Sub-headline,  Newsweek cover, November 2010:  WHY THE  MODERN  PRESIDENCY  MAY  BE TOO MUCH  FOR  ONE  PERSON TO  HANDLE.

Here we go again. Sixty years ago, while Harry Truman was grappling with post-war problems  at home and a Cold War overseas,  the contrarian Senator William Fulbright — called by Truman “an over-educated Oxford  SOB” — questioned the one-man presidency and suggested the country’s sole hope for survival lay in adopting the British parliamentary system.

Thirty years later the one-man presidency again came into question with Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office micromanaging  both the Tehran hostage rescue mission and his staff’s  use of the White House tennis courts.

Now it’s Barack Obama’s turn, weighed down as he is with the burden of getting Senate confirmation of  the  New START treaty  on  one hand, while writing children’s books with the other.

All of which leads this under-educated White House observer to think that while  the  modern presidency might be  too much to handle for some incumbents,  it isn’t for others.

Or am I simply being querulous in asking why Newsweek editors didn’t raise the same banal question when  Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan were calling the shots in the Oval Office?