Perhaps the Flakiest, Least Convincing Piece of Writing I Have Ever Encountered

For the good of the country and the Democratic Party, Obama should renounce second-term ambitions, say Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen:

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

The reason for gridlock, of course, is that Republicans are not interested in negotiating anything, which is why what was a center-right health reform three years ago is now being called a milestone on the road to serfdom. So how would Obama's single-term gambit untie that not? Read on:

Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative.

That's all there is--a simple assertion, backed up by not a scrap of evidence or logic. Try flipping it, and tell me if it is any less logical:

Forgoing another term would render Obama a lame duck. It would grant him much less leverage with Republicans and would make it easier for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president - to be uncooperative.

Goes down just as smooth, wouldn't you say? I don't know if it's disingenuous or just plain stupid, but as a piece of persuasion, you'd have a better chance of convincing me that NFL teams would be better off in the Wing T offense. To its credit, ESPN, unlike the Washington Post, doesn't commission pieces so utterly divorced from reality.