The good news for Democrats is that over the next four years two of the country’s most popular people may be waiting in the wings to speak out against Donald Trump. The bad news is that the pair in question is Barack and Michelle Obama. Though their party may look upon them as possessing the unique stature and personal approval ratings to challenge the new president, the Obamas would prefer to get out of the spotlight after eight years of living in the national goldfish bowl on Pennsylvania Avenue. They also understand the perils of expending their political capital in fighting unequal battles against the man who will possess the power they’re about to give up. But the speculation about what role the first couple will play in the effort to take on Trump illustrates not only their dilemma but also the Democrats’ plight as a leaderless party with no national standard-bearers except for the Obamas.

There is no guidebook for being an ex-president. Each former resident of the White House must make it up as they go along. That’s as true in the 21st century as it was in the 19th. Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush has studiously avoided the temptation to be dragged into partisan battles. The 43rd president has taken the position that ex-presidents should remove themselves from the political wars. That decision may stem in part from Bush’s unenviable position in 2009 as a disliked figure who handed off to Obama an economic crisis as well as two unpopular wars. But his silence has been eloquent and principled in that it expressed his respect for the office of the presidency, whether or not he supported the person who occupied it. It was also the pattern followed by his father after his failed re-election effort in 1992.

That’s not the same role played by Bill Clinton in the years since he left the White House. Clinton has been an active political player, but most of his public efforts have been devoted to either feathering his personal nest via his Foundation or supporting his wife’s ultimately failed ambitions to win the office he held.

President Obama paid lip service to the notion of supporting the new commander-in-chief as private citizens. He has, however, also left open the possibility of diving back into the political maelstrom if he feels he is needed to speak up on a specific issue. And with Trump in the White House determined to undo his main domestic (ObamaCare) and foreign policy (Iran nuclear deal) legacy achievements, the temptation to do so on a regular basis will be considerable.

But the more Obama allows himself to become merely one more voice, albeit a particularly prestigious one, taking issue with Trump, the less impact he will have. The magic of the presidency, even for an ex-president, is immense. Obama has ambitions about becoming a player on the world stage in his post-presidency (an idea that has to scare Israel), a stance that would be undermined if he spends too much time being dragged into partisan disputes or playing the referee in intra-party squabbles between its increasingly dominant left wing and the centrists who embraced Hillary Clinton.

But the desire for Obama to speak is the real problem for Democrats. With the Clintons now retired to the sidelines for good, the party has no national leaders worth the name. People like Vice President Biden or Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have name recognition and a following, but they lack the clout or the appeal of the Obamas.

What this means is that Democrats must now suffer as the Republicans did from 2009 to 2016 as they struggled to find a voice in a party that was without a head and sometimes divided along ideological lines. That’s a problem that will only be fixed once they pick someone to challenge Trump (assuming he runs for re-election) in 2020. Until then, Democrats will continue to look to the Obamas for leadership—a situation that is far from ideal for either the party or the ex-president.