Hell no. First, he was unqualified for the job. He had no public nor private sector senior managerial experience, never mind chief executive experience, no military experience, no economic experience, only two years as a junior Senator before considering himself qualified to run for president and zero accomplishments in the Illinois legislature.
His economic experience has been lobbying the government for money. He doesn't care where it came from. Money was thrown at projects without consideration of their merit or effectiveness. This is how he runs his Administration. He had two full years to run wild with a Democrat Congress supporting him, with how he THINKS the economy works, before Republicans took the House. All that was done was money was thrown at problems with nothing to show for it.
As part of how he thinks the world works, are "prosperity flows from government", "government leads and the private sector should follow" and "the private sector cannot be trusted with the general welfare of the people" attitudes. This all dove tails with his idea that the country needs "fundamental change". This has always been incompatible with the needs of business, recovery and the economy in general. For example, the Great Depression actually ended in 1933, but a sharp recovery didn't occur until 1940. The application of the same attitudes above was the reason for the delay, as today. American recoveries are supposed to start, sharply, soon after a recession is over. The recession ended over 6 years ago now.
As part of Obama's attitude, he has put a big, fat, regulatory jockey on the back of the economic racehorse (namely business, big and small) and is dumbfounded on why it's not winning races again. Compare this to when economic interests were put first (with less government), as in after the recession of 1981, as normally happens, a sharp recovery did occur and the further economic reforms, including getting government off the backs of business, allowed for a 17 year booming economy.
He has just a naive view of foreign policy. He has had the attitude that the world would be better off without US involvement. Benghazi onward has been a rebuke of that attitude. It has allowed despots to push him around. Terrorism has festered with American withdrawal from a world stage, understating the threats at every turn. He thinks that just because it's the 21st century, it will stop behaving like it's the 19th or 20th. This does not mean that war is the only answer, there is smart foreign policy and even limited military involvement that can change things. He tends to think foreign policy choices are capitulation or war, so he leans toward the prior. This is the mindset that has fueled appeasement attitudes through history. He is the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.
He is dragged, kicking and screaming from minimalist positions. When he does need to go big with military action, he often dangerously undercuts it. He wants so badly a “win” in foreign policy, he will make any deal, no matter how bad, to get a crumb. This opens him up to being a played as a patsy of some foreign despot, like Iran and it’s nuclear ambitions. The same goes with the Bergdahl swap. He wanted so badly an excuse to clear out Gitmo, he ignored the facts that were known about Bergdahl as well as the terrorists being traded. His “Russian Reset” was a joke. Among other things, the State Department (under Hillary) had so little understanding of Russian culture, they couldn’t even spell “reset” right. The desperate narrative that terrorism today is not based in religion is laughable. One cannot solve problems if the source of the problems are ignored. The “Asian Pivot” strategy is ineffectual at best. China, as other despots around the world, sense weakness in US resolve and are exploiting it. Since we’re talking catch phrases, remember “The Summer of Recovery”? He wants to delude himself that he has an effective strategy in fighting ISIS. But then it’s revealed that the “training of Syrian rebels” has resulted in only 5 of them instead of thousands! This for 500 million spent! The recent revelation that intel from the field has been cooked to give a more effective view on the war with ISIS is not surprising at all for an administration that has been in denial of all things bad in foreign policy! Only NOW, is the administration starting to give arms to the “good” Syrian rebels, a move Republicans were screaming at him to do in 2012. Once again, too little, to late.
He has a PollyAnnaish, naïve understanding of energy policy. He is enamored with the idea of green energy running the country but oblivious to the current reality of it. It’s not stopping him though, from shooting the country in the foot to maintain his 3rd grader’s drawing of what the world should be like.
He is getting the reputation as one of the most disengaged presidents. He does not take leadership on issues. He even defends his lack of action by acknowledging how many issues he first heard about via the media. Even if this were the case, I would be embarrassed to admit that, never mind defend my actions with it!
His whole upbringing and principles he has embraced has made him incompatible for the job.
Obama policies get support from those who have little to no understanding of the aspects of those policies nor context.