Comments on: Experts rank U.S. presidents: FDR first, Clinton 13th, Obama 15th, G.W. Bush 39th

By: kylie

kylie — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:56:01 +0000

Lincoln needs to be second. Washington needs to be first. Nixon needs to be second to last and Obama needs to be last. The people who did this ranking only put obama as #15 because they were afraid people would call them racist…

By: john

john — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:48:17 +0000

obama is the worst president of all time

By: GrayAntiMatter

GrayAntiMatter — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:41:11 +0000

Wow. A survey of academics and self proclaimed intellectuals that stacks all modern Republican Presidents at the bottom. Who could have seen that result coming?

By: William

William — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 20:56:14 +0000

I’m not racist but I have to say,JUST BECAUSE OBAMA IS BLACK DOESN’T MAKE HIM A GOOD PRESIDENT. I believe he isn’t doing enough to help the economy. Just wait, in the future the “out-of-control” debt will bite us in the a*s. ask yourself this question, if someone borrowed money from you and didn’t pay it back, how would you feel and what measures would you go to, get the money back. As the old saying goes, MONEY DOES NOT GROW OFF TREES. Since there’s a 2 term limit Obama is going to be even lazier than before for the next four years.——–
——————————————–
##### Any people reading this under (lets say) 40, your not going to have a social security check because that is one more thing they can cut to pay off the debt. The average life expectancy is close to 80, so that’s probably the age you will die which means that’s the age you will work to.
Now I don’t have to worry about that because I’m 53 now, and I will still have a social security check.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:12:24 +0000

Nixon should be rated way higher. He started detente, ended the draft, and was probably the best foreign relations president of the 20th century.

If it weren’t for Watergate, the cold war would have probably ended much earlier and if you honestly believe that what Nixon was impeached for is unique to the actions of his administration, then maybe you should actually read up on what he did–spied on the Democratic reelection committee–and then compare it mentally to some of the other scandals of the other administrations, such as Iran Contra, Whitewater, and Teapot Dome.

The only reason that Watergate blew up was because two reporters wanted a Pullitzer, and a CIA agent had a grudge.

By: fireboy2798

fireboy2798 — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 04:43:23 +0000

I think that obama gets a good place in the poll and they are probably basing it off of his first term and also I don’t see George W. douschbag Busch up there do I. He sucked

By: Ally

Ally — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:54:35 +0000

I’m sorry, but this list was definitely composed by left leaning, liberals. I think the people who ranked the presidents should have been a list of equal politics (i.e. 5 republicans/ 5 democrats).

By: kweeedo96

kweeedo96 — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:39:26 +0000

Someone posted a note on my Comment that it needs moderation. I’m not editing a word posted. You allowed one responder to call Obama a monkey and a baboon, but did not mark the word “moderation” on his/her comment, therefore I responded in kind. I’ve decided to stop backing down against mean-spirited people and those comments against Obama were evil. Criticize him but do not call him names.

By: kweeedo96

kweeedo96 — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:01:20 +0000

As a late responder, I can’t help but note the evil racist comments on Obama. I often wonder, what makes some white men so hateful against black men, is it fear?
Regardless of what Obama promised during his campaign, presidents always find a different situation once in office, but we ll know that. However, there’s not one comment on GW Bush’s devastation of the economy. Yet we expect Obama to fix it in 4yrs against an exceptionally hostile republican congress who have done everything in their power to trip him.
While I disagree with some rankings, the experts who ranked the presidents have the data to support their decisions.

By: john cuckti

john cuckti — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:48:00 +0000

Agreed about Obama. I’m a supporter of his, but letting history be the judge is always preferable from the historians’ standpoint. Wilson was a virulent racist who watched “The Birth of a Nation” wiith the Supreme Court” in the White House in 1915 and romanticized about the ‘good old days.’ For that alone he should be significantl marked down.

By: Geronimo Jones

Geronimo Jones — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 02:28:59 +0000

I completely agree with JB. Reaganomics is the best thing that has happened to our economy in the last 40 years and Obama, while it’s still too early to tell, will probably go down as one of the worst handlers of the economy. Since when is mooching off of the government helpful to the economy? And I do think Calvin Coolidge, although lacking enthusiasm, deserves to be higher; after all, he was Harding’s successor and the chief executive during the Roaring Twenties, and the result of Black Tuesday was not his fault, it was the consumers’ fault. But the bottom five is in the order that it should be.

By: ILMTR

ILMTR — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:14:48 +0000

George W. Bush should be ranked #100. Meaning 56 more presidents will need to be elected to fill in the blanks between #43 and him. When we get to when 101 presidents have served, re-rank GWB to #101. By far, the worst president in US history, and the most ignorant.

By: per-olov

per-olov — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:05:30 +0000

No the list is not balanced. The top ten are mostly presidents from past times. Thats the treatment och the presidents of the present times which are so ludcrious. The impeached Clinton at the top while the fairly honurable Harding hulks in the bottom. Please show me the “balance in this.

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:10:28 +0000

Everyone needs to remove their political views from this – this list is very balanced – top 10 3 dems,3 rep,3 rep-dem, and Washington. Bottom 10 4 rep, 3 dem, 3 whig. Very balanced. The hard part is removing one’s political beliefs when rating and going from facts. I believe it is too early to rate a sitting President, because we cannot tell what is going to happen. As far as ranking Reagan higher, he had a lot of failures, but overcame them with charisma which is to his credit. Clinton falls into this category as well. I just needed to comment on the arguing that this is liberal when the numbers show it isn’t, when something goes against what you believe in, say you don’t believe in it, but don’t think that you are more of an expert or belittle the people who participated. That is very commonplace in the country today, and that is sad – we are all better than that.

By: jaime rubin

jaime rubin — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:03:54 +0000

Whoops, I meant to say Harrison was 35th and not 25th.

By: jaime rubin

jaime rubin — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:02:34 +0000

Here’s a cynical reason for ranking WH Harrison and Garfield: Because they did nothing during their short-lived presidencies, they would rank below the presidents who accomplished positive things and above the ones who pursued harmful policies. So then, why would Garfield(27th) rank 8 positions higher than Harrison(25th)? Maybe because Garfield selected a running mate/successor (Arthur 24th) who was ranked higher than Harrison’s successor(Tyler 37th).

By: K C

K C — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:56:01 +0000

This list is absurdly leftist. I’m among those that are flabbergasted Obama is ranked #15. You MUST be joking! Let’s see, he’s been in office now for 3+ years and we have the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. (That figure escalates even more if you include the number of Americans who are underemployed or have simply quit looking for work.) We also have more people on food stamps and welfare than we’ve had since the Depression. Less anyone tries to argue Obama’s problems were merely “inherited” please remember his campaign promises about unemployment rates and consider he’s had almost four years and the country has gotten much, much worse — not better. Furthermore, his handling of foreign relations has been deplorable. He’s basically thrown Netanyahu under the bus and led Israel, our ally, to the wolves. The ONLY thing of significant merit Obama has done has been to take out Bin Laden.

I’m also surprised Climton was ranked so high. To shamefully put our nation through impeachment proceedings, be convicted of felony perjury, have his law license revoked, etc. is disgraceful.

As for Reagan, I stand with others who say he’s underrated. Many seem to have forgotten Reagan’s involvement in bringing an end to the Cold War. Furthermore, his “Reaganomics” policies were indeed effective because he recognized the economy is more prosperous if those who actually employ others are given incentives to continue to do so. If you punish them, they’ll merely quit hiring and unemployment rates will rise. Obama’s “redistribution of wealth” (1998 Loyola speech) is socialism pure and simple and is in direct contrast with American ideology/the “American Dream”. FDR, LBJ and Wilson’s social programs have led to our entitled/government-support-me/rob from the rich and give to the poor mentality that is crippling our nation and producing a slovenly group of citizens.

By: Bridgette

Bridgette — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 22:27:58 +0000

PLEASE explain to me how it is that Obama ranks ahead of John Adams???……REALLY???………What were these guys smoking???

By: BH

BH — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:18:31 +0000

@BCM: Teddy Roosevelt was a Progessive.

By: BCM

BCM — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 03:05:34 +0000

Very poor ranking. Washington is #1 and it’s not even close. He led the foundation of the nation. Teddy R ranked higher. Is one of the criteria number of speeches on film or something?

Also Clinton and Obama over Regan? Obama may not even be re elected due to his miserable failure of a first term and complete lack of leadership accrosx parties and Clinton while certainly the best in the past two decades, doesn’t have a resume of accomplishments like Ronald.

Progressivism is a socialist movement the majority is not interested in. I encorage progressives to relocate to China, Russia or eastern europe where you are more apt to find the equal outcome society you seek.

By: MJB

MJB — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 23:10:40 +0000

The first five seem right, although one could argue about the order. Within the next five, I question whether James Madison & James Monroe deserve those spots.

In addition, I would lower Dwight Eisenhower’s ranking (three recessions in eight years!) and raise Lyndon Johnson’s, despite the Vietnam War.

Ronald Reagan, who did so much to turn America away from its progressive path, needs a lower ranking as does G.H.W. Bush. I am glad to see G.W. Bush almost at the bottom–indeed, I suspect that history may eventually view him as worse than Franklin Pierce.

I agree that ranking William Harrison & James Buchanan is rather pointless. Considering that President Obama is about to end his first term, however, I can see including him in the ranking, with the understanding that all is fungible. That Obama was left with the worst situation in America since 1932 helps to explain his level of approval. If he got a congress to help him, then Obama could, in his second term, become the greatest president since F.D.R.

By: Sci

Sci — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:13:45 +0000

If one researches who created the list, it’s validity is zero. Actually, it’s just more of the liberals creating smoke and mirrors to trash Reagan and Bush — history will show that G.W. was a great president right up there with Reagan — the list is hogwash…

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 29 May 2012 11:09:00 +0000

I was surprised to see William Henry Harrison and James Abram Garfield ranked. Between them, they served less than eight months. In most earlier rankings they were not included, for this reason.

I also agree with other commentators that the sitting presidents, and those whose service is within the last twenty-five years, should not be ranked.

Otherwise, I am sorry to see that so many comments focus on Obama, Reagan and FDR. These comments are less a reflection on historical perspective than they are a continuing battle over current affairs.

By: Konrad

Konrad — Sun, 20 May 2012 23:26:44 +0000

Notice how bottom heavy the republicans and conservatives are in the poll. This would show to me a very heavy predisposition to not like them which would in general make this entire list a red Herring. Since I find most history scholars to be severely liberal that would account fort his action. As far as Andrew Johnson goes he had to follow Lincoln in a very difficult time and since he was a Southerner he was completely hamstrung and little he could do as President. This shows the absolute stupidity of this group of left wing history revisionists. Simple fact Reagan has won several gallop polls to be re-elected. One might also want to know that when the Abraham Lincoln took office Republicans were considered liberals.

By: History in the buff

History in the buff — Thu, 17 May 2012 22:33:25 +0000

I feel since William H. Harrison was in office for 30 days before his death, he should have an incomplete at 43.

By: Izzy

Izzy — Wed, 16 May 2012 20:35:35 +0000

Actually, FDR deserves to be #1! So you idiots, this article is very precise. If it weren’t for FDR the Great Depression would have continued and you would not have the rights you have today!

By: American

American — Wed, 16 May 2012 01:33:30 +0000

Reagan is right where he should be. He tripled the national debt. And created trickle down economics. Reaganism. Which clearly failed. Plus the Contra scandal and furthermore he did nothing special to help end the cold war. He stayed the course as he should have and as every president did before him as well.

By: daniel

daniel — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:09:53 +0000

You must just hate Bush!!!

Objectively speaking Bush did a lot more than Millard Fillmore and the other 8 you ranked before him…. He did better than Hoover, and few others too. Obama even though he got Osama, he has added 5 trillion to the national debt. As much as Bush did in 8 he has done in four and doesn’t care at all about that issues which is the issue that will soon destroy this country.

By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 00:32:08 +0000

bill van vugt,ah,but he was for fair taxation as Pres. Obama notes; but still supply-side is woo. And he did cooperate,but would he have had he been the Senate Majority Leader. May be yes.
Yet, Iran Contra for him and Bush and violating FISA and approving torture,including renditions, for Cheney-Shrub, mark the height of Reupli-con illegality. Both are colossal stains on them whereas Johnson’s and Clinton’s impeachments are minor stains on them!
Shrub and Cheney boast of their revelry in torture,and who can lead the charge to have them yet punished for that? Shrub won’t take credit for his stupid tax cuts!

By: Quora

Quora — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:07:46 +0000

Who is the most underrated American president?…

Neil Russo beat me to the punch; I would have said Ike also. Using this list; http://rockrivertimes.com/2010/07/02/experts-rank-u-s-presidents-fdr-first-clinton-13th-obama-15th-g-w-bush-39th/ I am going with Gerald Ford. Ford is listed at 28; which mea…

By: bill van vugt

bill van vugt — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:55:33 +0000

i am surprised to see reagan rated so high in view of the results of deregulation and supply side economics.

By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 05:46:30 +0000

EICT earned income tax credit,not EFC

By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 05:42:01 +0000

Typos- his guerillas and others! hikes in
If possible, please use the corrections.

By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 05:38:16 +0000

Reagan sold weapons to the enemy to get money to supply his guerrialas who killed priests and others1 Iran -Contra was impeachable and grounds thus for dismissal from office, and history notes this gargantuan failing!
LBJ should rank amongst the greatest presidents domestically! Even Nixon was for using government- OSHA, EPA, EFC so that in that respect, he should rank higher than Reagan who gave us that huge defitict for no reason with that huge tax cut, made up in part by the greatest tax hike in history- the Reagan-Dole one of 1983, with twelve more hikes on seven years and by the unnecessary military build-up as scholars knew that the Soviet Union was floundering. The monies for that build-up could have gone more economically to a civilian stimulus.
Clinton should move ahead of Ike!

By: DAVE

DAVE — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:10:15 +0000

When ranking performance a predefined criteria is required for judging.
“More than 200 presidential scholars ranked the 43 U.S. presidents on six personal attributes (background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks), five forms of ability (compromising, executive, leadership, communication and overall) and eight areas of accomplishment, including economic, other domestic affairs, working with Congress and their party, appointing Supreme Court justices and members of the executive branch, avoiding mistakes and foreign policy.”
Seems to me as a former political scientist, a good ranking and I concur that Obama should not be ranked yet but I find him exceptionally competent.
TH should note that Obama in interviews, debates and town hall meeting is smooth and eloquent without notes or teleprompters. Other commenters should judge on the criteria and not on political talking points concerning political philosophy and electability.

By: Brian Katcher

Brian Katcher — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:28:52 +0000

Let’s face it, conservatives will always think Reagan got shafted, liberals will think Obama needs to be higher. What I want to know is how did they rank the short timers, Harrison and Garfield? All they did was die.

By: JB

JB — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:11:37 +0000

I agree with Ferris in that name calling is not needed. Just listen to Obama and it becomes quite clear of his goals to desecrate the Constitution(which he swore to uphold)Name calling pales in comparison to his thoughts and words. I also agree with the brainwashing – how much longer will it take for the rest of us to drink the Kool-Aid and believe that Government is the only answer for all of our needs and WANTS? No more pride or work ethic, to strive to get ahead, to live the American dream just to give it all away. Think about it – when the rich run out of money – then what? Can you spell SOCIALISM?

But I digress – the initial reply was to be based on the rankings of presidents which having Obama higher than Reagan is ludicrous. Reagan brought us a great sense of pride in being American, a great strength in our country. The Cold war ending (although not entirely his doing)was a noteworthy accomplishment because it affected foreign as well domestic economic policy. That in itself would propel him well ahead of Obama.
In closing it appears almost anyone can call themselves a “presidential scholar” as the 200 in this survey did just that. So as one presidential scholar to another – MOVE RONALD REAGAN UP THE LIST!!!!!

By: Ferris

Ferris — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:17:18 +0000

A baboon? It’s incredible how narrow sighted and brain washed our nation has become. Obama is not the problem, it’s blind people like you that is crippling our country.

By: TH

TH — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:06:37 +0000

Obama, what a joker–he can’t speak without his teleprompters—he is the monkey speaking for his masters telling him what to say—-he is a baboon

By: JP

JP — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 21:02:51 +0000

Obama will move into the Top 10 as the years go by. Reagan belongs more towards Bush.

By: Brandon Reid

Brandon Reid — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:24:22 +0000

James K. Polk is ranked No. 12 on the list.

By: alicia

alicia — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:55:38 +0000

Where is James Polk on this list? 11th President of the US? HELLO

By: Lou

Lou — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 19:47:35 +0000

Modern Presidents should be nowhere near this list, starting with Ronald Reagan. We cannot historically rank Presidents until they are part of history. A twenty-five year wait period should be mandatory before Presidents are allowed to be included in the rankings.

By: addison Double

addison Double — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:24:01 +0000

No current President should be included on a list like that.

Ronald Reagan is at 18th because at least 17 US Presidents were better than he was. PERIOD. Can we say Altzenhiemer’s? Get over it.

By: Applesauce

Applesauce — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:43:37 +0000

we should certainly wit for obama’s term to end before we rank him, however so far he just being a carter and not doing anything. how is Reagan not in the top 10?

By: Cindy

Cindy — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:55:12 +0000

Agree it’s too early to rate Obama, but Truman should move up. He entered the presidency at an extremely difficult time, and made momentous decisions that affected the world and the US’s future course. He did what he thought was right–no matter the effect on his personal popularity or poll numbers. How refreshing that would be now.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:33:25 +0000

Excellent article and scholarly research,

By: Wredd

Wredd — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:28:44 +0000

Wow, what a bunch of bias idiots! They have no clue about US history. FDR was a great man who I admire and his leadership in WW2 was excellent, but really?? #1? He should at least be #5 or worse considering his New Deal was a complete and utter failure.

By: Jmor

Jmor — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:59:49 +0000

Whaaatttt???? You’ve got to be kidding me!!!! Obama ranked #15 for??? for what? After two whole years in office, he has outranked Ronald Reagan? This is an insult to a person’s intelligence.

Franklin tax your pants off Roosevelt is #1? This was a waste of 5 minutes I will never get back…

By: Rory S. Augustson

Rory S. Augustson — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:26:17 +0000

No idea why Obama would be on here. Have no problem with him. However, should wait until end of term before judging him high or low.