Clinton did indeed "balance the budget".  Clinton was a more centrist Democrat - much less leftist ideologically than Senator Obama (or than Hillary for that matter).  Clinton had the economic winds at his back and also had the "cooperation" (actually the opposition) of a congress with a majority from the opposition party - a party that (abeit for all to brief a time) initially stuck to integrity and conservative principles.  President Obama will have none above advantages. 

The most critical financial problem the United States faces is not our near term budget deficits (which, given sufficient economic growth, are probably managable) but the long-term structural deficit that will result, NOT from "war spending", not from "earmarks" or "pork barrel spending", NOT from "tax cuts for The Rich", but entirely from the unsustainable committments of our so-called entitlement programs - primarily Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  I am not sure how a President McCain and a Democrat congress, at odds with each other but working together, might move towards a solution on this issue.  However, a President Obama - who like most leftist Democrats refuses to even acknowledge the main cause of the long-term problem - together with a strongly Democrat congress are unlikely IMO to even begin to take any steps needed to improve this situation, and will almost certainly allow it to worsen.

Also, concerning your comment on Lincoln's statement:

This sort of robust individualism fit pretty well a hundred or so years ago but we're now in the 21st Century

Indeed we are.  I am sure Lincoln was aware, even as were our Founding Fathers before him, that circumstances change.

However he, and they, were also aware that human nature does NOT change.

MWL