The only thing that might be generic about the kenyan/indonesian commie usurper is that he is a POS!
Thats what the article said, he’s a generic dem.
There does seem to be some semantics or sophistry at work in the article, though. If the author is saying that President Obama has performed without any special talents or graces or abilities, then the conclusion would be that he's been below average, not that he's doing pretty well, for, even if we were to accept the author's questionable judgment that Obama hasn't shown any disastrous flaws or failings, don't we expect more political sense and ability than the president has demonstrated?
I will say this, though: sooner or later we were going to have a Northern Democrat in the White House. Sooner or later we were going to elect someone from a big city, somebody whose background was more liberal or left-wing than Bill Clinton's, and someone who could claim to be African American. Such a person might be more qualified than Barack Obama -- almost certainly would be more competent -- but wouldn't differ terribly much on the issues. A quarter or a third or half the voters are in that camp and sooner or later one of them would make it to the top.
When seeing and smelling dog poo, you can always recognize it for what it is. The same goes with presidents. Besides Obama, the worst presidents during my adult lifetime have been: Carter (worst), LBJ, and Nixon. There is really no comparison of these low performers and Obama. He is in a category all his own. Abysmal isn’t even close. Perhaps if we had elected Goering during WWII?