Forget left vs. right for the moment. Candidates and presidents have been touting wanting to provide health care insurance since at least the days of Ronald Reagan. Obama was the first one to get it done. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But how could it be with the divisiveness our Congress has shown over the past dozen years?
Jesus Congress can't even pass that seemingly common sensical bill on student loans, a bill (in concept) that both national candidates of both parties agree. But God forbid the incumbent might get a legislative win of any kind.
I think what I admire is that Obama has staked his Presidency on a domestic bill that whether how much it succeeds or not, it's a bill striving to help the masses in the pursuit towards a problem to be solved previously by free enterprise and government. Considering the fight and consequences in the HCR war, a cautious incumbent would've waited (if not ever do it) as reportedly Hillary Clinton would've done if she had won.
As partisan as this is, what would be the GOP equivalent in a domestic agenda? Cutting taxes for the ultra-rich? Maybe economically on an intellectual front that works or not, but is that as noble and righteous of a justice crusade for the American people? (Romney thought once upon a time that even as a "conservative," it was a goal worth striving for too. Shit Obamacare was originally conceived by the right-wing Heritage foundation.) The rest of their domestic agenda would amount nothing more than worrying about those gays trying to enhance a conservative institution like marriage, unlike the great role model Bristol Palin.
AAC is a start, and yes it is a mess with some holes and problems. But the solution to those flaws isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but try to remedy those gaps. I mean doesn't common sense dictate you try to solve a problem, and if a solution fails to satisfy it, then you try another. Do cops quit a murder investigation if their first suspect gets an alibi? Of course not.
Whether he wins re-election or not, Obama has left his stamp on the American political landscape, I like to think for the positive. For all his failures and faults, I do respect and admire that he decided at some point that losing another term is a price worth paying if it meant making a long-held democratic dream (dating back to Truman, and earlier than that back to Teddy Roosevelt) reality.
And I think that's an inspiring thought. In our times we are so (justifiably) cynical about government and the officials we elect to it, we've lost the powerful idea that perhaps the pursuit for political power isn't to stroke ego or eleviate your stock in society, but for some sort of greater good beyond yourself. (Not like the Clintons when Bubba was merely satisfied by the cheap pops. Asides from the economy doing good, what were his accomplishments? I don't see many people inspired by NAFTA's signage even if techncially it was the right course of action.)
CNN apparently was so anxious for a doom/gloom scenario for the President that they had to change their banner.
.
. 
