Exaggerating how bad it was to make things seem better is Obama style 101.
Obama's counting on the fake it, fudge it, force it style that kept him in office on his Legacy Tour as he tries to reframe, rewrite and reconvince America of how great he is in defiance of well, reality. It's trademark Obama sales style: How do you make a small accomplishment or no accomplishment look better? Simply change the where you came from story showing how much you've had to overcome.
We're accustomed to politicians using the method in their autobiographies, after all, even Donald Trump argued he'd only gotten a small (million dollar) loan from his father. But as President? The Obamas really raised faking it to new highs and exposed their willingness to go to new lows.
So, for the end of the year as Democrats get to listen to Obama brag that IF he had run (contrary to the Constitution he's obscenely challenged, stretched and ignored), and IF he'd used his same old tricks he WOULD HAVE defeated Trump, perhaps consumers should see past the trash and start calling Obama out for what he really did TO rather than for the US.
Obama rode the 2008 Recession beyond Reason and Reasonableness as Justification for his Failures: Sure, there was a recession in 2008 which gave Obama an edge to excuse his failed economic policies and slow-growth.
But SINCE Obama, the worsening of our economic situation should have been a heads up to consumers. SINCE Obama we live in an America with one of the greatest gaps between rich and poor in our history (as reported by many including none other than the ThinkProgress dems on Dec. 18, 2014, "The Wealth Gap Between Rich And Poor Is The Widest Ever Recorded").
SINCE Obama we've got the lowest labor force participation since the 1970s (as Politifact reluctantly noted when Ted Cruz made the point, "Cruz has his statistics right").
SINCE Obama we've got some of the worst economic growth in history as noted in February of 2016, Real Clear Markets," Louis Woodhill wrote, "No matter what happens in 2016, Obama's record on economic growth will be considerably worse than that of the much-maligned George W. Bush." SINCE Obama we've seen public employee salaries rise, including his latest double increase, first raising pay and then raising it again, while US worker wages have stagnated.
And then there was Obama's executive order, DACA, granting de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants flooding the employment market with illegal immigrants up to the age of 30 (2012) even when Obama's presidency was the period of time of the highest US citizen youth unemployment rate since 1955, 19.5 percent in 2010, and over 16 percent in 2012 (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/youth-unemployment-rate).
But the Obamas are performers par excellence and use the strategy of changing the where they came from story to do so.
Was Michelle Obama's experience "slavery" or was it more closely one of female voting rights, affirmative action, or the fact that Princeton allowed women to attend their school beginning in 1969? And so what was that crack about the House that slaves built except a changing where you came from story that was not sentimental but a disrespectful contempt for the hundred years of laws and policies that provided her with opportunities and ultimately reflected an AMERICA that voted for her husband, not an African American America that voted for him.
Was it "vision" that inspired Obamacare or was it just the dirty deal of a politician who wanted pre-existing conditions covered as a campaign strategy and was willing to sell Americans to get it as Obamacare eerily mirrored what the health insurance lobby wanted in their 2008 statement entitled, "Health Plans Propose Guaranteed Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions and Individual Coverage Mandate," AHIP 2008? Kind of changes the where it came from story that propelled Obama and his lies into office.
And if you're unsure, consider the new deal proposed by health insurers looking to promote the petty political goals of Paul Ryan by crafting a new screw Americans deal in their 2016 AHIP extravaganza, "Making Health Care Work for Every American, Solutions to Deliver More Competition, Market Stability and Affordable Coverage," (http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/12/trump-and-consumers-are-being-threatend.html)].
Was it the problem of the 47 million uninsured that Obamacare sought to address? Sure, after all that was the deal for insurers--you want pre-existing conditions covered force everyone to buy our product. But Obamacare didn't deliver and when the numbers came in (last year according to the government at best maybe 11.1 million enrolled in Obamacare), the Congressional Budget Office responded by changing the where we started from story…Suddenly it was fewer than 47 million people who were uninsured to begin with “…slightly lower estimate of the number of people who will gain insurance coverage because of the ACA,” (CBO, Pub. 49973, page 19). After all, 11.1 million of 47 million uninsured is a lower percentage of "insured," than 11.1 million of somewhat less than 47 million.
Turns out those who needed Medicaid expansion to qualify for Medicaid was also overstated by millions: (http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/11/too-soon-to-be-mourning-obamacare-we.html), [Millions of Medicaid expansion enrollees were actually eligible under original Medicaid and "'came out of the woodwork' to sign up due to awareness of expansion," http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/medicaid-enrollment-numbers/.] Again, change the where you came from story.
And let's not forget that the enrollment in Obamacare numbers NEVER counted how many people who already had insurance were pushed onto exchanges, in other words, not reducing the number of uninsured but changing their plans which CMS's Gary Cohen confided, "“That's not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of systematic way," Cohen said, (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/07/Gallup-Majority-of-uninsured-say-theyll-get-insurance/35011394207335/#ixzz3MLXDSS9C), another deceitful portrayal of the where we came from story.
For the "suffering" Democrats, who have to endure the defeat of their candidate of hubris, Hillary Clinton who was criticized this week by Obama for…well hubris, when he said, "If you think you're winning, then you…play it safer," with hubris of his own claiming he would've won a third term, it's yet another changed where it came from story. Obama omits the FACT that Hillary Clinton promised to continue his policies (and she was beat), that he didn't endorse Hillary Clinton until June, 2016 (and she was beat), that Clinton promised to keep Obamacare and even try to change it to allow illegal immigrants to buy in (and she was beat). It was at least in part Obama who paved the way for Clinton's failure.
The most important thing to learn from the where it came from storytellers is that changing that story to make things "appear" better ultimately fails if thinking people know it's not better--that's Obama's legacy.
