I am Canadian:

It seems to me that many people want to see Obama fail.

So much hope when he was elected - so much opposition after he was sworn in.

Is it because he is black?

Not really (because he's black)...as the saying goes here (in Flanders) "tall trees catch the most wind". Take it from me, and I should know (it took more than 550 days to get a "sorta government" set up here) whoever steps up to the plate, gets shot down by all around him/her.

It's not so much Obama they're after, but the "prez".

And, granted, he did make progress, and some progress is not to the liking of "some"...and it is a first that there's a black president. I for one did like his style. Nice-n-relaxed. Better than the wax dummies in our "government" (if you could call it that)...

At least "something" moved, here, nothing ever will...

Thor

May be part of it. Overall I don't think his approval ratings are much different than other presidents of recent memory.

Other factors:

1. He came in as we were sinking into recession and hasn't met many of the expectations (realistic or not, mostly not) that people had. We were headed for tough times no matter who won in '08.

2. Many on the left feel betrayed or at least disappointed that he turned out to be pretty moderate and business-as-usual once he got in office.

3. Most on the right already considered him the embodiment of all that is wrong with the system, regardless of his race.

4. It's primary season and the Republicans are more visible right now in the news. Part of the White House strategy is no doubt to stay above the fray and let them bruise each other.

I want to see him fail to turn the USA into an imitation of socialist (economically declining) Europe. I want to see him fail to get reelected.

No, it is absolutely not because he is (half) black. The real racists are those who voted for him just to prove they weren't racists.

I wish Obama had succeeded in cleaning up the mess Bush made by invading Iraq. The blank check the media gave him was a tremendous advantage compared to the unconditional criticism the media heaped on Bush. But wasting lives and money for three more years before embracing total defeat is not cleaning up the mess in any sense. Once we removed Saddam, it was a very difficult to prevent a Shiite theocracy that will destabilize the whole region. Except for that outcome, we could have overthrown Saddam and then left immediately. We have now failed in accomplishing what was the only reason for ever staying.

I wish unemployment were really back down to only slightly higher than it was when Obama took office as the (Democrat civil service) Bureau of Labor Statistics claims. But all my friends family, neighbors, etc. job hunting tell me otherwise. The empty parking lots in the office parks tell me otherwise. Reading details about the way the unemployment rate is calculated tells me non anecdotally otherwise. (The total number of long term unemployed has gone way up, while the BLS has stopped counting the long term unemployed in the official unemployment statistics).

That is the heart of Obama's politics of blame. But it is a lie. The media had already exaggerated the severity of the recession caused by the housing bust, and as the economy was regaining connection to reality, the recession was ending.
The massive unemployment has been primarily caused by federal regulators running wild, and secondarily caused by looming tax increases. Decisions that drive the economy are made based on predictions of the future. Our current tax rates are reasonable, but the economy is held back by all the rates that have seemed to be about to increase since Obama took office. The economy needs some stability and predictability in tax policy.

"socialism" means that the workers control the means of production, while "capitalism" means another class controls the means of production.

Is that what you mean?

I was talking more about: "... government of the people, by the people, for the people..."

In this respect, it seems that the US is more like: "... government of the dollar, by the dollar, for the dollar..."

Is "Democratic Capitalism" even possible?

In the real world, "socialism" means demagogues pretending to speak for "the people" steal from every possible source of productivity.

Throughout most of history, the poor were the basic source of all productivity and wealth. At very best, the rich made some organizational contribution along the way to taking wealth by stealing it from the workers (through most of history, mainly farmers).

But modern economies don't function that way. Investment combined with the work of a small middle class minority is the basis for almost all productivity, the basic source of wealth for everyone. The poor are mostly non contributors riding the work of the middle class, while most of the rich are those like Obama and Soros who get rich the old fashion way by stealing from the productive rather than by investing and creating wealth. The 1% are conning you into keeping them on top by asking for continued and greater power to "steal from the rich", which they will always use to steal from the productive.

Stealing from the productive was a cruel but functional economic system when almost everyone was productive and only a few were stealing from them. Modern socialism tries to turn that pyramid upside down and steal from a productive minority to support everyone else and to keep those in control of that theft process riding on top in incredible style. The problem is that destroys any motivation to invest or even to work. Europe is failing economically because the whole idea just doesn't function.
With absurd natural resource levels per capita as Canada has, you can afford a stupider system and still come out OK. With small and very uniform total population (as Scandinavian counties used to have and to a lessor extent Canada) you can afford the inherently corrupting aspects of socialist government without getting the massive corruption. A large diverse population as the USA has accelerates the corruption (Solyndra and all its bigger but less publicized cousins) that is inherent in socialism.

When productivity picks the winners and losers in business, productivity goes up. When Obama picks the winners and losers in business Democrat campaign contributions go up and productivity goes down.

I'm just trying to understand why America seems to be locked in a stale-mate. It seems so sad to me - a 'can do' nation appears to be spinning its wheels, locked in frustration.

I think people are more upset because he hasn't improve the economy. The economy is not a overnight fix.

I laugh at the candidates who are running for the oval office claiming they have a way to solve the economy. The economy is unpredictable and complex.

Obama has a least one thing under his notch, the end of Osama bin Laden.

I don't think any president of the US can make the blind bit of difference to the policies of the oligarchs who rule the country. The same goes for most "Democracies" nowadays.
I think Bill Hicks had it spot on when he talked about presidents who want to make changes being taken into a smoke-filled room and shown a film shot from a grassy knoll in Dallas Texas.

Being black is part of it. Hyper-partisanship in politics is most of the remainder. Lack of spine on his part (and on the Democrats' part in general) is the rest of the remainder.

So his vision of a non-partisan government appealed to the voters but makes him raw meat to the Republicans? Pity.

To me, this premise supposes that his blackness was enough of a non-issue for him to get elected, but suddenly - and in most sinister fashion - the country turned on him upon discovering, "Hey! We elected a black guy."

Since the tone of my voice can't be detected over typed word, I'll mention that I am being sarcastic.

Because many of us (and all of us, as a country) are f%$#*$@ broke (read: too much debt), massively obese (expensive healthcare for unhealthy people, exacerbated by incredible medical billing), and getting further sunk by unsustainable government programs (across the board; all included; I'm not picking on a particular program).

Throw a (mostly) rotten two-party system into the mix, and you've got spinning wheels, locked in frustration.

That's just me. Feel free to disagree.

That's absurd! His vision of non-partisan government was he makes all the decisions and the Republicans go along without comment.

He has consistently refused to talk to Republicans. He has promised to veto ANY Republican bill (he hasn't had to because Reid prevented the Senate from ever voting on any Republican bill).

He talked about non-partisan and about being a uniter, but he has been the most extreme divider in the country's history.

So, does this mean that he does have a spine, but, he is a liar?

Well, if this is true, he fooled me. I was so hopeful when I watched the campaign. I'm sorry that it is all turning out so badly.

Would a 3 party system be better? Is that allowed under their constitution?

I was amazed at how little Obama's being a black racist has affected the political discourse in this country.
You might recall, a black professor (after breaking into a house that the police had no way of knowing was his own) refused to give identification, lied to the police and was verbally abusive and uncooperative with the police officer, escalating to shouting curses and racist insults at the officer in front of a gathering crowd. He was arrested for disturbing the peace.
The black chief of police didn't wait for any information, but immediately condemned the white police officer, because in racist America blacks don't have the same opportunities as whites.
The black mayor didn't wait for any information, but immediately condemned the white police officer, because in racist America blacks don't have the same opportunities as whites.
The black governor of Massachusetts didn't wait for any information, but immediately condemned the white police officer, because in racist America blacks don't have the same opportunities as whites.
The black President of the United States didn't wait for any information, but immediately condemned the white police officer, because in racist America blacks don't have the same opportunities as whites.
Those men: the professor, chief of police, mayor, governor and president are all racists and have all had affirmative action careers in which they had far better opportunities than equally skilled whites.
For several weeks after that incident, I heard anti-black racist comments in places and from people that would never before have said such things. It is impossible not to get angry at the racist behavior of those men and very difficult to keep that anger at what are actually a few evil men from turning into anger at their race.
Since Obama and Holder have demonstrated extreme racism in several other incidents, I was surprised and impressed that the racist backlash quickly calmed down and so many people do understand those individual men are evil, but that says nothing about the race they belong to.