I'm with DougJ on this. It's okay to present an argument in favor of the president without prefacing it with a lengthy cover-your-ass speech about the things you disagree with -- apologizing for his failures.
The "cool" wing of the progressive movement seems to require a preemptive apology before any complimentary words about the president or else you're instantly laughed off as an animatronic Obamabot torn from the same cloth as the zealots who screamed "MUSHROOM CLOUDS!! SUPPORT BUSH OR DIE!!" But guess what? Even if you do qualify your support with an acknowledgment of mistakes, most of the more hard-lined cool kids will still think you're an Obot or whatever.
The truth is that arguing in support of the president's politics and policies is motivated by a near-term review of the positive ratio of Obama administration successes versus failures, cast against the backdrop of historical lessons from, specifically though not exclusively, the 1999-2000 era when a familiar kind of apathetic disillusionment arose during the Al Gore campaign -- disillusionment that led too many otherwise smart people to support Ralph Nader or to stay home out of protest or lack of enthusiasm for Gore.
Everyone with a realistic view of the the Obama administration knows what's what -- for better or worse. At this stage in the proceedings, with another pivotal election around the corner, there's nothing wrong (and everything right) with making a strong case, without apologies, for re-electing the chief executive who's responsible for all of those better items on the list. And there are many.