Carter won office in 1976 under very similar circumstances to those facing Obama, D-Ill., now. Global oil prices had risen to unprecedented levels, a combination of economic stagnation and soaring inflation had hit the U.S. domestic economy, and Americans were tired of two terms of Republican presidents marked by an ultimately futile and costly war halfway round the world -- though the two Republican presidents had inherited it from their Democratic predecessor -- and by an unprecedented political scandal: the Watergate affair that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

However, four years later, inflation and other economic woes were worse than ever. The federal budget deficit had grown, though it was about to soar to unprecedented heights under Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan. And the United States had been humiliated and weakened in the Middle East by the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the ensuing hostage crisis.

The nightmare haunting a President Obama this coming January, if he wins the November election, will be that he starts out hopeful and popular like Carter, but runs into catastrophic economic and national security problems within a few years, as Carter did.

A President Obama, therefore, would be well advised not to focus obsessively on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as Carter and President Bill Clinton, another Democrat, did.

Too much micromanaging and personal commitment of time and study by any incumbent president in the endless and tortuous Israeli-Palestinian issues can only inevitably distract the U.S. chief executive from other serious problems around the Middle East. Carter took the Iranian Revolution too lightly until it was too late, and Clinton and his second-term national security team made the same mistake in failing to recognize the deadly challenge posed by the rise of al-Qaida.

However, a President Obama could enter office with global oil prices dropping to some degree because global oil speculators would not expect him to be as likely to attack Iran -- driving prices further sky high -- as they think President George W. Bush and GOP front-runner Sen. John McCain of Arizona might.

A President Obama, with his Kenyan ancestry and his expressed interest in engaging African nations, would likely be far more proactive in dealing with major African oil-producing nations and exporters, especially Nigeria, than Bush has shown to be. A serious U.S. commitment to work with the Lagos government to improve energy security in the Niger Delta could have a profound short-term influence in dropping global oil prices.

Also, Obama at the very least would start out with a clean slate in dealing with Saudi Arabia in trying to persuade it to further increase oil production and exports. Bush's determination to invade Iraq and implement his policies there, without taking any significant input from the Saudis, cost him badly in soaring oil prices and the Saudi refusal to heed his pleas in boosting production years later.

For all his rhetoric against the Western oil companies, a President Obama would have to realize bringing the Saudis on board as a serious partner and listening to what they have to say would be crucial to three of his primary goals: bringing down oil prices, stabilizing Iraq and dealing with Iran.

If Obama could learn and apply these lessons, he would have a much better chance of contrasting Carter's disastrous single term with a triumphal re-election of his own in 2012.