What rank does Obama have?

[yougo1000]

Like is he your 5th favorite President.

He is my 35th favorite.

[Derek]

He is the worst person to ever live. He's last in everything.

[Yelnoc]

He is the worst person to ever live. He's last in everything.

Sometimes I get the sense that you are one of those far left trolls that pretend to be conservative to discredit actual conservatives.  Because what you are saying is that Barack Obama is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

[useful idiot]

There are presidents I like and dislike, I don't rank favorites. If I were to rank him historically, were he to die today, he'd probably be somewhere between 30 and 35, edging just ahead of George W. Bush.

[Frink]

I don't judge Presidents before their first term is up.

[Bo]

He'd be 18th on my list, just ahead of Clinton.

[sentinel]

I don't judge Presidents before their first term is up.

[pbrower2a]

Like is he your 5th favorite President.

He is my 35th favorite.

Here are the top ones on my list:

1. Washington (defined what the Presidency is)
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Truman
7. Eisenhower

Bottom (W.H. Harrison ignored; Cleveland only once, Obama "incomplete"):

41. Buchanan
40. A. Johnson
39. Fillmore
38. Dubya
37. Harding
36. Coolidge
35. Grant


The first four are arguably impossible to outdo. Nobody will ever redefine the functions of the Presidency except to its harm. We may never go through the dangerous times associated with Lincoln of FDR again. There's no cheap land to buy anywhere that could expand America by the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.  Obama would have to be a major reformer of American life to be the new TR. He would need to put America through a one-hand-tied-behind-its-back (by necessity) war not of its choosing to be Truman. Eisenhower gets credit for the Interstate Highway System, for enforcing Supreme Court decisions on civil rights, and letting Senator Joseph McCarthy implode. Obama may admire Lincoln, but he surely doesn't want the destructiveness and cost of a Civil War.

The bottom? It's hard to see how anyone could do the damage that Buchanan did unless one were a pathologically-corrupt and dishonest person. Andrew Johnson was singularly unfit to be President. Pierce and Fillmore were the definitive non-entities as President except that Fillmore did some really-bad stuff. In my book, Coolidge gets culpability for enforcing reparations harshly against Germany to the effect that his behavior may have contributed to the rise of the Antichrist in Germany, and for doing nothing to mitigate the effects of a corrupt bubble economy that imploded on Herbert Hoover.

Still, Coolidge was above-board in his dealings with power and wasn't corrupt; Dubya was corrupt and allowed a coterie of power-hungry people to exercise power often in ways contrary to the Constitution.   Harding and Grant trusted the wrong people. 

So far I see more strengths than weaknesses in the Obama Presidency. Most of the characteristics that mark better-than average Presidents apply to him. He has a legislative agenda of major reforms, and so far he has been successful in getting them enacted. Fault them if you wish, but he will have a memorable Presidency. His strength as a speaker is strong -- he is at least as effective as Ronald Reagan at that. Foreign policy? He has caused fewer problems than he has solved. He has been scrupulous in the exercise of power. TARP may have been counter-intuitive to many, but it seems to have worked.

[Derek]

I don't judge Presidents before their first term is up.

good thinking ^^

[Derek]

I put Obama 42 or 43 for the record either just ahead of or behind Jimmy Carter.

[California8429]

He is the worst person to ever live. He's last in everything.

Sometimes I get the sense that you are one of those far left trolls that pretend to be conservative to discredit actual conservatives.  Because what you are saying is that Barack Obama is worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

sometimes..

[Yelnoc]

Like is he your 5th favorite President.

He is my 35th favorite.

Here are the top ones on my list:

1. Washington (defined what the Presidency is)
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Jefferson
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Truman
7. Eisenhower

Bottom (W.H. Harrison ignored; Cleveland only once, Obama "incomplete"):

41. Buchanan
40. A. Johnson
39. Fillmore
38. Dubya
37. Harding
36. Coolidge
35. Grant


The first four are arguably impossible to outdo. Nobody will ever redefine the functions of the Presidency except to its harm. We may never go through the dangerous times associated with Lincoln of FDR again. There's no cheap land to buy anywhere that could expand America by the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.  Obama would have to be a major reformer of American life to be the new TR. He would need to put America through a one-hand-tied-behind-its-back (by necessity) war not of its choosing to be Truman. Eisenhower gets credit for the Interstate Highway System, for enforcing Supreme Court decisions on civil rights, and letting Senator Joseph McCarthy implode. Obama may admire Lincoln, but he surely doesn't want the destructiveness and cost of a Civil War.

The bottom? It's hard to see how anyone could do the damage that Buchanan did unless one were a pathologically-corrupt and dishonest person. Andrew Johnson was singularly unfit to be President. Pierce and Fillmore were the definitive non-entities as President except that Fillmore did some really-bad stuff. In my book, Coolidge gets culpability for enforcing reparations harshly against Germany to the effect that his behavior may have contributed to the rise of the Antichrist in Germany, and for doing nothing to mitigate the effects of a corrupt bubble economy that imploded on Herbert Hoover.

Still, Coolidge was above-board in his dealings with power and wasn't corrupt; Dubya was corrupt and allowed a coterie of power-hungry people to exercise power often in ways contrary to the Constitution.   Harding and Grant trusted the wrong people. 

So far I see more strengths than weaknesses in the Obama Presidency. Most of the characteristics that mark better-than average Presidents apply to him. He has a legislative agenda of major reforms, and so far he has been successful in getting them enacted. Fault them if you wish, but he will have a memorable Presidency. His strength as a speaker is strong -- he is at least as effective as Ronald Reagan at that. Foreign policy? He has caused fewer problems than he has solved. He has been scrupulous in the exercise of power. TARP may have been counter-intuitive to many, but it seems to have worked.

I agree with your top 7, and most of your bottom.  However, it's hard for me to see how George W. Bush is worse than Grant.  At least it can be said that most of the disasters of the Bush Presidency weren't of his doing, unlike Grant's terms.

[WillK]

I agree with your top 7, and most of your bottom.  However, it's hard for me to see how George W. Bush is worse than Grant.  At least it can be said that most of the disasters of the Bush Presidency weren't of his doing, unlike Grant's terms.

This doesn’t make sense to me.

Can you identify disasters of Grant’s term that were his own doing?
 
Also the Bush disasters seem to me to be of his doing.  For example, what Bush is criticized for regarding Katrina wasn’t that a hurricane happened but it was the way Bush responded to it.

[WillK]

There's no cheap land to buy anywhere that could expand America by the scale of the Louisiana Purchase. 

If this is your reason for putting Jefferson so high, why isnt Andrew Johnson in the top 10 for purchasing Alaska?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What really bad stuff did Fillmore do?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haven’t all presidents at times trusted the wrong people?

[jimsnaza]

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. FDR
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Eisenhower
7. Lyndon Johnson
8. Harry Truman
9. James Polk
10. Barack Obama

I think Obama could move up to 6 or 7. History will be kind, like it was to Truman or LBJ.

[Hash]

He is the worst person to ever live. He's last in everything.

Worse than, say, Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot? k sure.

[pbrower2a]

There's no cheap land to buy anywhere that could expand America by the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.  

If this is your reason for putting Jefferson so high, why isnt Andrew Johnson in the top 10 for purchasing Alaska?

Alaska was practically worthless for thirty years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What really bad stuff did Fillmore do?[/quote]

Fugitive Slave Act. Running on the bigoted (anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic) Know-Nothing ticket in 1856.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With Harding and Grant, the problem was that their cabinets were full of untrustworthy people who used public office as a means of enriching themselves.  

[WillK]

There's no cheap land to buy anywhere that could expand America by the scale of the Louisiana Purchase.  

If this is your reason for putting Jefferson so high, why isnt Andrew Johnson in the top 10 for purchasing Alaska?

Alaska was practically worthless for thirty years. 

So?  I ask the question again: If the scale of the Louisiana purchase, much of which wasnt worth anything for years,  is the sole justification for putting Jefferson in the top rank, why not put Johnson next to him for Alaska?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fugitive Slave Act.

Running on the bigoted (anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic) Know-Nothing ticket in 1856.

[/quote]

Fugitive Slave Act was an act of Congress, not an executive order; though it was part of an important sectional compromise achieved under Filmore. 

His appearance in the 1856 election was after his presidency -- I thought you knew of some really bad stuff he did as president; plus doesn't seem any worse that several other candidates running on bigoted ticket at other times.

Is that really what you consider bad stuff?  Compared to what has been done by a lot of other President's, seems weak justification for putting him at the bottom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Full of?  Really?  I can think of a couple individuals at most.

[Derek]

1. Reagan
2. Washington
3. Jefferson
4. Eisenhower
5. Nixon (yes Nixon)

[yougo1000]

1. Lincoln
2. Kennedy (Family Member)
3. Reagan
4. Jefferson.
5. Washington

[Inmate Trump]

1. Washington
2. Lincoln
3. Reagan
4. FDR
5. T. Roosevelt
6. Kennedy
7. Wilson
8. Polk
9. LBJ
10. Jefferson
11. Eisenhower
12. McKinley
13. Ford
14. Bush I
15. Clinton
16. Arthur
17. B. Harrison
18. Monroe
19. Cleveland
20. Hayes
21. Garfield
22. Coolidge
23. Truman
24. Jackson
25. Madison
26. Nixon
27. JQ Adams
28. Hoover
29. Taylor
30. Taft
31. Adams
32. Obama
33. Bush II
34. Carter
35. Fillmore
36. Grant
37. Harding
38. Van Buren
39. W.H. Harrison
40. A. Johnson
41. Buchanan
42. Tyler
43. Pierce

[The Mikado]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What really bad stuff did Fillmore do?

You could argue that signing the Compromise of 1850 was a worse option than just letting the crisis come to a head then as Zachary Taylor had planned on doing.  That said, that's a completely hindsight-based case. 

[WillK]

You could argue that signing the Compromise of 1850 was a worse option than just letting the crisis come to a head then as Zachary Taylor had planned on doing.  That said, that's a completely hindsight-based case. 

I suppose it depends on what one views as a good outcome.  If you think the union breaking up is a good outcome, then I suppose letting the crisis come to a head would be a better thing than achieving a compromise settlement.

[Derek]

You could argue that signing the Compromise of 1850 was a worse option than just letting the crisis come to a head then as Zachary Taylor had planned on doing.  That said, that's a completely hindsight-based case. 

I suppose it depends on what one views as a good outcome.  If you think the union breaking up is a good outcome, then I suppose letting the crisis come to a head would be a better thing than achieving a compromise settlement.

There are an amount of ppl who would rather see the US divided up into sections. I'd like to see how well the blue states prospered without red states to pay for their welfare.

[Ronnie]

3. Reagan
4. FDR

I never thought I would see the day where someone loved both FDR and Reagan.

Anyway, I don't have very good first impressions of Obama, but it's way too early for me to actually rank him.  Ask me after he is out of office.