For the guys who keep comparing increase in overall debt, you need to compare the budget deficit when they started and how it changed over their term.
Let me illustrate via an example. Let's take 2 hypothetical countries - DC and Marvel - with the same currency and identical levels of debt (25 Billion). DC has a healthy economy and is running a surplus of 1B when President Batman takes over, while Marvel is in a slump and running a deficit of 5B when President Hulk takes over. Batman is happy with his surplus and starts cutting taxes and spending heavily, while Hulk tries to recover Marvel's economy and slowly reduce the deficit. Here are the deficits that they run up ($B) over 8 years:
Batman: +1 (starting point), 0, -1, -1, -2, -2, -3, -3, -4 (end point)
Hulk: -5 (starting point), -5, -4.5, -4, -3.5, -3, -2, -2 (end point)
If you compare debt increase over 8 years, Batman is at $16B (64%), and Hulk is at $24B (96%). However, Batman inherited a surplus and turned it into a high deficit, whereas Hulk inherited a high deficit and reduced it significantly. However you could still use the catchphrase "Hulk doubled the national debt" to make him look bad.
Replace Batman with Dubya, and Hulk with Obama, and instead of absolute deficits use deficit as a % of GDP. And then you get the flawed narrative of Obama being a tax-and-spend liberal when in fact he has been more fiscally conservative than Bush or Reagan.