If we voted him into office because he promised that he would kill babies, by jove, he better kill babies lol.

It was much better 12 months ago infact, they just weren't hiring. Theory suggests business wanted the Repubs back in charge, and in favour of rights destroying corporates, so they continued to slow the economic rebound untill after November.

What makes him worthy of a re election? I do not know much about this subject but would like to become educated on it. Is trying enough? I try to eat healthy, is that enough? Is his personality worthy enough to warrant a re election? We already established he has not kept all his promises, what has he done right? I always feel so confused in these discussions, so could someone please explain it to me? Based on Areym and Toastboy's post, I have come to the conclusion that if someone tries their best, their best is sufficient(at least when it comes to presidents), and a president that has a cool attitude should be re elected(or at least in this case). Did I reach the right conclusions? Please enlighten me.

I don't think I have enough time in the day...

That is good news.  It kind of sucks for Obama that he inherited an economy that was in the midst of imploding.

The really disappointing thing though is that he had to spend so much time dealing with the economy he didn't implement many of the much needed environmental initiatives.

Nothing like a tragedy to give a politician an opportunity to look statesmanly. Not saying that Obama used Giffords' shooting for cynical political purposes, what he did was totally appropriate and right, and I'm sure Obama was sincere about what he said. But there's no doubt in my mind that Obama and his circle of advisors and speechwriters knew this was an opportunity to make up some lost ground with the electorate.

The good he's done himself personally from this will be short lived though. People will get back to their own personal and social problems soon, and unless they see positive action and movement in the right direction things will slide back again.

The rebound began before the shooting, and polls in the immediate aftermath show little to no change from before. This is probably more attributable to voter anger dissipating in the wake of the elections and Obama giving his base something to cheer for with the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Just try to answer as much as possible. I really want to see their thought process when deciding that Obama is a good president and Bush is bad(they did not say it, but many do it seems). I will not care either way about either of them, without someone elaborating, even though the media tells me that Bush is Satan and Obama is Jesus, while rich people tell me the opposite. Long story short, I would like to hear your opinion and the thought process behind it, so that I myself, can reach a logical and well educated decision on my stance on this subject.

And START. Little as it may be, it plays well against the image some may have crafted for him as a warmonger, given the escalation in Afghanistan

President Polk campaigned on the foundations of manifest destiny which was the fervor of the time.  He stated with the Oregon territory, which was in dispute at the time with Britain, that he would get all of it for America.  Much of this western expansion fervor is what got him elected over the politically savvy Henry Clay.  However, upon being elected, he didn't get all of the Oregon territory.  Instead compromised with Britain and got about half of it which set up today's boundaries on the northwest region.  Polk was a smart man and he knew he couldn't get all of it so he was smart in compromising.  Was a good decision.  But not what he campaigned under.  So no, he didn't fulfill all of his campaign promises. 

I'm not going to say Polk was a bad president as I think he was pretty decent.  But most presidents don't fulfill all their campaign promises because they realize they can't.  There is always a difference between ones campaigning and ones in the White House.  Luckily he was smart enough to know that as war with Britain wouldn't have been good for America.