No, he didn't. That's Republican propaganda bullshit that you have seen corrected and explained a dozen times, apparently without learning a damn thing - including when not to be a mindless parrot. brief recap: For starters, there was no such thing as a unified "the Democratic" Party - the Reps and Dems were not reflections of each other, two sides of one coin. You can say "the Republicans" and make sense, because they were and are a unified and coordinated bloc - the fascist takeover established that, having finished up the consolidation by 1994. The Dems were and are no such thing. Almost nothing that starts "the Democrats" is going to be accurate or explanatory - it's almost as muddled as "both sides". Going on, there was no two year stretch of control - even with the Independents thrown in the actual window was about 13 weeks, and even then the Blue Dogs were forming caucuses with the Reps (the promised obstacle Reps, recall) and calling them "bipartisan". Then one considers the filibuster - the entire innuendo campaign disintegrates; and there is still a long way to go. As the bloggers put it: a working memory is the superpower of the Left. That leaves the puzzle of the characteristic near total amnesia found among almost the entire non-Left - just because the Left remembers stuff everyone else doesn't have to forget it all - but another time - - - - . Most of what the US has done in the Middle East amounts to something like that. The entire lefty blogosphere pointed out that 9/11 was a pretty clear case of chickens coming home to roost. Obama's contribution would be among the smallest of any US President since WWII - much smaller in eight years than HW's in four, for example. Even if the cause of his moderation was the Republican financial disaster he had to deal with from day one - (without any such Partisan dominance, and in the face of straight up blockade by a Republican Congress that formally and explicitly agreed to prevent Obama from doing anything he attempted from the first day he took office - anything, even the passage of Republican bills) - he was nevertheless a moderating influence on US bad behavior in the Middle East. All his choices were bad ones - anything he did would have murdered innocents, and that was before dealing with the Clinton power center. If you compare the Obama administration's behavior in Syria with the Cheney administration's behavior in the entire region and say "both sides" you're delusional. Meanwhile: You almost certainly don't know what Obama was and was not responsible for in Syria or Libya - no one who thinks "the Democrats" controlled the US government for two years under Obama is likely to have a source of accurate info about US foreign policy during Obama's full tenure. Most Dems opposed both of those things. Why would you expect them to do something they opposed? The nonmillionaire Dems are just as bad. They aren't voting portfolios, they're voting re-election tactics. But in their defense: most Dems do not, in fact, claim glorious social programs. Only the "progressive" faction does that, and they got all of what - five minutes? - of speaking time at the last Convention. The Dems who opposed universal health care and a living minimum wage were in the majority - they said what they were going to vote for, and voted just as they said they would. They still do - look at the speeches of the Dems in the recent primaries: my Senator Amy Klobuchar was fairly typical, in that the first words out of her mouth regarding universal health care were "how are you going to pay for it ?" She made no promises of glorious social programs, and neither did most of the others. She talked about jobs and tax cuts. You got the best the Blue Dogs would vote for, in the month or two that the Dems could get past the Senate filibuster. That was Obamacare - explicitly designed to be "bipartisan", borrowed in its essentials from the Republican plan Romney had sold to great praise for blocking "socialism", because that's what the American Republican citizenry said was all they would accept, but without a single Republican backer because of their oath to oppose Obama in everything regardless of prior agreements and compromises. It did manage to get the Blue Dog vote, and there was one three month window when that was enough - without that bit of luck, the US would not have even that. - - - - - Bothsides is bullshit. Bothsides as an excuse for not blocking a fascist takeover of one's government is ridiculous. Not blocking a fascist takeover of the world's most powerful military because you don't like war is deranged.