No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
That's the first section of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The call to repeal it has nothing to do with the current occupant of the office of President of the United States.
Evidence for that can be found in the fact that repeal has been proposed over the last 22 years by Republican and Democratic legislators, most recently, for the ninth time by Rep. Jose E. Serrano of New York, who does happen to be a Democrat. But, the rationale for undoing a piece of legislation that was probably well-intentioned has nothing to do with individual persons with either good or bad intentions. Rather, it has to do with unintended consequences.
Although most people probably assume that, since the amendment to limit the persons elected to the Presidency to two full terms or six years, in the event someone ascends to the position during someone else's term, was proposed after FDR had been elected to four, the change was based on experience. Just as likely is that it came along as a companion piece to the Federal Tort Claims Act, also passed in 1947, while Harry Truman was President, which effectively terminated "sovereign immunity" for all public officials and made them personally accountable via civil litigation for the negative or hurtful consequences of their decisions. That is, if legislators were to be called to account, perhaps it seemed only fair that the powers of the President be limited, as well.
What seems indisputable is that neither of these 1947 Congressional pieces of legislation had the intended effect. Congress responded to the potential for law suits based on arbitrary or capricious decisions that might favor or disappoint special interests by simply shedding as many duties and obligations under the umbrella concept of "privatization" delegating the awarding of contracts for goods and services to "faceless bureaucrats" even as they managed to include contract specifications in appropriations bills to virtually guarantee that only one applicant would qualify.
The term-limited Presidents, on the other hand, discovered that compromise in the first could assure a second term of unfettered dictatorial powers, especially if the Congress could be bribed to go along, even as the Congress discovered that an impotent dictator makes a handy scape goat for running the country into the economic gutter. As if that wasn't bad enough, the practical impotence of the term-limited POTUS confronting a do-nothing Congress prompted the invocation of war powers as the key to Presidential autonomy and authority. Which, ironically, also hasn't had the anticipated consequence.
That the POTUS is now suggesting that the Authorization to Use Military Force in the war on terror be repealed tells us that "authorization" does not, in fact, come with any real authority. What the AUMF does is tell the POTUS to employ the military, regardless of whether or not it's even appropriate. Giving "authority" to someone who's already empowered by the Constitution to protect the nation is an effort to restrict him further, as was/is the two term limit.
So, I think it can be fairly argued that the Congress, confronted by the prospect of having to account, not just at the ballot box to a severely restricted electorate (1947 was well before the civil rights era), but to potentially disaffected petitioners for the "rights" (land, water, mineral, trade, etc.) Congressmen had been doling out since the beginning of the nation, determined that somebody else would have to pay, namely the executive, whose underlings in the various agencies had exposed the malfeasance that prompted the FTCA in the first place.
In any event, the sovereign immunity of the President effectively came to an end with the resignation of Richard Nixon. The impeachment of Bill Clinton added nothing new, but it did reveal that the term limit rendered the President unaccountable during the second term. The same is true of George W. Bush. Short of him being charged and tried for a criminal act, there is no venue in which the citizens can inform the POTUS that s/he done wrong. And that means that we have no mechanism for passing judgement on certain acts. See, it's not about any particular person.
Yes, repealing legislation is hard, as DADT and DOMA both attest. However, while those pieces of legislation, which only affected a small percentage of the population, might well have been frivolously agreed to by people who expect laws to go unenforced, rendering the POTUS unaccountable to the whole nation was a bad idea that, like trying to restrict what people drink, out to be reversed.
The extent to which our modern access to information reins in the power of public and private corporate office holders is actually quite amazing. The 22nd Amendment points in the opposite direction and is an anachronism in that sense. We could say term limits have outlived their time and should be left behind.