More than two terms.

[dazzleman]

I think that Clinton is the only president post-Roosevelt who would have run for a third term in the absence of the 22nd amendment.

Be that as it may, the 22nd amendment has in reality been a godsend to any of the presidents we think of as having the potential for a third term.  There is something to be said for exiting at the right time.

The 22nd amendment did not apply to Truman, but he decided against running again because his popularity by 1952 was so low that he stood little chance of winning.

Eisenhower probably would not have run again in 1960 in any case.  He had had a heart attack and a stroke, and his interest in the job was fading, particularly after the U-2 crisis.  A third term would probably not have worked out well for him, and would have left his reputation diminished.

The same goes for Reagan.  I doubt at his age (77 in 1988) that he would have run for a third term, and it would have been a disaster for him if he had won a third term, for reasons of his health and the downturn in the economy.  He went out on top, rather than staying on the stage too long, and I think he would have done so regardless of the 22nd amendment.

Clinton would have run for a third term without the 22nd amendment, in my opinion, and probably would have narrowly won.  But he would not have performed well in the post-Sept. 11 atmosphere.  His appeal, and people's tolerance for his sleaziness, was dependent upon him keeping the party going.  He's not a man who can lead a nation in a time of war or sacrifice.  So he was better served by leaving office when he did.

I think that in all but the most extreme circumstances, two terms is enough.