Obama defines a moderate Republican similar to Eisenhower or Nelson Rockefeller. Tweaking the edges in a moderate way, guided by science, technology and a heartland appreciation of fair play and justice.
A moderate sane Republican would look at the current US health care system and figure out some way to make it work for American people, be humane but still keep it as a profitable business for insurance companies and health care provider corporations. Also to control costs so US corporations such as GM are not destroyed by health care costs that are 10% higher than their foreign competitors. That pretty much defines Obama's health care plan, tweaking the edges vs. real change.
A liberal Democrat would be for a European type of national health program that matched the efficiencey (10% of GDP vs. US 17% of GDP) and humanity (100% coverage, no bankruptcy or your life) of the European system.
A moderate Democrat would be between Obama's moderate GOP and a liberal Democrats Medicare for All European system. The rest of what Obama has done on military, oil/energy, climate, deficit/debt, presidential power all fit the same pattern.
Military. US is borrowing billions to pay for a $1T per year military budget that would have had Ike calling for bombing strikes on a Pentagon/Miliary Industrial complex that was killing the US. Promoting oil wars in Middle East that serve no US strategic purpose only to feed billions to contractors and provide positions and promotions for military. Ike didn't even match Russian spending on military and Ike was defending against land war in Europe, something for which he was a military expert. Ike would look at current threat of Russia and China and peg US at $400B military, more than twice what China and Russian combined spend on military. Ike was keenly aware that military spending was a economic sacrifice for the country and knew the danger of feeding the military and industrial complex. Obama presides over an inexplicable war in Afghanistan and a military that spends TEN TIMES what any possible US adversary is spending, crazily borrowing the money from China, one of the adversaries. So on military, Obama is arguably to the right of Ike, Rockefeller moderate GOP.
Oil, Ike knew the strategic value and danger of Middle East oil. He would have demanded US be as energy efficient as Europe and would have eliminated the threat of totally unwarranted importation of 60% of US oil needs. Obama nibbles at the edges with increased auto efficiency, some slightly better emissions standards, very minor economic stimulus for alternative energy industry but nothing major. Obama's current policies will have US importing more oil at the end of his term vs. the beginning. So Obama is to the right of Ike and even Nixon on US oil use. Ike and Nixon saw the strategic danger of US energy inefficiency and oil imports and would work to fix it.
Climate change. Ike respected science. His educational response to Sputnik being an example plus his experience in WWII as US science and technology provided answers and solutions to US survival. Obama sees the problem and weakly articulates but doesn't support the Waxman-Markey House bill would has decent incremental change and solid science based goals. Obama is ambivalent on climate change pushing a very pro-business "cap and trade" system that is designed to subsidize pollution by industry.
Deficit/Debt Ike was OK with the very progressive US tax policies that kept US Debt/GDP declining (as did Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter and Clinton) Obama joins Reagan, Bush and Bush in increasing US Debt/GDP and very regressive tax policies.
In historical perspective, Obama is a moderate to right GOP, out to "civilize" the failing corporate system that went out of control with greed and corruption over the last thirty years.
In historial terms, US needed a more radical solution, more a liberal Democrat in the mold of FDR to TR (yes TR was a liberal Democrat by any standard) vs. the moderate GOP Obama. Had Obama sold himself as a moderate GOP candidate who was going to run a kinder, gentler Republican government, everyone would be OK with the job he's done. Obama's problem is he sold himself as a transformational agent of change and now delivers no change, just slight improvements of a GOP moderate.
Of course, the public was looking for CHANGE with capital letters and CHANGE with capital letters is what Obama sold. Had he stated his actual moderate GOP plans and goals, he would not have been nominated nor elected.
I think this is at the heart of the public's anger and rejection of Obama presidency. A promise of CHANGE like FDR or TR and delivery of the very small change of moderate GOP of the 1950's and 60's.
Beyond Obama's moderate GOP administration, US needs to think about fixing it problems, the 17% of GDP health care system that kills 40,000 a year, the energy inefficiency that costs us $500B yr trade deficit and is a threat to US national security, deficit/debt driven by $1T military and bad tax polices. There is no political leader right now who has manned up on solving US problems. Obama's moderate GOP approach is two years old and all the data shows that by the end of Obamas first/second terms will increase health care costs, will increase oil use, will increase military costs, will increase deficit/debt.
We need a liberal Democratic president who will propose real solutions to US problems.