A number of economists were recently polled, and the results found that they believe Obama's economic policies are mostly in the "fair" and "poor" categories. The primary criticisms by the economists are that Obama spent too much time focusing on health care instead of the economy, and that Obama's stimulus program didn't go far enough to help.
The article also discusses the economists' views on the GOP candidates and on the Fed. They overwhelmingly support Romney, which is understandable since he has the most experience in business and economics. They also seem to like what Ben Bernanke did to respond to the recession. However, there were those who said that Bernanke went too far with lowering interest to 0.
I tend to agree with a lot of this article, and also would like to point out that Obama's policies in economics are not being criticized, but that his not going far enough in his policies is. Obama compromised his plans to get the support he needed, and ended up with a stimulus package that was a fraction of what he wanted. According to these economists, Obama's original plan would have been better.
When it comes to the HCR law, I agree that it took too much time, but I also think it was neccessary to some extent. We needed to fix the system. Obama should have devoted more time to the economy, perhaps, but he also understood that there were other issues, and wanted to fix those too.
So, Obama may be getting poor ratings from economists, but it's not because his policies are bad. It's because he did not go far enough. That's an interesting perspective, since most of the conservative pundits say that the POTUS has done nothing right so far. I often wonder which economists the conservatives listen to, since there seems to be a good number that believe that Obama is doing a good job. If their entire economic platform is coming from the likes of Grover Norquist, that would certainly explain a lot.