Rate the Presidents, Installment #44: Barack Obama

[JonathanSwift]

Barack Obama, 2009-

Previous Results
Abraham Lincoln: 4.45 Stars
George Washington: 4.42 Stars
Chester A. Arthur: 3.8 Stars
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 3.7 Stars
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 3.67 Stars
Thomas Jefferson: 3.65 Stars
Theodore Roosevelt: 3.59 Stars
James Monroe: 3.57 Stars
John Quincy Adams: 3.5 Stars
Grover Cleveland: 3.46 Stars
Grover Cleveland: 3.46 Stars
John F. Kennedy: 3.43 Stars
Harry S. Truman: 3.38 Stars
James Madison: 3.23 Stars
William Howard Taft: 3.15 Stars
Zachary Taylor: 3.15 Stars
James A. Garfield: 3.14 Stars
Calvin Coolidge: 3.12 Stars
Ulysses S. Grant: 3.06 Stars
Martin Van Buren: 3.04 Stars
George H. W. Bush: 2.95 Stars
Jimmy Carter: 2.86 Stars
James K. Polk: 2.85 Stars
Bill Clinton: 2.79 Stars
Gerald Ford: 2.73 Stars
Ronald Reagan: 2.62 Stars
John Adams: 2.58 Stars
Lyndon B. Johnson: 2.53 Stars
Warren Harding: 2.48 Stars
William McKinley: 2.47 Stars
Andrew Jackson: 2.43 Stars
William Henry Harrison: 2.38 Stars
Woodrow Wilson: 2.36 Stars
Millard Fillmore: 2.33 Stars
Benjamin Harrison: 2.33 Stars
Richard Nixon: 2.29 Stars
Rutherford B. Hayes: 2.15 Stars
Herbert Hoover: 2.11 Stars
John Tyler: 2.11 Stars
Andrew Johnson: 1.72 Stars
George W. Bush: 1.65 Stars
Franklin Pierce: 1.6 Stars
James Buchanan: 1.41 Stars

[YaBoyNY]

5 stars. Easily the greatest president of the past half century.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

✯✯✯✯✯ (not a fascist)

[Phony Moderate]

Clearly a 3.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Mediocire, often waffles and backtracks, has some strange political habits

But, of course, this is in the context of American Presidents and it is extremely clear that Obama is a vast improvement on the vast majority of them and a redeemer of the confused and lousy Democratic Party. Almost certainly the finest, most accomplished PoTUS since, gosh, FDR?

Five stars (and if he scores lower than some idiot like Taft or Polk, well this forum is stupid)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Solid 4 stars.

[PJ]

He has his flaws. I disagree with the expansion of the surveillance state, and the ACA could have been better, but he is definitely one of the better presidents. Introducing a stimulus package instead of going down the road of austerity is a massive plus, the ACA is a significant improvement over pre-Obama healthcare, his executive order on immigration was definitely needed, he's actually crafting a sane policy towards Cuba, the Iran deal etc.. Probably a top five president, partially because of the low bar set by previous presidents. Four stars.

[Clark Kent]

I don't think it's right to judge him until his term is over, but at the moment, I would give him a three.

[CapoteMonster]

3 stars. Obama made some big accomplishments by passin the ACA and advancing Gay rights. He also didn't really shake up the fundamentals of our economy but the nation's had a surprisingly decent recovery coming off the worse crisis since the Great Depression. Obama's had a mixed record on civil liberties IMO due to ignoring the NSA and signing the NDAA among other things but he stop torturing folks. He's had a mixed record on foreign policy since he took too long to withdraw from Iraq and Afghan and made misguided adventure in Libya but he's stood up to Hawks in both parties that would have the world in much worse shape. Adding in his recent successes brings Barack up to 3 stars in my book.

[Blair]

5 stars, just because people are giving him 1 stars without even posting a comment.

The initial optimism of his policies/campaign lead people to frankly be a bit naive-as Bill Maher said Yes We  Can didn't end in 2008, the Tea Party gains in 2010 meant that you couldn't get big reforms passed. His actions on the economy in 2009 were really good, the stimulus showed how you get an economy back on track and bailing out the car industry was a good decision. His foreign policy has been very good for a US president, the deal on Iran and opening with Cuba were two actions that would have seemed impossible in 2008. It's more impressive considering the GOP have pulled every tactic possible (Bibi speech, 47 letter etc) to stop it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2.5 stars

[Antonio the Sixth]

2.5 stars

I think you meant 10.1 stars.

[YaBoyNY]

This poll more than anything shows polarization really clearly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

3 stars. Would be lower, except there are so many bad Presidents that there's some serious grade inflation.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

5 stars and anyone who says otherwise will be banned when I am named moderator because your ignorance will not be tolerated. Serious people only please.

[TDAS04]

5 stars.

[The Last Northerner]

If you give him a 4/5 and gave Nixon a 1/2, you're probably a partisan hack. Off the top of my head, here's a list of crap he's done, mostly foreign policy.

-Lied about withdrawing troops out of Iraq within 18months, actually followed the 'Bush Plan' of 3 years. He actually sent troops back last year.
-Sold weapons and trained the anti-Assad rebels, aka Sunni Terrorists.
-Bombed Libya into 'democracy', allowed Gadaffi to be killed and Libya to plunge into Civil War which...
-strenghtened Jihadists and allowed the attack on Benghazi (Iran Hostage Crisis v2?)
-sold chemical wepaons to the government of Bahrain to crush the protestors
-sent drones to bomb children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. He claimed that he was 'pretty good at killing people', which is true.
-gave weapons to Mexican drug cartels and tried to use 'executive privledge' to cover it up
-refused to talk about the the Trans-Pacific Partnership
-lied about protecting constitutional rights and later extended the Patriot Act by executive order

Of course he has accomplishments as well but I disapprove of his Preisdency.

He is pretty much a Democrat Nixon and earns the same rating - barely 3 stars.... and very close to 2 if the other Presidents weren't so bad.

[ElectionsGuy]

2 stars

[The Last Northerner]

Five stars (and if he scores lower than some idiot like Taft or Polk, well this forum is stupid)

Ask yourself this. Was the United States' position in the world stronger or weaker after a Polk Presidency than before it? And was the US's position stronger or weaker now or before Obama was president (protip: it's weaker). I would have been a Whig if I were born in that time/place, but Polk was anything but an idiot.

[Blair]

If you give him a 4/5 and gave Nixon a 1/2, you're probably a partisan hack. Off the top of my head, here's a list of crap he's done, mostly foreign policy.

-Lied about withdrawing troops out of Iraq within 18months, actually followed the 'Bush Plan' of 3 years. He actually sent troops back last year.
-Sold weapons and trained the anti-Assad rebels, aka Sunni Terrorists.
-Bombed Libya into 'democracy', allowed Gadaffi to be killed and Libya to plunge into Civil War which...
-strenghtened Jihadists and allowed the attack on Benghazi (Iran Hostage Crisis v2?)
-sold chemical wepaons to the government of Bahrain to crush the protestors
-sent drones to bomb children in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. He claimed that he was 'pretty good at killing people', which is true.
-gave weapons to Mexican drug cartels and tried to use 'executive privledge' to cover it up
-refused to talk about the the Trans-Pacific Partnership
-lied about protecting constitutional rights and later extended the Patriot Act by executive order

Of course he has accomplishments as well but I disapprove of his Preisdency.

He is pretty much a Democrat Nixon and earns the same rating - barely 3 stars.... and very close to 2 if the other Presidents weren't so bad.

At the time, he had to act in Libya. The exit plan should have been better done, we should of had UN troops in there and we should have secured the peace. We had a situation were Colonel Gaddaffi was bombing civilians, and protesters. If we had done nothing there would have been widespread slaughter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering it was caused by a french air strike, and a Libyan mob there wasn't much Obama could do apart from droning the entire area to somehow protect Gaddafi

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He sent 500 troops to the Embassy, to stop the Benghazi you seem to be ranting about

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all fairness US gave non lethal aid to moderate Syrian opposition forces.

And the US is much stronger, in 2008 along with Britain it was seen as the drunk abusive world power who would never stop, whilst appearing to have every vice (torture, no health coverage, gun problems, threatening to bomb everyone) Sure Obama hasn't fixed everything, but he's done a pretty good job, much better than you or I

[Antonio the Sixth]

(protip: it's weaker)

no

[The Last Northerner]

At the time, he had to act in Libya. The exit plan should have been better done, we should of had UN troops in there and we should have secured the peace. We had a situation were Colonel Gaddaffi was bombing civilians, and protesters. If we had done nothing there would have been widespread slaughter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering it was caused by a french air strike, and a Libyan mob there wasn't much Obama could do apart from droning the entire area to somehow protect Gaddafi

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He sent 500 troops to the Embassy, to stop the Benghazi you seem to be ranting about

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In all fairness US gave non lethal aid to moderate Syrian opposition forces.

And the US is much stronger, in 2008 along with Britain it was seen as the drunk abusive world power who would never stop, whilst appearing to have every vice (torture, no health coverage, gun problems, threatening to bomb everyone) Sure Obama hasn't fixed everything, but he's done a pretty good job, much better than you or I

He had to act in Libya in the same way the US/UK had to act in Iraq? or how they had to act in Viet Nam? If the world could look the other way during Rwanda, why not here? Because Libya and Syria were left-wing secularish governments who were allied with Iran (the only two Arab nations during the Iran-Iraq War). If Obama can take out a few Iranian allies for a cheap price, he will do it. He sent in John Kerry to support the government of Bahrain (who were using chemical weapons on their people just like Assad) so this isn't about democracy or 'human rights'.

The best course of action would have been no action. Here's what happens when the US intervenes to overthrow left-wing governments in the ME.

1. Leftist gov exists (1950s Iran, Socialist Afghanistan, Baathist Iraq/Syria, Libya)
2. Leftist gov is opposed by right wing Islamists
3. US supports anti-leftist forces, either directly or indirectly (Operation Ajax, selling weapons to 'Afghan freedom fighters' and 'moderate' Syria forces, or just plains attacks them)
4. US tries to prop up artifical non-Jihadists force (Shah, current government of Iraq) or just leaves
5. Islamic forces take over and attack the US (Iran Hostage Crisis, 9/11, Benghazi)

The choice in many parts of the world is not 'democracy' or freedom. It's between guys like Assad and Gadaffi or Islamic forces. The idea of a 'moderate' force in between is a farce. The former crushed the Muslim Brotherhood. The latter has a history of attacks. If you still can't decide which one is worse, then do nothing. Don't attack Iraq, Syria, Libya, or whatever. If the US was not leading the way, I doubt their alllies would have followed.

Of course, I would not expect to change someone's mind when their name is literally Blair.

[The Last Northerner]

(protip: it's weaker)

no

Compare Iraq in 2008 to today. Do the same in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Can you guess which countries Obama played a role in?

Granted, the situation in Iraq is not his fault but he played a role in the others.

[SATW]

2 stars, and I'm being generous. Bad President all, and all.

[Xing]

It should be no surprise to anyone that Republicans are giving him 1-2 stars, and Democrats are giving him 4-5 stars. Overall, I don't agree with everything he's done, but he's helped this country slowly recover from one of the most incompetent presidencies of the past century. He's done a lot (but not enough) for health care, the environment, gay rights, immigration, and the economy. He hasn't been the best when it comes to wire tapping, and I'm not a fan of drone strikes. Four stars.