Only somebody completely ignorant of executive roles would make a claim like that.
He's got a lot more effect on the country than a senator, who arguably has a lot of effect on this country.
Such continuation of the previous administration's policies leads many to believe that the Presidency is, in fact, a figurehead position.
The fact that Senator Obama campaigned so vocally against the domestic surveillance program[s] as well as the "Patriot Act" and then chose to extend these policies after being elected President is quite disturbing to those of use who view this situation with any semblance of objectivity.
My views are in no way "racist," nor do I "hate" President Obama.
I actually admire a man who came from a broken home, struggled with the issues he worked through during his lifetime, continued his education, and made millions before ascending to the pinnacle of power within the USA, as well as the world, yet said "power" is in question when we see the present situation.
What has really changed since President Obama took office? What has remained the same as before he was elected?
Wasn't the previous administration from across the aisle? Don't you have to campaign against that status quo to get elected when you are the opposite party?
When you emerge from the bubble of security (though those concerns are valid), you'll see many changes that Obama pushed forward.
Yes, he has many policies in place that he campaigned against but he also changed this country in many other areas (for better or worse). To call him a figurehead is ridiculous.
Edit: took out opinion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_19...
But that would clearly be erroneous.
For example, Hillary Clinton's effort in 1993 (your first link) was plowed under. And it came very close to happening with ACA as well. ACA passed only using the reconciliation mechanism in the Senate, and survived the Roberts court on a 5-4 vote. It's not inevitable at all.
The debate over universal health insurance at least 60 years old (Eisenhower's reinsurance proposal was intended to acheive that by providing public insurance to insurers against overly-high expenses), and the history of efforts in the domain provides no basis to conclude that something would have been adopted in the 2009-2012 term no matter who was elected in 2008.
It might have been "inevitable" eventually (though even that there is little evidence supporting), but whether it would have been now, or 20 years from now, or another 60 years before major steps were taken toward universal coverage, well, that's another question.
That being said I don't know if that's actually the case but I'm not yet at the point where I have 0 faith in government.