If I could sum up my view on Obama, it'd be in a single word:
disappointed.
That's not to say that I blame Obama, entirely. I don't, and I don't think that'd be a fair assessment of him as a person, but instead, I think that's the only contextual way I can frame his accomplishments as President while also putting those accomplishments into the context of the expectations coming out of the campaign.
I think the campaign, and the hope and change that was promised was much larger than what was delivered; and I don't say that meaning it was out of his reach, I say that in the sense that he had a moment of opportunity to bring the country together - and hold it together - and he ultimately failed to do so.
I realize that the vast majority of the blame does indeed fall on the Republicans for refusing not only to work with the President to pass any form of compromise bills to move either their parties' agenda forward, but more astonishingly, in their obstructionist behavior over the past 5 years.
I'm not a fan of false equivalence, as you probably know, and think it's important to cast blame where it is due, and most of that blame does fall onto the shoulders of the Republican Party.
However, with that said, the President has stumbled in so many areas that are primarily under his direct control, that it's impossible to overlook.
As we've discussed in the Iraq/Migration threads, I'm not an advocate for expanding U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but
@King Stannis' argument about the failings of U.S. foreign policy in the region is not only compelling, it's pretty damning of the administrations inability to conduct and project a consistent presence there.
The Administration's decision to use the Democratic super-majority to promote Obamacare, rather than the national infrastructure programs these candidates are presently running on.
The Democrats had an early opportunity to pass a 21st century New Deal and squandered it on the ACA. I think that was a strategic mistake as it allowed the Republicans to rally conservatives behind a unified front. Had the administration instead used that opportunity to create millions of jobs, as was promised, there would have been less of a compelling narrative to form the Tea Party which caused the obstructionism in the first place.
Beyond that, the doubling down on the Patriot Act and the NDAA, the failure to close Gitmo, and really the inability to get his agenda through Congress can't leave any objective person, I think, with an impression other than disappointment.
Most of Obama's agenda was not and never will be accomplished; again, largely due to Republicans, but also due to Obama's own failings as President. He failed to understand the political dynamic that was unfolding with the emergence of the Tea Party; he failed to understand the economy was still the most pressing issue and that it was
not the time for the ACA (not without the votes); and he was not willing to use the nuclear option, or even the threat thereof, to pass a more robust health care bill which would have benefited millions of Americans.
Obama tended to negotiate with himself, being an intellectual and presupposing the argument of the Republicans; he would come to the table already too near the middle not realizing he was dealing with folks that had absolutely no intention whatsoever of allowing him a political victory.
For 5 years, Obama appealed to the intellect and patriotism of the House Republicans, hoping to reach some compromise. From the Grand Bargain, to immigration reform, to mass incarceration; Obama reached across the aisle repeatedly trying to find someone, anyone, to make a deal with.
If things had been different who knows, but with John Boehner constantly fearing for his job, being threatened repeatedly, as Speaker (and they finally got him), there was no one on the other side who had the courage or political clout to make a deal. So, for political expediency, the House Leadership felt their only option was obstructionism, regardless of the cost.
That strategy, by the Congress, has defined Obama's Presidency for better or worse.
Apologists might view things a bit more favorably, but I'm not sure how one can walk away from these past eight years and think this is how government should operate.
As to Barack Obama the man, well, he's a good human being as far as I know - but I don't know him personally. My aunt knows him well, they were colleagues for years, and she speaks highly of him. Everyone that knows Obama loves him, from what I'm told.
I would just say that looking back, I think Obama would've done things differently had he known how this would all play out. I think he either lacked the foresight, or was simply too naive to understand what he was up against; and that's what the Clinton's warned him about since they had to deal with it first hand.
I think it speaks volumes that so many in the Senate leadership today and in former leadership have stated that Obamacare will be Barack's legacy, but it was also his biggest blunder. Not because the ACA is a bad idea in principle, but because it wasn't well thought out, implemented, nor was it what the American people voted for.
Democrats should have focused 100% of their attention on their economic plans first, disarming the Republicans arguments preemptively, and passed healthcare reform afterwards; even if it meant debating most of the bill behind closed doors.
Charles Schumer, the next Senate leader for the Democrats, has stated as much on several occasions. As much as I dislike the man, I can't help but agree with him.
