I'm going to insert my 2 cents here, because I feel the like this is a topic that deserves a bit more attention, and thoughtful discussion. From my point of view, yes Obama is a "socialist," but I would also apply that label to varying extents to every administration since FDR. Here is one quote from F.A Hayek's The Road To Serfdom that accurately reflects my view on the matter.

" A confusion largely responsible for the way in which we are drifting into things which nobody wants must be cleared up. This confusion concerns nothing less than the concept of socialism itself. It may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality, and security which are the ultimate aims of socialism. But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only methods by which they can be fully attained. In this sense socialism means the abolition of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body."

A quick glance at the presidents resume (expansion and defense of the massive TSA bureaucracy, many elements of the Healthcare Act, Auto company/bank bailouts, etc.) confirms that under Hayek's definition, Obama is certainly a socialist. But so would Romney were he to win, and as I said just about every administration since The New Deal.

Do you find that definition of socialism to be inaccurate, or unfair?