What this statement says more than anything about Obama is how he measures his success. 

"The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president - with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln - just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we've got a lot more work to do."

Let's set aside Abe, he freed the slaves, even Obama knows he can't compete with that.

But Johnson (I'm assuming he means Lyndon, not Andrew) and FDR?  What do these two have in common?  He did mention foreign as well as domestic policy in his statement but these two couldn't be further apart foreign policy wise.  FDR led us to victory in WW II, LBJ got us buried in the quagmire of Vietnam due to his indecision -- get in it to win it or get the hell out -- LBJ did neither, he voted 'present', sound familiar?

Domestic policy on the other hand, is another issue altogether.  One can easily make the case that FDR (the New Deal) and LBJ (the Great Society) were responsible for the largest expansions of government, entitlements, and generally 'progressive' (God I hate that word when used in this context) statist policy in the history of the country.

With Obama-care, he is right up there with them, and this, sadly, in his mind, is a grand accomplishment.  Bill and Hillary couldn't pull it off.

So that's where he's coming from, and using these metrics it's hard to argue with him.