History 'Will Be Very Generous' To Obama
We forget how lucky we are to have President Obama for the last 6 years
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/obamas-legacy-chait.html
"It is already clear that, whatever the source of the current disappointment with Obama, the explanation cannot be that he failed to achieve his stated goals. In his first inaugural address, Obama outlined a sweeping domestic agenda. The list of promises was specific: not only to rescue the economy from catastrophe but also to undertake sweeping long-term reforms in health care, education, energy, and financial regulation....."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Wow, you sure aren't any kind of Democrat that I once knew! 
In that paper the author noted that while the country as a whole went right from 1980 onward (his paper came out about 2000 at the end of that right ward surge) the military officer corp went even further to the rights, by a factor of 8 (if memory serves me right). Most of this was the result of the dropping of the draft, for the draft brought into the military a lot of people who never would have thought of the military as a carreer, but once in took it up. Thus the Draft NOT only kept the enlisted ranks to the left of center, it kept the volunteer areas of the Military, the NCO and Officer corps more to the center then either has been since the draft ended in 1973. Thus the fact that your father opposed the War in Vietnam while serving in the Military does NOT surprise me. He sounds like one of those men who was drafted (or enlisted to avoid being drafted, if you enlisted you could pick the area of the army you would serve in, if drafted the army made that decision, thus a lot of "Enlistees" would NOT have enlisted except for the draft).
NCOs and Officers tended to be full timers who decided to stay in after their initial enlistment (which included people being drafted, my Chief Drill Sergeant in 1980 had stayed in AFTER being Drafted, thus the effect of the draft lasted while into the 1980s when it came to who was serving in the Senior ranks of the Military) where the ones who went to the most to the right, which reflects the lost of that pool of enlistees who tended to be lefties who do to he abolishment of the draft were NEVER in the pool of enlistees after 1973. This also was reflected in the Officer corp, many a person decided if he had to serve, it was better as an officer (and thus an "Enlistee" as opposed to a "Draftee"
then as in the enlisted ranks, Thus even the officer ranks were pulled from a larger pool of potential officers, a pool that included a lot of lefties, then the pool of officers after 1973.
People tend to forget that to defeat a guerillas you have to deny him his "Bowl of Rice" and to do that you must separate the peasants from those guerillas. When that is done, mostly be addressing the problems that lead to the Guerilla war, the peasants slowly abandoned the guerillas and they are defeated. When that is NOT done, the war last for years if not decades or the Guerillas win and oppose the changes they had been fighting for,. Thus to defeat Guerillas it take a left right punch, the left addressing the problems of the peasants, the right putting down the actual fighters. The US never quite did the left wing land reform that was needed in Vietnam (It was done in Korea AND Taiwan, but AFTER the Korean war so to reduce the continued guerilla activities in both places after 1953). The GUerilla war in Guatemala lasted for decades for the ruling elites did NOT want to give up land to the peasants (The war ended when some of the problems of the peasants were addressed). The same with San Salvador, the US pumped all times of resources into ending that war, but it took an offer of land reform (and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus an inability to get outside support in the form of weapons forced the Guerillas to return to peaceful means).
Please note the Guerrillas did win some reforms to justify they return to peaceful opposition, but all of Central American is unstable do to the desire of the large land owners to raise export crops and the desire of the peasants to raise food so they can eat. The key to defeating Guerillas is to separate them from their supporters, and in most cases that means addressing the needs of the peasants. If you address those needs the Guerillas can be defeated, if those needs are NOT addressed, you have to rely on repression and sooner or later repression gives way to revolution. A good Guerrilla waits for that revolt and charge in and takes over. This waiting may include a decision to end military operations.
I bring this up for people in the Military knew these rules by the 1960s and saw no way those rules would be followed in Vietnam, the concept of Land Reform was opposed by the people in control of the South Vietnam Government and as long as that was the case the Viet Cong could rely on the peasants for support. Thus the Viet Cong Could NOT be defeated without land reform, but land reform was opposed by the people who controlled the Government of Vietnam. Thus the Government had to be a tyrannical rule (even if on the face it was democratic). Remember the Government opposed what the majority of South Vietnamese wanted and the only way to stay in power was to fix the elections so that the people get to chose which candidates that refuses to do what the people wanted done they get to vote for (and anyone who does support what the people want is NOT on the ballot).
The Left kept pointing the above out, but as long as press in the US kept yelling "Commies, Commie, Commie" the majority refused to see that the democracy was a farce (and when this is pointed out to Americans, they say why then just write in who you want, for Americans assume everyone can do a write in Campaign, something that is uniquely American and NOT heard out side of North America). When the Majority of American finally started to ask why did the war go on and on and the right's answer no longer made sense, the American People finally accepted what they did not want to accept, that the Vietnamese wanted the Communists to rule them. The US did nothing to end that preference for that require removing the people we installed in Vietnam after Diem was assassinated in 1963 (In orders from JFK, through technically JFK did said he wanted Diem alive, anyone who understood coups knew that was NOT possible when it came to Diem).
Sorry about this long speech, but Vietnam is blamed on LBJ, but the intervention came as the result of Diem Assassination and that coup that lead to that assassination was ordered by JFK. The Various people who say JFK, had he lived, would NOT have gone into Vietnam, do not understand American Politics in the 1960s (and refuse to accept how much support among Americans they were for intervention in Vietnam in the 1960s till the summer of 1968). No president would have gone against what the majority of Americans wanted, when it came to GOING to war if he intended to do ANYTHING other then to go to war (Bush Jr, went against the Majority of Americans, but Bush jr did not want to do anything except cut taxes and go to war). LBJ wanted to do something as President and LBJ did things as President. That required LBJ to do what the Majority of Americans wanted to do in regards to Vietnam. JFK, if he wanted to do what LBJ did, would have had to do the same. Thus it was the Great Society AND Vietnam, not the Great Society OR Vietnam. JFK may have been wiling to give up Civil Rights and what is now called LBJ Great Society so he could stay out of Vietnam, but that makes JFK a person who wanted to be president not someone who wanted to be President to get things done.
unions, needless/neverending "capitulation" to rightwing crazies, Christian Dominionist, looked forward on Bush crimes, etc, etc. ...
Yuck! 
