First of all, I'm no American. Let that be some kind of warning in case of a bias in this post.
To us foreigners, the US seemed to display a nasty "we do whatever we want 'cause we're 'murricka and if you're not with us you're our enemy!" attitude at the end of Bush's term, and we were all quite fed up over here. "Imperialism" was on somebody's lips whenever the US was mentioned. Obama stretched out a hand of dialogue, particularly to the Muslim world, where quite some tension had been built up over the past eight years. For changing the political climate, he got the Nobel Prize (I admit that that committee has made better decisions, but it wasn't entirely undeserved).
To me, it seems like the political scene in the US has been increasingly polarized lately. To us foreigners, it looks like a giant poop-flinging contest between parties, where making sure the other party doesn't rule the country is more important than actually ruling the country. Republicans block Democrat proposals because it would have been an achievement for the Democrats if it went through. Vice versa when the other party holds the majority in the Congress. Though, most of the poop-flinging happens without any politicians present, through independent media (Fox news have gained a notorious reputation overseas for being the worst, for instance). To sum it up, it looks like it's more about the competition than about politics.
In regards of budget spending, could anybody tell me where that power lies in the US? I can't imagine the president being given a sum and told to distribute it fairly, but I suppose he has something to say in the process. Either way, blaming the president only for budget overspending seems a little harsh.
Concerning Afghanistan, I ask people to read up on the conflict before they start commenting. And pulling out of Iraq isn't as simple as calling General McCarthy on the evening of the inauguration day, and tell him that the men can come home. The same could be said about Guantanamo. You don't have other permanent facilities to house this sort of criminals, and you can't just let them go either. Keep going (preferrably without the torture) while negotiating for a solution is the best way to go at the moment, I think.
The Obama adminstration has stepped into one nasty beehive, though: Pakistan. While the country on the paper is an ally of the US, there are strong rumours and various reports suggesting a bond between Pakistani intelligence bureau ISI and Taliban/Al-Qaeda. Either way, the drone attacks are regarded as an insult to Pakistani sovereignity. Imagine if France had sent their planes to bomb suburbs of New York, to take out people they suspect plan terror against the French Embassy. The bin Laden operation was actually per definition a short-lived invasion, because there were soldiers on the ground unauthorized by Pakistani government. Not exactly a way for the US to be popular over there, though it might have stopped significant threats to global security.
Though, Obama doesn't sit in the Oval Office doing war in the Middle East like it was some strategy game. I can imagine that he gets a proposal to "bomb target X to kill terrorist Y, but we need your authorization to do it" slapped on his desk whenever the strategists have found a target. All he does is reading and signing it, very few such operations would be his idea from the get go.
All in all, then, I'd say he's an okay president. Remember, he doesn't run the country alone, there are people in the system preventing him from doing whatever he want (for better or for worse, depending on the situation and your point of view), and it is hard to run a country. Things also tend to take time. Please keep that in mind.
