(Photo by Shotgun Spratling)

In the Washington Post, H.W. Brands points out the dismal history of presidents winning reelection in tough economic times. It's so dismal, in fact, Franklin D. Roosevelt is the only president to actually achieve such a feat.

What does this mean for Obama?

Hope, Brands says.

"Despite an unemployment rate above 15 percent - compared with less than 10 percent today - Roosevelt won 61 percent of the popular vote and swamped Republican Alf Landon of Kansas by the widest Electoral College margin in American history: 523 to 8."

But FDR had some key advantages like having complete Democratic control of Congress. And even the Democrats who didn't like everything FDR put forth, "[W]hen Roosevelt asked something of Congress, he usually got it."

This is something Obama won't have going into 2012.

With the new GOP-controlled House, "For the rest of [Obama's] term, he will find himself in a far different position than the first-term Roosevelt: He will be in opposition to Congress, rather than in charge of it."

So could Obama turn things around in the rest of his term by pulling an FDR?

Probably not.

To rule like FDR, Obama would need to strike with a bigger stick.

FDR showed strength from the beginning of his first term blaming Republicans and Wall Street for the Great Depression. He struck the same chord in his bid for reelection.

He "boxed with bare knuckles" and had a fighting mentality that differs from Obama's calm temperament.

Obama supporters are eager for him to buck up and challenge his opponents much like FDR did when he said, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me…And I welcome their hatred."

Obama's efforts with bipartisanship may have disenchanted his core constituencies.

And there's little proof from Obama's tenure to believe he's going to become a whip cracker in the next two years.

So maybe he should pull a Clinton.

But what if he's incapable?

Politico takes a closer look at the revamp Obama would need to make to stage a comeback like that of Clinton in 1994.

And it doesn't look easy.

Though some analysts are pointing to Clinton's huge losses in Congress in 1994, and drawing parallels to Obama's, his "humiliation" on Tuesday may not be the "blessing in disguise" they describe for his reelection.

What appears to be overlooked is how hard Clinton had to fight to succeed:

"It was a searing experience for him and his inner circle at both the personal and political levels. It came only after a stark — and intensely humbling — effort by Clinton to overhaul his White House team, recalibrate his ideological ambitions and rethink his basic assumptions of how to be an effective president.

And even then, the outcome was a tenuous thing. Clinton caught a series of lucky breaks from events and from his own enemies. And the comeback won him only 49 percent of the vote: The man widely regarded as one of the most talented Democratic politicians of modern history never commanded a majority in a national election."

Obama's hope for the future may only reside in a complete recalibration of his temperament--much like Clinton in 1994.

So can he? Or more importantly, will he?

All eyes will be on Obama's summit meeting with the GOP and Democratic leaders on Nov. 18.

Will he emerge as the King of Compromise or the Fighter in Chief?