He is not Franklin D Roosevelt and does not have either the control of Congress that the FDR of 1933 had, nor the unified mandate for radical change which the 1932 election provided that President. The Republican Party decimated by that election was irrelevant because it no longer had sufficient votes in Congress to be worth considering. The New Deal thus enacted preserved the weakness of that party until 1980, but the revived party learned that lesson well and this time they have dropped all pretense to care about the welfare of our citizenry to scratch and claw and try to remain a force despite becoming essentially a regional party.

Yes, there are issues upon which we disagree with the President and his staff often employ tactics which seem to ignore the true state of our politics in 2009. But far more important than any of those things, President Obama demonstrated again this week, particularly with his speech in Oslo, that he is our best president in a long time and may well be one of our greatest. What he can do, as no president has been able to do since that dark day in November, 1963, is what that office is best suited to accomplish when occupied by the right person.

He can inspire and he can lead. His task in doing so is enormous, given the sad state of our politics and our education, and a "press" and public as easily manipulated and distracted as at any time since Dallas ended the life and administration of the last president who assumed a similar role and surely, as that President told us

if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

The modern presidency, the one "invented" by President Roosevelt in 1933, is essentially to serve as the prime catalyst of the legislative agenda and to furnish the leadership to encourage the realization of certain national goals. He is not, as is often suggested by our press and public discourse, some sort of monarch and his involvement in the legislative process is the product of political evolution largely dictated by the circumstances of the 1932 election. It is not something the Constitution envisioned, since under its terms

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

But what the Other Roosevelt called "the bully pulpit," magnified, of course, by the enormous reach of modern communications, has become the most significant of a president's duties. He certainly in not empowered to "run" the country, as our foolish shorthand usually suggests, and given its vast size he can hardly be said to even "run" the executive branch, which is essentially the main task assigned to the President by the Constitution.

Since what the government "does" cannot be the product of one person, it is somewhat unfair to measure a presidency by what is accomplished during his term, but how the president leads the nation, by words, deeds, the power and force of his arguments, the inspiration and motivations he inspires and expresses define what he means to the nation and to history and, if he is really good at what he does, he can sometimes even push his legislative agenda forward to become truly significant. The best at this was the first who really tried to do it: the aforementioned Franklin D Roosevelt.

Yet for many of us, the brief presidency of John F Kennedy also has substantial resonance: not because of actual accomplishments during the two and a half years or so which ended so suddenly, though more things actually came into being than is commonly understood: the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress come to immediate mind as well as the not insignificant achievement of avoiding nuclear war over Cuba. His presidency continues to set a bar of sorts, though, less because of what actually happened, then the inspiration he presented and the aspirations he fostered, some of which turned into legislation enacted in the wake of his murder which changed this country forever and for its indisputable benefit: here, we can mention the Civil and Voting Rights Acts and, of course, medicaid and medicare.

On the day in January, 2008, when it finally became apparent to this confused blogger who was the best candidate my party could nominate, it was as written then, in part, Caroline Kennedy's explanation of her endorsement of Senator Obama as someone who could be "a president who inspire[s] me the way people tell me that my father inspired them" which mas something of a clincher.

Many of us wanted to hear from our next president not what he or she was "going to do" but how we could be inspired as a people to give of ourselves for our country, for our fellow citizens and for the world we live in.

The President we elected has done so repeatedly and beautifully. His speech at West Point was one such example. If you have firm and unchallengeable views about Afghanistan, either because you are against all wars, any war that started while President Bush was in office, or this war under the circumstances, you may not have found the speech to be as compelling as others did. If you have questions about what to do there, the President demonstrated at the very least, his own careful examination of the issue as discussed here last week.

But beyond the West Point speech, or the Philadelphia civil rights speech, or almost all of his noble addresses over the past two years, there was the Oslo speech to accept the Nobel Peace prize this week. The blow dry hair-types and the ideologically driven who join them in cable television yaketty-yakking could not stop cackling from the minute the President's selection was known. Awarding him the prize puts him on the spot, they told us. It presents a nearly impossible task, we were advised. How ridiculous will he and our country look given the President's lack of "actual accomplishments," and that he is awarded this prize despite the two wars being fought by troops for which he is responsible. Most importantly, the more conservative in our midst told us, he is likely to use the occasion, as "librals" always do, to trash and apologize for the United States.

The President left these puny blatherheads so far behind that those who persist on watching them should finally be convinced to turn the channel or simply stare at a blank screen to get more accurate analysis of our public affairs. Almost every paragraph said more than hours of cable talk could.

He has achieved nothing? He overcame the deeply held and still strong prejudices against those who, as he put it, "look different " and was elected to be President of the United States. By assuming it, that office again was occupied by a person to whom

war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

and while it is true that his predecessor could say the very same thing he could not say this with a straight face, or without incurring the wrath of his own political party to which the United Nations represents weakness, and the abdication of sovereignty:

with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

He did not avoid the wars our country is fighting and described them exactly as they fit into the framework he described, the strict limits on when war is justified, ones which do not apply to one of those wars. He as in a foreign country, talking essentially to people from outside our country: not the place to discuss one's political differences with the immediate past President, but yet he said directly, and without rancor or direct apology:

One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

As to the unjustifiable military action which he promised would be and is "winding down" he did not beg forgiveness from anyone:

Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Yes, of course, the echo was there. Of course he recalled for these Europeans his most similar predecessor's words from long ago:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

and yet, in the same, most famous address:

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

So much for this President's lack of achievement. He has resumed the path we were on in the exciting days of 1963, that were interrupted by an assassin's bullet in an atmosphere of pure hatred directed at our young President unchecked by civilized members of the to major political parties. It is Chanukah when we dwell on miracles. This feat borders on that description. This is what Caroline Kennedy was talking about in January, 2008.

And our new President made absolutely sure that his audience, a surly group unhappy that they were not hearing the pablum they apparently expected, understood the essential message of his predecessor. That thinking kind thoughts does not achieve anything but a personal bliss. That hard choices need to be made and the most difficult of subjects not avoided but confronted:

make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world.

In President Kennedy's time it was only adversarial nations with whom we were concerned but his message to them was the same one President Obama delivered in Oslo:

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

as our new President picks up the mantle found in 43 years of rubble he repeated the challenge of the past:

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.

and this is how to remember our fallen President. Just as President Johnson carried forward his murdered running mate's goals to provide for civil and voting rights to those who were denied it, and medical care for those least able to afford it, President Obama reminded the world community of its responsibilities and where we were when our quest was interrupted:

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

Oh yes. This is a great time to be a citizen of this country. We will stop our inexorable slide by again leading the world in the direction of freedom and peace:

The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

and while we are at it, yet another point first made by another President twenty years before President Kennedy:

a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

If you would like the whole list of the freedoms we seek for this world, our man Roosevelt could list them for you, just as he did in 1941:

The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor -- anywhere in the world.

Or, as was said on the Capitol steps on a snowy day in January, 1961:

man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God....

let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed, in all corners of the earth, the command of Isaiah -- to 'undo the heavy burdens, and [to] let the oppressed go free.'/...

Oh yes, the Nobel committee made a very wise decision, whether they know it or not. It was the same wise decision we, the citizens of this country made, in electing this man as President. Yes, this is what we elected him to do and this is what the Nobel committee needed to hear.

It is the message of 1961:

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

and the message of today:

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

There is hope in the world, not just a town in Arkansas. We are the same hopeful people,

tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world

We have shed the yoke of our cynical past at least as we hold ourselves out to the world. We have a long way to go, but our path is clear. Again.

I could not be more proud of our President and our country. It has been a long time.