, failing to address serious abuses in the DOJ, CIA, and NSA, etc.). He also is too willing to deceive others to achieve his goals (IMHO).