General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsrock
(13,218 posts)I think that's a perfectly sensible and sane position.
Tanuki
(14,920 posts)[img][/img]
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)The approved yardstick for measuring president Obama is marked "W Bush, Clinton, HW Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover, Coolidge".
I would say Obama comes about three quarters of the way up it, around a bunch of fairly closely-clustered marks.
He's clearly been a better president than W Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Hoover or Coolidge; he clearly hasn't been as good as FDR or Truman; comparing him to Clinton, HW Bush, Carter, LBJ, JFK or Eisenhower - the ones I categorise alongside him as "neither awful nor great*" is perhaps less obvious.
*The exception being LBJ, who has both much stronger negatives and much stronger positives than most of the rest, and I would categorise as both great and awful in different ways.