>>http://billmoyers.com/content/the-triggers-of-economic-inequality/
>>
>>While the Repubs get plenty of notice here and deservedly so, the chart also shows that some of biggest jumps in disparity occurred during the Clinton years.
>>I'd also add the passage of NAFTA in 1994 (with strong support from Clinton) to the list of inflection points.
>
>What's your opinion of Elizabeth Warren's recent criticism of Barack Obama, with regards to this issue?
>
>What I find interesting is her timing - the Democrats have said very little about this president until he hit the "lame duck" phrase.
>
>While it's true that Dems are good at pointing out the huge conflicts and division within the Republican party, it's equally true that the Dems show a large amount of cowardice by staying silent about their party leader (until it's convenient to say otherwise)

I haven't read what EW has said about it, but the general consensus among liberals "thought leaders" seems to be that Obama has let his constituency down badly on this front - and yes, the number of decibels in the critiques seems to vary inversely with Obama's popularity ratings .

Here's a recent article by Frank Bruni, as liberal as they get, that sums up the general feeling among the liberal literati pretty well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-appetite-bill-and-barack.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22%7D&_r=0

It's easy to confuse poll ratings with actual accomplishments, though.

It's also possible that Frank, EW, et al are unwitting pawns in a move by the Clintons to distance themselves from Obama as they set Hillary up for 2016.

Frank neglects to tell us that Clinton's support of NAFTA was the most devastating government action against US working people since the passage of Taft-Hartley.
All the while, Clinton was telling those same workers that he "feels your pain" and his poll ratings were at record levels.
Frank cites Leon Panetta's recent criticisms of Obama without mentioning that Panetta was Clinton's chief of staff while Clinton, Rubin and Panetta were engineering the repeal of Glass Steagall, one of the major causes of the financial crisis and a key factor in the enrichment of the 1%.

He also neglects to add that Clinton's dalliance with Monica was probably the principal reason for Al Gore's defeat (if you call it that) in 2000, and that all the evil that they say was caused by Bush might be a direct result of that dalliance.

The ACA, which probably has given Obama the biggest hit in the polls, was actually passed by Obama, while Clinton's effort (led by Hillary) failed miserably.
Nothing passed by Clinton can compare with the ACA in magnitude or importance.

Elizabeth, Frank, et al should take another look back at history before evaluating Obama's performance vs. the halcyon Clinton years.