No, he is one small part of the establishment that will be gone in < 4 years. There are senators who have been there decades, there are senior management at government agencies who have been there decades. The president isn't powerless but he is very temporary and fighting against large entrenched organizations. Consider how hard it would be to be the CEO of Microsoft or IBM if everyone under you knew you were going to be in charge for at most 8 years.
Focusing on the president (small p, for the actual person) is the wrong conversation. The debate should focus on the President and the role and scope of the Executive. That requires more than educating the average voting citizen. It requires a public discussion of the moral and ethical pitfalls of a powerful Executive in context of world history. Even then, it misses the bulk of the issue. The masses elect and re-elect a legislature with <15% approval rating.
If you look at the 2012 presidential debate topics, it is mostly devoid of any real substantive insights into the candidates world view or ethics. This leaves the citizens to deduce disparate idealized versions of the candidate based on mostly trivial or momentary current event topics. Combined with the two party system, you get a citizenry with black and white goggles. The average person never has to think philosophically about how elected officials might steer the moral and ethical direction of the country.
He still could have chosen to use the bully pulpit to try to improve the situation. Instead he chose to maintain the status quo, specifically breaking a campaign promise. Worse, having been called out on it, he now whines, "But Congress said it was OK" as if that were some kind of justification. It's true that Obama doesn't have the power to singlehandedly change the situation. But he does have more influence than any other individual.
