And I for one am not willing to throw up my hands and say "oh well" about it.

Of course you'd want to talk to your kids about it.  And if you create an environment where they feel comfortable talking to you about it maybe they will.  But that is not the job of the law.

1. DADT.  When he didn't issue an executive order immediately, it was seen as a huge blow.  He got heat from the left and the right smirked secretly with the thought that the military would reject the concept. Battle lost.  War won when it was repealed through the legislature on time and with zero problems thus far.

2. Iraq: Conservatives were angered with a timeline for withdrawal (despite the fact that W put the framework there) and the left thought he was waivering. He committed to a firm framework that was months longer than preferred but provided time to lay the groundwork. Battle lost.  War won when the engagement forces left and no one in either Iraq or the US actually noticed for the most part.  Low key but promise delivered.

3. ACA: Now here is the controversial one.  The exchanges aren't perfect but the poison pill was the pre-existing conditions piece. That piece now in place will never be repealed, which is why the right fought so hard over it.  Now he lost the public option battle (you'd say he never fought it but irrelevant) but the preexisting condition provision is really the key to the whole thing. With that you ultimately end up being forced to devise a mechanism to keep costs under control.  We are using a mandate and exchanges right now but let's say that they fail to control costs giving the prexiesting conditions requirement.  A public option or some modified version is the obvious answer.  Might not happen now. Might not happen for 5-10 years.  But the highest hurdle was breached and the war for affordable healthcare for all was essentially won. There will be won and lost battles along the way (including possibly the mandate being declared unconstitutional or repealed) but the poison pill is here to stay and the only scenarios rising from that are liberal policy solutions or a modified mandate.

As a lame duck President, I think that is going to be even more prominent.  Let me say this in all CAPS:

YOU (X person who thinks he's a huge failure now) WILL LIKELY BE AS FRUSTRATED BY OBAMA IN A SECOND TERM AS YOU WERE THIS TERM.

He will have less need to moderate certain positions for the left or the right.  But I think it will free him to surprise both the left and the right on a number of issues and I am betting the house on the fact that we all end up better for it.  His freedom will hurt liberals sometimes but delight them more often than they would think. I think we'll see it in Afghanistan.  I think we'll see it in tax reform.  I think we'll see it in infrastructure projects and vision.

Particularly because we'll have a President who has presided over the entire recovery and will have the proof of his action laid out.  If you look at the current economic arch, Obama will walk out of office in 2017 with unemployment in the 5s and years of the population seeing that number drop under his leadership.

That's what liberals should be excited about.  If we support him, the two most recent dem presidents will have presided over major corrections of conservative screw ups, both here and abroad.

That, my liberal friends, is how you shift the country left long term.

Despite the slow recovery, as the right goes more insane, Obama looks more and more reasonable.  HIs numbers are creeping up and much of it is because stories of his bipartisan approach and his accomplishments are coming back to people.

"You can take that to the bank!" ;-)

Then you immediately, without explanation said it was a campaign speech because he gave nothing of substance that he would do (ignoring the fact that he's been stumping for months on a new stimulus and has been screaming for weeks about the payroll tax cut).

So, you agree that the speech was not one of policy, but of ideology.  He didn't ask for anything other than the two things I mentioned, and he charted no path toward attaining things like closing the income inequality gap he talked about in the speech.  Now, I haven't taken a poll, so take this for what it's worth, but if you don't believe that was a campaign speech, you might be the only one.

But the real problem with what you wrote is as follows:

"He got people all fired up, excited about a future driven by Democrats, who would look out for the little people, finally give those Democratic ideals and agenda a fighting chance."

The issue is that you believe that he failed in those promises.

I believe that he did not.

Yes, I do believe he has failed.  Maybe your memory is better than mine, but I do believe he ran on turning away from the awful policies of Bush/Cheney on things like privacy rights and indefinite detention, on transparency and accountability - just to name two.  He's worse than Bush on whistleblowers - he's vindictive.  No accountability from the Wall Street crowd, nothing.  He talks a good story, but maybe he thinks we don't pay attention and can't see that his follow-through is sadly lacking.

We are not going to agree on that point and I respect your opinion.  You do not respect mine.  You dismiss the idea that some believe he fulfilled most of the promises he could as half baked.

I respect your right to have an opinion, but when I see, over and over, that your opinions rely on your revising history and  distorting what others clearly say so that your opinions are credible, it's hard to get past that.

The issue we have today, and always will, is that your world view cannot be questioned and mine can.

I never said that, ABG, but I can't control how you feel.

The 77% number is relevant only because it shows the number of people who believe as I do.  No it is entirely possible that Obama has done nothing, but given those numbers, it is far more likely that he's done more than you give him credit for.

The problem isn't defining liberalism.  The issue is that most liberals disagree with you and instead of acknowledging that you aren't the typical liberal, you would instead say the rest of the world of liberals is wrong.

So, are you saying that you don't support what used to be Democratic ideals and principals?  That most liberals do not believe in a Medicare-For-All kind of program to address problems with access to and affordability of health care?  That most liberals do not support strong environmental regulations, a real commitment to a woman's right to choose and to her right to make health care decisions?  That most liberals believe we need to cut and "fix" the social safety net programs?  That most liberals are okay with the erosion of their privacy rights, the militarization of our police forces?  That most liberals are okay with not holding Wall Street accountable for its actions?  

Do you really want to make that argument, ABG?  Really?  

Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she's a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.
Crowd: [shouts] Burn her anyway!  

Dis-elected President Al Gore, if allowed to take office, might well have seen the attack as a matter for law enforcement

"What to do with the body" is a question that has probably been examined by the folks in charge as much as any.