[jyl]

I don't have a strong opinion on long-ago Presidents.

As far as more recent Presidents go, Johnson and Bush W are the worst in my book, primarily for Vietnam and Iraq. Bush 2 has also done a very poor job in Pakistan/Afghanistan. And he also also presided over huge increase in the national debt and deficit, and the development and now flowering of a very serious financial crisis which is likely going to result in the longest economic slowdown/recession since the 1970s. Bush W bears only partial responsibility for the financial crisis, but given his control of Congress for 6 of his 8 years and his total disinterest in balancing revenues with expenditures during that period, he gets a lot of the responsibility for the budget mess.

Carter was not an effective President, but at least he didn't go starting any trillion-dollar wars. I remember him mostly for the oil crisis, but frankly, other than invading Saudi Arabia and seizing their oil fields, I'm not sure what he was supposed to do about it.

Nixon was actually a reasonably effective President, if you forget about the whole illegal domestic spying thing - since you can't excuse that, he gets #3 on the list of "worst recent Presidents". Not that Bush W hasn't done a little illegal domestic spying himself.

Clinton was an effective President in economic terms, helped by luck and the Republican congress. Too bad the Republican congress' interest in fiscal discipline evaporated once they had their own man in the White House.Longest economic expansion, put the federal budget in surplus, brought the national debt down, can't deny those. No significant wars on his watch. But Clinton's personal misdeeds really marred his legacy. So as far as my pocketbook goes, he was the clear best, but I'm won't give him undisputed #1.

Let's see, I barely remember Ford.

Reagan was an effective President in foreign policy, helped by Gorbachev and the USSR's financial meltdown. Domestically, he ballooned the national debt, and not coincidentally Reagan's supply-side doctrines produced the exact same result when trotted out by Bush W.

And finally, Bush Sr looks good compared to his son, expecially in the "finishing wars" department - apparently any President armed with enough bogus intelligence can start a war, but successfully completing it is the trick.

So, my list of recent Presidents, from worst to best:

1 (worst) Bush W
2 Johnson
3 Nixon
4 Carter
5 Ford
6 Bush Sr
. . . and there is quite a gap between 6 and 7 . . .
7 (best) Reagan/Clinton (tied)
. . . funny, my ties for "best" are pretty much ideological opposites - but based on concrete results, I think they've earned it. And I voted for both.

P.S.: On the debate as to whether either of the current candidates has actual "work experience", I'd point out that having run a business etc doesn't seem to actually mean you'll be an effective President. Bush W was a businessman, the "MBA President" as well as governor of a large state, and he's not exactly distinguished himself. Reagan's pre-politics experience was as an actor, and Clinton was a career politician, and in my view they were the best Presidents of recent decades. Nor does military experience mean you'll be a good President. Bush Sr, Carter, and Bush W were all ex-military, and they're fairly far down the list, my list anyway.

I think the Presidency is a terribly hard job, and a very unique job. You have to make difficult judgments dealing with a broad range of issues and interests. No one person's prior career or education is all-encompassing enough to make him an effective President. I think, or surmise, that what you'd really want is a person who can gather and use a wide range of expert advisors and staff/cabinet, and has the instinct and political skills to make it work. That, and a lot of luck.