Alan, who blogs at Snarky Bytes and initiates (no one controls :)) the semi-weekly webcast Vicious Circle, writes regarding the political philosophy that best describes Our Esteemed President. While I tend to agree with Alan's broader strokes, I find room for distinction in the details.
The problem with labeling this particular Donkey is that none of the historical titles/epithets makes for a particularly well-fitted tail.
BHO mostly seems to abide by American Progressive ideology, but only inconsistently applies either classical Socialist or Fascist policy. I think he is better labeled as a “Supra-Nationalist”; one who seeks to end any specific nation (that would be ours for those not paying attention) from any ability to violently dominate other nations. Thereby, creating an international diplomatic environment within which nations endlessly seek alliance to attain temporary eminence on varied positions of interest; domination via mutual acclimation, if you will. Progressive ideology as it has developed over the last century and more (depending upon which of our early intellectual Euro-suckup's domestic efforts you happen to think historically influential - circa 1880's seems a commonly accepted decade) here in the US (which is basically Socialism sans any explicit political party association) suffers the same conceptual failure as any other manifestation of that general belief structure (Marxism being international in scope, Fascism being explicitly nationalist oriented, Maoism being expressly a cult of personality); that all adherents will pursue ideological standards, even at the expense of personal advantage ( "… to each according to his needs" not desires). Recorded human history consists almost exclusively of examples of the failure to comply with this most fundamental of socialist tenets, such that only determined adherence to blind faith can account for anyone's continued belief in this fantasy-as-ideology (which does rather call into question the motives of it's modern proselytizers).
If you ever fancy a bit of cage-rattling that’s also usefully instructive, try making this same argument to S/F author Eric Flint* (muchly to be found at the Baen Books website and forum - aka: Baen's Bar) and experience the tsunami of well-practiced ostentation and obfuscation that the true believer can generate in response for yourself. As displays of faith go – and that qualifier will get the ball rolling nicely – it’s not quite unsurpassed (the Roman Catholic church brooks few contenders for the All-World Ostentation title), but very creditable from a one-man band. When he can be taunted into doing so (this is not a difficult undertaking unless Eric is immediately involved in a story he's working on), evangelicals of any other flavor of instantiation can be found feverishly taking notes in the background for their on-going education and inspiration. :)
As for Our Man O, I think our best hope may come down to the question of who can be made to eat the coldest serving of revenge; outlive all his works and make his efforts be for naught, or the universal alternative. I'm rarely all that hopeful, but I find myself developing a growing tolerance to cold lately.
Oh, and Vicious Circle ought to be on everyone's regular listening rotation; the opportunity for self-abasement is rarely resisted by any of the participants.
*an open and accomplished adherent of the Trotskyite blend of cant.