Just the facts, ma'm.

Even allowing for the fact that presidents get too much credit when the economy is good and too much blame when it's bad, these numbers deserve some thought:

The average annual real total stock market return has been greater during Obama's first term -- 29.1% -- than any president since Teddy Roosevelt (for comparison: Gerald Ford is in 2nd place with a return of 16.7%). Average annual real corporate profit growth during Barak Obama's administration -- 77.9% (2nd place: Harding 17.7% -- and the sainted Reagan? 2.3%). If the business community was competent and rational, corporate America would be lining up to reward this administration (but they're as susceptible to the lesser-of-two-evils argument as anyone -- and, of course, many segments of industry are backing Obama or contributing to both sides and expecting to profit no matter which wins).

On the other hand, the average annual real GDP growth per capita under Obama (1.4%) puts him in 11th place between Nixon and Taft (No 1: FDR 8% -- the Depression provided a low starting point and war is good for business; No 3: Johnson 4.3% -- LBJ, not Reagan, Mr. President, is the model every Democratic should follow). When it comes to inflation, the average change in the consumer price index over the past four years is 2.2% (Obama is 12th in this category between Bush II and Roosevelt I; 1st place: Carter 10.1%). Obama is getting a lot of blame for unemployment (and, certainly, the stimulus should have been much, much bigger -- plus "austerity" and "tax cuts" should ever cross his lips), but consider the percentage changes in the unemployment rate under Obama (for all practical purposes 0.0%) and these other chief executives: FDR -32.8%; Clinton -2.9%; Reagan -2.0%; Ike +3.4%; Bush II +3.6%; Hoover 30.6%). So the worst you can say about the high unemployment rate in 2012 is that 1) Obama inherited it from Bush II and 2) he hasn't done enough about it.