> In 2008, Obama got elected on a promise of change, but by-and-large just did more of the same
After 2010 midterms he couldn't really do anything, because the GOP did everything they could to obstruct everything, seemingly mostly just as a nihilistic power game. If you will recall, even very simple and uncontroversial appointments were being blocked. It was absolutely ridiculous. I don't especially like the democratic party, but there is no real comparison. Both a forceful push and several punched to the face are assault, but clearly they are not the same or "every bit as guilty".
In the first two years, when he was actually empowered, he mainly focused on the financial crisis and the ACA. Those two were already massive undertakings.
Also Afghanistan was not "Vietnam 2.0". About 280,000 US troops died in Vietnam. About 3,500 coalition troops died in Afghanistan, most of them in the early years. 2020 saw 11 casualties. Comparisons to Vietnam are profoundly unserious. There's a reason Obama stayed in Afghanistan: it was relatively cheap and kept an enemy (Taliban) in check. Now, you can agree or disagree with that, but it's really not as straight-forward as you're presenting it.
The ACA is just more of the same? Are you kidding me? Do you know how many lives that changed? No more pre-existing conditions? Literally before that if you lost your insurance you just died.
For the majority of people, the ACA just meant "insurance has an excuse to raise premiums without end (far more than the number of new people covered)". There was some corporate trickery involved, but that doesn't matter to the individual who's paying more.
The majority of people are very grateful of the coverage. The ACA is very popular if you call it something different (to move away from the propaganda) and explain the details.
I don’t know any serious person who could make these arguments without also acknowledging that premiums were increasing before the ACA. They typically won’t acknowledge that the rate of increase slowed down post ACA because then their entire argument falls apart.
Okay, but even with that (though I really don't think there were >20% increases in any year prior to the ACA ...), all we get is my original point of "Obama promised change, but just provided more of the same."
maintaining the status-quo was at least predictable. change was needed, and was inevitable, but will the result be akin to the replacement of the articles of confederation with the constitution, or the replacement of the french republic with the first french empire?
