The Framers constructed a delicate network of interdependencies to insure that there was always a control over ambition and a constraint on outrageousness. No branch of government, no elected official can be too extreme in their action without being reined in by the other branches or at the limit, by the people.
There was once a small period in a chief executive's tenure when that constraint was removed. A congress as well had a brief period where the need to be considerate of the public will was limited. We dubbed them "Lame Duck" and by tradition the incumbents who were ousted and had just a few weeks remaining exercised restraint.
Then "we the people" lost our way and surrendered to emotionalism. We forgot that we have the power in every election to vote the bums out. We were convinced that we were too stupid to make a decision against an incumbent. We needed a no-judgment alternative. We needed term limits. A president can only serve two full terms in his life.
That was unnecessary from 1789 until 1940. Every president until FDR had followed the unselfish lead of George Washington and willingly surrendered power after a maximum of eight years. Then Roosevelt broke the tradition and then shattered it for all time with a fourth election.
With presidential term limits we now face a full four years of unconstrained power. Now we get this:
Trust Me and Tell Vladimir
Have no doubt that Medvedev and Putin know very well the nuances of our electoral system. They don't need to be reminded that a re-elected Obama will be unconstrained.
Why then does the Bamster feel the need to do the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge"? What is he underlining to them with regard to the future? It clearly isn't that he will be tougher in support of American security and economic interests.
Be very afraid.