I'm not saying Barrack Obama will go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time but history likely, especially if he wins reelection, will remember him way above your beloved George W. Bush, that folksy, self-made Texas oilman from Yale and Kennebunkport. You know as well as I do what an abject failure and fraud he was; that he and your bought-and-paid-for Republican Party wiped their asses with the Constitution, handed out favors of key government positions to former industry execs like handing out crack to addicts (who in turn neutered the powers of those branches that worked for our best interests), lied us into an unnecessary war in Iraq (Valerie Plame, etc) and oversaw the worst financial collapse in this country in generations -- that's the very condensed version.
But you all act like he never existed. Better to blame all the current ills of this country and society on the current Democrat (the fact that he's black doesn't help -- or hurt, depending on your perspective) than ever have to admit that your team was at fault. You'd rather be obstructive now, to the point of running us to the edge of the cliff, if not off it, than admit your part in supporting the real train wreck.
So you'd rather elect a phony like Mitt Romney -- someone who'd say anything (AND HAS) to get elected and never take responsibility, someone who'd rather gut a company for its millions than actually work at saving and growing the company, someone who'd rather not pay his fair share, someone who routinely bets against the United States (again, the short version of his failings) -- than support the current President, who, albeit has made mistakes, is on OUR side. You'd rather continue to support the prostituting of our governmental system than dig in and help and fix it. Why? Just so your team can win?
Who really loves this country anyway?
While not exactly on point, I like this quote from the above-linked Vanity Fair article so much that I've returned to add it here. It is illustrative of the big picture:
"The term “financialization” describes two interlocking processes: a disproportionate growth in a country’s deregulated financial sector, relative to the rest of the economy, and the rising importance of financial activities with a focus on financial returns among industrial and other non-financial corporations, often at the expense of real innovation and productivity.
Some see the rising influence of finance and financial models in epochal terms. Author of Financialization and the U.S. Economy Özgür Orhangazi summarizes academic literature that sees financialization “as one of the indicators of the decline of the hegemonic power”: imperial Venice, Genoa, Holland, and Britain all saw their power rise on the back of productive industrial capitalism, followed by domination by the financial sector, which eventually began to cannibalize the productive sector in pursuit of financial returns—a process that ended in weakness and collapse."