Is Obama Really Ulysses S. Grant?

That is the premise of James Pinkerton's article in U.S. News & World Report.

"President Obama might be modeling his presidency after Franklin D. Roosevelt's," writes Pinkerton, "but thus far, he is shaping up less like the 32nd president and more like the 18th, Ulysses S. Grant."

I have to admit, I stopped and puzzled over that statement for awhile.

The heart of the argument can be found in the headline: "Wall Street Crowd Makes His Administration Like Grant's."

And Pinkerton writes of Grant's limited economic vision, thanks to "railroad men and land speculators," and says Obama is restricted by the "once–and–future Wall Streeters who dominate his economic team." Different wardrobes but similar personalities.

The "Grant precedent," as Pinkerton calls it, "isn't all bad." In spite of scandals, Pinkerton writes, Grant won another four years, although the Panic of 1873 struck early in his second term.

To be honest, I wondered if the comparison to Grant might have been based on something else — like the fact that Grant was very supportive of civil rights for a 19th century man. His administration also investigated acts of domestic terrorism committed by the Ku Klux Klan.

But those things have nothing to do with Pinkerton's comparison. Instead, Pinkerton says, "Obama, like Grant before him, is easy prey for the finance–minded sharpies infesting his administration. Nobody's accusing him of any personal foibles, but few accused Grant of personal wrongdoing, either."

I think the sentence contains some assertions — or possible assertions — that do not necessarily go hand in hand. The primary conclusion is that Obama is "easy prey for the finance–minded sharpies infesting his administration." That asks you to conclude that (a) Obama is easy prey for finance–minded sharpies and (b) those "finance–minded sharpies" infest the administration, which is something of a trick since many of the positions at Treasury have not been filled yet.

It isn't necessary to reach both conclusions for the assertion to work — but it helps if you do.

Anyway, when those positions at Treasury are filled, will Obama be vulnerable to the kind of manipulation that Pinkerton suggests?

What do you think? Is the comparison valid?