Barack Obama is among best presidents ever

[chuck]

I found this article. It left me speechless.

Barack Obama is among best presidents ever - George W. Bush not so much, say scholars in Siena poll (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/01/2010-07-01_barack_obama_is_among_best_presidents_ever__geo rge_w_bush_not_so_much_say_schola.html) - By Corky Siemaszko

FTA:
George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be.

That's the verdict of 238 of the nation's leading presidential scholars...

[...snip...]

Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.

[TantricSoul]

It would certainly be interesting to see the actual criteria used to rank each president in these categories ... for example did the scholars use actual IQ scores to rank intelligence?

Personally, just as I would say it seems premature to be bashing Obama ... it seems premature to place him among our best.

[denuseri]

It is no surprise to me...after all, when each new Ceasar came to power many were the sycophants who hearlded his coming with august laurels that had yet to be earned.

Laurels like the Noblel Peace Prize have allready been awarded him without precedent, why does this surprise one?

[Thorne]

It is no surprise to me...after all, when each new Ceasar came to power many were the sycophants who hearlded his coming with august laurels that had yet to be earned.

In those times it was generally necessary to supply plenty of praise for the new Caesar. Failing to do so could be hazardous to your health.

It seems those times just may be coming back.

[Lion]

Personally, just as I would say it seems premature to be bashing Obama ... it seems premature to place him among our best.



This

[FrgnSwtc]

It is no surprise to me...after all, when each new Ceasar came to power many were the sycophants who hearlded his coming with august laurels that had yet to be earned.

Laurels like the Noblel Peace Prize have allready been awarded him without precedent, why does this surprise one?

No more thank you button... so this "Thank you for this useful post" ;)

Tantric is right too... I haven't seen yet a good outcome from judging anything or anyone too quickly. The unearned laurels come from a nation's deep desire to overcome the more conservative years and believe that it can turn and adapt to a world that's in desperate need of coexistence.

[DuncanONeil]

"Rankings Over Time

In recent years surveys of presidential greatness have become more common and more complex. Nevertheless, the top- and bottom-ranked presidents have remained a fairly stable group, with the rest moving up or down in rank in the middle. Presidents who appear to have moved up include Eisenhower and Reagan, while Kennedy has moved down in some surveys.

Do Surveys Reflect the Truth?

Critics of the surveys are quick to note that such rankings are biased, depending on who is doing the ranking. And how exactly is greatness defined? Presidents who served during a time of war or acute economic crisis would have a certain advantage over those whose terms were relatively peaceful and prosperous. Also, the passage of time can have an effect on how a president is ranked, given that new information or analysis can change the way we view a particular chief " (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html)


I found this article. It left me speechless.

Barack Obama is among best presidents ever - George W. Bush not so much, say scholars in Siena poll (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/01/2010-07-01_barack_obama_is_among_best_presidents_ever__geo rge_w_bush_not_so_much_say_schola.html) - By Corky Siemaszko

FTA:

[chuck]

In my opening post, I linked an article that I disagreed with. I posted it wondering if anyone could justify the contention of the 238 leading presidential scholars or if others were as surprised by their contention as I was. Of course, I didn't defend or try to rationalize the article.

This morning I found an article showing the other side of the coin. If nothing else, the headline is as definitive as that of the OP. This assessment has my sympathy and I will address any concerns, weaknesses, or criticisms of the article. I will not respond to generalizations or labels such as "silly" unless the poster is willing to address and explain what he or she thinks is "silly." Yes, I know it's biased. "Biased" means that it points to arguments, evidence, views, etc. that shed a favorable light on the point being made often at the expense of giving no weight to similar items that are detrimental to that point. It does not mean that it is wrong or in error. Just stating that it is biased is not a valid argument to invalidate the article, just a reason to question it... and that questioning is a good thing.

The Dumbest President...EVER! (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_dumbest_presidentever.html) - By Stuart Schwartz

FTA:
Barack Obama is the dumbest president...EVER.

That is a reasonable conclusion once you've assessed the first nineteen months of his presidency and compared it to the definition of intelligence put together by researchers in the field. Although the mainstream media have spent the last two years proclaiming Obama "super-smart" or, as Newsweek put it, "sort of God" in stature and brilliance, the 44th president of the United States is poised to surpass our 15th president, James Buchanan. Jr., as the White House occupant who has made the dumbest moves while in office. With two years left, he is on the fast track to last.

One of the many links provided in the above article goes to this propaganda video. I have to admit, I'm sympathetic to its message and thought I'd share it as well.
http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/video/oil-spill-timeline-1/

[DuncanONeil]

Actually anybody that jumps on this article using the argument of bias is themselves fairly stupid. The article is an opinion piece! As such there is bound to be a bias. Then the governing aspect would be is the article a rant, or reasoned?


In my opening post, I linked an article that I disagreed with. I posted it wondering if anyone could justify the contention of the 238 leading presidential scholars or if others were as surprised by their contention as I was. Of course, I didn't defend or try to rationalize the article.

This morning I found an article showing the other side of the coin. If nothing else, the headline is as definitive as that of the OP. This assessment has my sympathy and I will address any concerns, weaknesses, or criticisms of the article. I will not respond to generalizations or labels such as "silly" unless the poster is willing to address and explain what he or she thinks is "silly." Yes, I know it's biased. "Biased" means that it points to arguments, evidence, views, etc. that shed a favorable light on the point being made often at the expense of giving no weight to similar items that are detrimental to that point. It does not mean that it is wrong or in error. Just stating that it is biased is not a valid argument to invalidate the article, just a reason to question it... and that questioning is a good thing.

The Dumbest President...EVER! (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_dumbest_presidentever.html) - By Stuart Schwartz

FTA:

One of the many links provided in the above article goes to this propaganda video. I have to admit, I'm sympathetic to its message and thought I'd share it as well.
http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/video/oil-spill-timeline-1/

[VaAugusta]

Hm. Well I read that article, and I think I'll just quote one part of it:

But intelligence is as intelligence does, as Forest Gump might remind us. Harvard has produced more than its share of great men and women, but it has also produced the Unabomber, Barney Frank, and Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling...and now, the next James Buchanan.

For those who don't really want to read the whole thing, just reading that quote will basically sum up the entire article... random references to people who have nothing to do with Obama. And some particular fascination to James Buchanan.

[mkemse]

To soon to tell he has not even been in office 1/2 a term yet

[DuncanONeil]

To soon to tell he has not even been in office 1/2 a term yet


I quite agree with that! However, Much of what he is doing is at the very least not presidential. That can be chalked up to inexperience, something pointed out during the first year to this campaign. Some is based on wishful thinking, the somewhat overbearing attitude that he knows better than most everyone else the proper course of action.

Then there is the point that no one from the left gave Bush any slack when they decided to personally castigate him while in office. At least Obama does not have to suffer that.