You see exactly where I am coming from. At the end of the day the President is judged by the condition of our country. If he is a failure that means he failed to deliver on making a better USA. If he does earn the tag of failure then it will more than likely be because our economy didnt improve, wars didnt give the desired outcome, or a bunch of bs issues, laws, etc were passed. We all know there are a bunch of people that make up the government but he gets to take credit for the outcome. He can do the Clinton thing and fail on his own by screwing an ugly chick.. but I was talking about the people hoping he fails to do the things he's promised just so they can say I told you so.
Its obvious that our preceptions of failure are different. To me it doesnt take falling to a third world status to consider his time in office a failure. To me Bush's second term in office was a failure, and not particularly because of what he did. As the President he didnt cause all these people to buy homes they couldnt afford, and produce too many cars while over paying their staff... However, he is the guy that volunteered to take credit for our poor economy.
Edit: So I guess what I am saying is I agree with your logic, but disagree with your opinion on failing.