IMO, if you're going to criticize waterboarding, you certainly have to criticize drone attacks that kill civilians, Presidential-ordered assassinations, and the expansion of the domestic spying programs. To many who focus on the civil liberties front, Obama is as bad as, or worse than W. Bush.
Try and avoid tribalism whenever you can.
Also, looking at how much debt was added under Obama vs. W. Bush is a faulty comparison. The federal debt is a result of budget deficits, which are the difference between revenues and spending. So if the revenue side of the ledger crashes (as happened in late 2008-early 2009), deficits will naturally increase, which will add to the debt. OTOH, if you inherit a near balanced equation as W. did, the only way to add significantly to the debt is to increase spending. And that's what W. Bush did via the prescription drug benefit and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course Obama could have tried to reduce federal spending when he took office (would have needed Congress to do go along with it), but that would have been insane. A recession is a contraction in the economy, where the private and business sectors are reducing spending and money is moving through the economy at a slower rate. Had the gov't also significantly pulled back its spending at the same time, it would have only worsened the recession.
And to be honest, I've never heard the "Reagan inherited a worse economy than Obama" before. There's a reason why the W. Bush collapse is referred to as the "worst economic collapse since the Great Depression". Look at the data of GDP by year:
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table
Reagan inherited a stagnant economy. Obama inherited a contracting economy. Also, Obama inherited an economy that was shedding jobs by the hundreds of thousands per month before he even was sworn in, whereas Reagan inherited an economy that didn't start shedding jobs until his second year in office. Unemployment actually decreased between what he inherited and his first year in office.
