Ok, I've been following this dialog... And yes, I voted for Obama - and no, I am not financially better off now than four years ago...
But, I blame that moreso on the Republicans whose primary goal over the last four years was to make Obama a one term president and basically tanked the economy in order to meet that objective. To take the nation to the brink of defaulting on international debt - in order to accomplish their goal - is the epitome of cutting off your nose in order to spite your face.
However, the main disappointment that I have with Obama is, I guess, what got him elected. I can understand trying to work across the aisle in year one of his presidency, but by year two it was pretty obvious that he was going to get no cooperation from the republicans during the remainder of his term. So, how he could be stupid enough to waste the leverage that he had at the time with a democratically controlled house and senate is beyond me. If I were in that position, I would have been like "Fuck it! If you guys want me to be a one term president, then I'm passing anything and everything I can." Worse case, he would have been in the same "can I get re-elected" boat that he's in now.
Now, I think that the dynamics have changed in the sense that if he is re-elected, everyone knows its his final term, and things WILL get accomplished in Washington over the next four years because both parties will need to position themselves for success during the 2016 election. (Actually, I think that logic applies to whom ever gets elected). So, in my minds eye, this election boils down to a choice between Mitt's strength in business vs Obama's strength in foreign policy - and if I'm right in assuming that the BUSINESS of government will finally resume regardless of who is president, then I want the guy with the most experience in foreign policy in charge for the next four years.