Historians Say 11 Presidents Were Better Than Obama

[haymarket]

I would say 20 to 30 years, but pretty much this. It takes time to see how their actions and policies actually shake out.

I would have placed Reagan in the Top 5 at the end of his term, but now after seeing the effects of him putting the so-called "drug war" on steroids, and embracing civil asset forfeiture and how simply wrong that is, he's dropped significantly in my eyes.

I expect Obama to settle in somewhere in the middle of the pack, after some time has passed.

A lot of Obama depends on what follows him and if they can keep improving on the economic progress of his term. If they can do that, he will get much credit for having laid the ground work and making slow but steady progress. On the other hand, if things fall apart, his assessment could go either way depending on how bad things get messed up.

I have always been intrigued with Truman and how he has risen up the ranks over time because when he left he pretty much got out of town without much regret on the part of anyone.

 

[radcen]

A lot of Obama depends on what follows him and if they can keep improving on the economic progress of his term. If they can do that, he will get much credit for having laid the ground work and making slow but steady progress. On the other hand, if things fall apart, his assessment could go either way depending on how bad things get messed up.

I have always been intrigued with Truman and how he has risen up the ranks over time because when he left he pretty much got out of town without much regret on the part of anyone.

I believe that economic factors are way overblown for the Presidency. Much of it is outside their direct doing, and as such we give far more credit (and/or blame) than it deserves. Much of it is simply cyclical and the President gets the good or bad fortune of just being in office when it happens.

 

[haymarket]

I believe that economic factors are way overblown for the Presidency. Much of it is outside their direct doing, and as such we give far more credit (and/or blame) than it deserves. Much of it is simply cyclical and the President gets the good or bad fortune of just being in office when it happens.

There is no doubt that there is some truth in that. However, the difference between greatness and mediocrity is the ability to rise to that challenge and the upmost you can do to improve economic matters. Hoover did not do that while FDR did. And thus the difference in ratings between the two men.

No doubt Eisenhower gets much praise for bing the right man at the right time. One would have believed almost any competent president could have navigated us through the Fifties at a time when we were the economic king the world more or less.

 

[rocket88]

Sounds to me that you grudgingly agree with a great deal of what I was trying to relate about this matter.
Obviously there's disagreement concerning me putting LBJ & Obama at the bottom of the totem pole.

When you put them up against Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, they are not at the bottom. US History did not start in 1950.

 

[Vetplus40]

The powers of the president to solely enact change is highly overrated. Much like a ball coach they get too much credit for the wins and too much blame for the losses.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It was a compromise between pro and anti-slave members of Congress.

Which is irrelevant as to WHY people supported it or didn't.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Sounds to me that you grudgingly agree with a great deal of what I was trying to relate about this matter.

No, I don't agree with your assessment of Buchanan in regards to his tenure as Secretary of State. Polk was basically his own Secretary of State. Also, Buchanan's public service did not make him a good President.

Obviously there's disagreement concerning me putting LBJ & Obama at the bottom of the totem pole.

Correct.

 

[apdst]

Which is irrelevant as to WHY people supported it or didn't.

By itself, that is correct. However, the post I responded to claimed that all of the Founders were pro-slavery.

 

[Carjosse]

.
I don't think he's the greatest, maybe the most famous, surely the tallest but not the greatest. Besides for the habeas corpus stuff
that I don't put into the equation to the extent others do, the fact that the war lasted so so long that the war he launched cost 620,000 dead,
show his biggest flaw his selection of military leaders was an example of an executive failing miserably constantly selecting less than mediocre
men to lead the army of the potomac. Who almost astonishingly didn't win a major battle until 2 years down the road. This despite having almost every
advantage imaginable. Pope, Burnside & Hooker where did Lincoln find these guys, McClellan a grade up on the fore mentioned was too cautious
to lead an army. The south should have been smashed within a year Lincoln had a hand in extending the carnage.

Lincoln was an almost great president for many reasons in or near the top 5 IMO, but you seem to offer him the devotion that a
saint would give to god. He belongs on the $5 bill but not as you say all of them.

Well if you are rating presidents by their military prowess as well then Washington and Madison should be near the bottom.

 

[radcen]

There is no way the US could be the superpower it is today without Wilson.

Same could be said of a lot of Presidents, before and after. Most played a significant part in the development of the country, positive and negative, and successors built on previous things or changed course accordingly. If any major milestone had not happened, it most likely would have affected what successors would have done.

 

[slick]

The man who started America's course towards superpower status? You cannot deny he a fundamental effect on America's place in the world.

Wilson deserves a slot from 10-15 he was a consequential president but the love affair the left has with Wilson comes as a
surprise to me. Wilson was decidedly anti-black, no doubt an intellectual giant but
growing up in the south with a preacher father did dent his views on race!

 

[JC Callender]

I meant fourth, and my point is, that Carter isn't second to last, just above O'Bama, proves beyond the shadow of any doubt, that this list is..... BULL****.

I think Obama probably had the third best image behind Washington and Jefferson. Of course it doesn't make a great president. Lincoln was lanky with often ill fitting clothes, looked awkward on a horse, and had a relatively high pitched voice.