I read most of the article by Peter Baker. It’s an Obama love piece. Obama tried to bridge gaps... the GOP closed ranks and fought him... the modern presidency is difficult... Washington is more broken than Obama thought... It is written in that NY Times Review mode which is supposed to make you think that the author realizes how much deeper and complex the subject is than you, the reader, could have possibly imagined.
That's what makes it so interesting. This is the best case Baker can make for Obama, and it's not very helpful.
More cynical readers (i.e., people like us) can see in the various quotes and excuses, a continuing pig-headedness among the Obama team. It's not their fault, they're right, they just didn't spin things the right way, and so on.
That's the stuff of hubris.
Obama could go the Clinton route, and try to triangulate himself to a second term. Or, he could tighten the inner circle and proceed as before -- which is what narcissists do.
We'll have to see what happens after the election. I'm guessing he'll go the narcissist route: circle the wagons, rely on an increasingly tight inner circle, and finally bow out (or be kicked out) after 4 years.
This is pure puff piece for “failure.” Nothing but excuses. This is what the Left is about.
We need to continue to press on against him until he is out of office.