Is the idea that presidents should be judged by the growth of the debt (in nominal dollars) during their terms? That seems ... odd. Also, FYI, your numbers are wrong. Total debt was about $11T when Obama took office and will be about $19T when he leaves.
Meanwhile, we have had the best recovery or one of the best recoveries from the GFC in the developed world, massive healthcare reform that has already led to an additional 20 million people getting insured while actually saving money (and effectively ending the long-term debt problem that existed before he took office), vastly improved international relations, major financial reform that should prevent another crisis or the need for bailouts, huge improvement in civil rights (SSM, the end of DADT), a big reduction in inequality, and major progress on the environment (the green energy explosion that the stimulus led to, important international treaties, new emissions standards, etc.). That's without mentioning smaller things like improved medical record-keeping. And I'd say that he's fulfilled the ceremonial duties exceptionally well, too. This "country is more divided" stuff is silly. If it's even true, it has little to do with anything that Obama has done.
If you think climate change is a hoax, inequality is good (because poor people need to be poorer so they have more motivation or the rich need more rewards so they have more motivation), etc., I can see you not liking him, but he's succeeded in what he's set out to do, and by most measures, American lives are much better as a direct result of a lot of his actions.
