The Obama Legacy

[JJ Husker]

Ranking, or rather grading, presidents like that is extremely subjective. I really wanted to give Ronnie an A but I didn't want to be seen as a homer. The 80's and 90's were great economically so it was hard to harshly score presidents from that era. But if you believe they have relatively little direct impact on the economy like I do, then you really can't give them up ticks for a good economy. I marked down Clinton primarily for his affairs and lying and destroying any confidence in the integrity of the office, but they were still generally good years. I scored GW a little better than most on here would but I think he was served a sh#t sandwich with the unprecedented events of 9-11. Plus, I have always believed using hindsight to judge actions that occurred in the past, when the conditions and knowledge of those actions were considerably different, to be quite unfair. I honestly believe he only did what he felt was best for the country at the time. I can't fault him for that. I am convinced there were WMD's in Iraq and I know Hussein was not remotely a good person. I still don't think it was the worst action to take even though it didn't play out well. I really dislike Obama but, like I stated, he didn't totally screw the pooch in a very trying time so I can't be too harsh with his score. I will change my grade for Reagan to an A though. I would take another President like him anyday. He made us feel good about ourselves and really turned things around after one of the worst Presidents in history.

[TGHusker]

This poll of British academia "experts' place Reagan as # 8 a few years ago. Which would be in the 'near great' category in some rankings.

Obama wasn't rated

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12195111

 

In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:

• vision/agenda-setting
• domestic leadership
• foreign policy leadership
• moral authority
• positive historical significance of their legacy

Recent Presidents

• 8. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
• 18. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
• 19. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
• 22. George H W Bush (1989-93)
• 23. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
• 24. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
• 31. George W Bush (2001-09)

Top and Bottom Presidents

• 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45)
• 2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
• 3. George Washington (1789-97)
• 4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
• 5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

....................................................

• 36. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
• 37. John Tyler (1841-45)
• 38. Warren Harding (1921-23)
• 39. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
• 40. James Buchanan (1857-61)

[Moiraine]

<p>

 

This poll of British academia "experts' place Reagan as # 8 a few years ago. Which would be in the 'near great' category in some rankings.

Obama wasn't rated

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12195111

 

In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:

• vision/agenda-setting
• domestic leadership
• foreign policy leadership
• moral authority
• positive historical significance of their legacy

Recent Presidents

• 8. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
• 18. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
• 19. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
• 22. George H W Bush (1989-93)
• 23. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
• 24. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
• 31. George W Bush (2001-09)

Top and Bottom Presidents

• 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45)
• 2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
• 3. George Washington (1789-97)
• 4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
• 5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

....................................................

• 36. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
• 37. John Tyler (1841-45)
• 38. Warren Harding (1921-23)
• 39. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
• 40. James Buchanan (1857-61)

"Obama wasn't rated" makes in sound like they thought he was bad. He wasn't included in the poll because he's the sitting president.

[Landlord]

 

<p>

 

This poll of British academia "experts' place Reagan as # 8 a few years ago. Which would be in the 'near great' category in some rankings.

Obama wasn't rated

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12195111

 

In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:

• vision/agenda-setting
• domestic leadership
• foreign policy leadership
• moral authority
• positive historical significance of their legacy

Recent Presidents

• 8. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
• 18. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
• 19. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
• 22. George H W Bush (1989-93)
• 23. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
• 24. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
• 31. George W Bush (2001-09)

Top and Bottom Presidents

• 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45)
• 2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
• 3. George Washington (1789-97)
• 4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
• 5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

....................................................

• 36. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
• 37. John Tyler (1841-45)
• 38. Warren Harding (1921-23)
• 39. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
• 40. James Buchanan (1857-61)

"Obama wasn't rated" makes in sound like they thought he was bad. He wasn't included in the poll because he's the sitting president.

 

 

 

 

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

I don't think he projects as a strong leader around the world. I am sure that a lot will disagree with this, but it is my opinion.

I'll tell you who disagrees with that - most of the free world. He's viewed as a strong leader by all of our allies.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/24/7-charts-on-how-the-world-views-president-obama/

 

That is why it is called my opinion. Sorry I don't see him as some great President.

 

Your opinion on Obama's goodness/badness isn't debatable. You don't think he's a good president, and that's fine.

 

I'm just showing that, around the world, that opinion isn't shared. He's viewed well around the world, mostly better than he is at home.

 

Knappic I would expect nothing less than that fromyou. I don't think GWB or Obama were/are strong leaders. Even though I don't agree with a lot of what Bill Clinton stood/stands for he projects as a strong leader to me. The one poll shown asks if you trust the leader to do the right thing. I would expect any US President to do the right thing. Personally I would take Merkel.

There's a difference between having an opinion and falsely representing a situation. You can't suggest he isn't viewed as a strong leader around the world when most of the free world says otherwise, and then try to subtly maneuver the argument by saying "I don't see him as a great president." His greatness was not a part of your initial qualm. How he is viewed by other countries was.

 

Furthermore, "strong leaders" tend to "do the right thing." Unless you're trying to insinuate poor leaders tend to do the right thing, too?

[Enhance]

 

 

I think Presidents in general get way too much credit or blame for the economy. The economic collapse under Bush had much more to do with 9-11, the housing bubble and by being seen through the distorted lens of following some years that were perceived to be good economically but actually were just laying a house of cards foundation. Congress appropriates the funds and spends the money and has more impact on the economy than Presidents do but even they have relatively little impact compared to greater market forces. Presidents and congress simply win or lose based on circumstances largely out of their control.

 

Likewise the Obama economy suffered in much the same way as the Bush economy with the addition of a belligerent congress to work with. It started out poorly, gained a little momentum and has basically treaded water. All in all probably as well as could be expected with all the turmoil in the Mideast, international markets, austerity measures in other countries etc.

 

The Clinton and Reagan years are typically looked upon as being economically good but even those "good" years were not necessarily the result of who was President. About the most credit you can give them for the economy is that people generally were more confident and felt better about things and that positive outlook helped the economy.

 

As far as Obama's legacy, I think he will be looked back upon as a pretty average President. The economy probably did just about as well as it could've. I think Obamacare will be proven to be a failure but you gotta give him at least a little bit of credit for attempting something to fix our failing healthcare system, even if they did focus on the wrong problem of covering more people rather than controlling out of control costs. As far as dealing with terrorism and international issues he didn't totally screw the pooch and that is probably a slight win considering what all has transpired these last 8 years. Not sure anyone else would've done much better even if I think he should've some things better. But, I think history will see him most favorably for advances on equal right issues for LGBT people. Change has come pretty quick in those areas and may not be perceived favorably by many right now but years down the road I think that will be looked at as an area where he helped make advancements. I'd give him a C+.

 

My Summary

Whoever is next D- (unless it isn't Hillary or Trump)

Obama C+

GW Bush C+

Clinton C+

GH Bush B-

Reagan B+

Carter D-

 

I'm sure most will take issue with some of these but I think they're pretty fair based on what each one inherited, the factors that were out of their control, and what they had to deal with while in office.

 

Interesting assessment. I am not quite as harsh of a grader I guess, but here are my rankings:

 

Carter: D-

Reagan: A

Bush 41: B-

Clinton: B+

Bush 43: B-

Obama: C-

 

As I've said before, I believe Bill Clinton is scum, but in terms of his job performance, I am giving him the second highest grade behind Reagan. Also, from my perspective, the primary job of the federal government is national security and putting in policies to keep our country safe, and since the world has had the wake-up call to terrorism on 9/11, Bush 43 gets a full grade higher than Obama. In 2 weeks time we have seen ISIS strike in Orlando, Turkey, and Bangladesh, and their movement is growing despite some claiming they have lost territory. They do not fear a US-led coalition to root out terrorism like we had in Bush's term, and they are emboldened and will continue to strike until we have a new leader of the free world that is ready to take them on.

 

The Orlando shooter pledged himself to ISIS, but he did not receive any operational support (at least them I'm aware of) to carry out the attacks, so giving ISIS the full credit is inaccurate.

 

Second, you're making it sound like Bush's War on Terror made terrorists tremble in their boots. His presidency's policies split Afghanistan in two and helped breed a jihadist training ground. And instead of doing what probably should have been done in Afghanistan, he diverted billions of dollars in resources to go to Iraq, a decision that has helped create deep hatred for the U.S. in the Muslim world. Two costly and ineffective wars. Bush holds a substantial amount of culpability for the problems we see in the world today.

 

And there's also the mountain of evidence out there showing Bush's administration basically earmuffed themselves to the concerns of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda prior to 2001.

 

Insinuating or suggesting Bush was a successful international diplomat is in poor taste.

[TGHusker]

 

<p>

 

This poll of British academia "experts' place Reagan as # 8 a few years ago. Which would be in the 'near great' category in some rankings.

Obama wasn't rated

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12195111

 

In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:

• vision/agenda-setting
• domestic leadership
• foreign policy leadership
• moral authority
• positive historical significance of their legacy

Recent Presidents

• 8. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
• 18. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
• 19. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
• 22. George H W Bush (1989-93)
• 23. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
• 24. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
• 31. George W Bush (2001-09)

Top and Bottom Presidents

• 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45)
• 2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
• 3. George Washington (1789-97)
• 4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
• 5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

....................................................

• 36. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
• 37. John Tyler (1841-45)
• 38. Warren Harding (1921-23)
• 39. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
• 40. James Buchanan (1857-61)

"Obama wasn't rated" makes in sound like they thought he was bad. He wasn't included in the poll because he's the sitting president.

 

The bold was understood or should have been.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

<p>

 

This poll of British academia "experts' place Reagan as # 8 a few years ago. Which would be in the 'near great' category in some rankings.

Obama wasn't rated

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12195111

 

In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:

• vision/agenda-setting
• domestic leadership
• foreign policy leadership
• moral authority
• positive historical significance of their legacy

Recent Presidents

• 8. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
• 18. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
• 19. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
• 22. George H W Bush (1989-93)
• 23. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
• 24. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
• 31. George W Bush (2001-09)

Top and Bottom Presidents

• 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45)
• 2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
• 3. George Washington (1789-97)
• 4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
• 5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

....................................................

• 36. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
• 37. John Tyler (1841-45)
• 38. Warren Harding (1921-23)
• 39. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
• 40. James Buchanan (1857-61)

"Obama wasn't rated" makes in sound like they thought he was bad. He wasn't included in the poll because he's the sitting president.

The bold was understood or should have been.

The phrasing was weird. When I say "Nebraska wasn't rated" right after mentiong Iowa is #4, it's because Nebraska wasn't good enough.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

I think Presidents in general get way too much credit or blame for the economy. The economic collapse under Bush had much more to do with 9-11, the housing bubble and by being seen through the distorted lens of following some years that were perceived to be good economically but actually were just laying a house of cards foundation. Congress appropriates the funds and spends the money and has more impact on the economy than Presidents do but even they have relatively little impact compared to greater market forces. Presidents and congress simply win or lose based on circumstances largely out of their control.

 

Likewise the Obama economy suffered in much the same way as the Bush economy with the addition of a belligerent congress to work with. It started out poorly, gained a little momentum and has basically treaded water. All in all probably as well as could be expected with all the turmoil in the Mideast, international markets, austerity measures in other countries etc.

 

The Clinton and Reagan years are typically looked upon as being economically good but even those "good" years were not necessarily the result of who was President. About the most credit you can give them for the economy is that people generally were more confident and felt better about things and that positive outlook helped the economy.

 

As far as Obama's legacy, I think he will be looked back upon as a pretty average President. The economy probably did just about as well as it could've. I think Obamacare will be proven to be a failure but you gotta give him at least a little bit of credit for attempting something to fix our failing healthcare system, even if they did focus on the wrong problem of covering more people rather than controlling out of control costs. As far as dealing with terrorism and international issues he didn't totally screw the pooch and that is probably a slight win considering what all has transpired these last 8 years. Not sure anyone else would've done much better even if I think he should've some things better. But, I think history will see him most favorably for advances on equal right issues for LGBT people. Change has come pretty quick in those areas and may not be perceived favorably by many right now but years down the road I think that will be looked at as an area where he helped make advancements. I'd give him a C+.

 

My Summary

Whoever is next D- (unless it isn't Hillary or Trump)

Obama C+

GW Bush C+

Clinton C+

GH Bush B-

Reagan B+

Carter D-

 

I'm sure most will take issue with some of these but I think they're pretty fair based on what each one inherited, the factors that were out of their control, and what they had to deal with while in office.

 

Interesting assessment. I am not quite as harsh of a grader I guess, but here are my rankings:

 

Carter: D-

Reagan: A

Bush 41: B-

Clinton: B+

Bush 43: B-

Obama: C-

 

As I've said before, I believe Bill Clinton is scum, but in terms of his job performance, I am giving him the second highest grade behind Reagan. Also, from my perspective, the primary job of the federal government is national security and putting in policies to keep our country safe, and since the world has had the wake-up call to terrorism on 9/11, Bush 43 gets a full grade higher than Obama. In 2 weeks time we have seen ISIS strike in Orlando, Turkey, and Bangladesh, and their movement is growing despite some claiming they have lost territory. They do not fear a US-led coalition to root out terrorism like we had in Bush's term, and they are emboldened and will continue to strike until we have a new leader of the free world that is ready to take them on.

 

The Orlando shooter pledged himself to ISIS, but he did not receive any operational support (at least them I'm aware of) to carry out the attacks, so giving ISIS the full credit is inaccurate.

 

Second, you're making it sound like Bush's War on Terror made terrorists tremble in their boots. His presidency's policies split Afghanistan in two and helped breed a jihadist training ground. And instead of doing what probably should have been done in Afghanistan, he diverted billions of dollars in resources to go to Iraq, a decision that has helped create deep hatred for the U.S. in the Muslim world. Two costly and ineffective wars. Bush holds a substantial amount of culpability for the problems we see in the world today.

 

And there's also the mountain of evidence out there showing Bush's administration basically earmuffed themselves to the concerns of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda prior to 2001.

 

Insinuating or suggesting Bush was a successful international diplomat is in poor taste.

 

 

As I've said before, 9/11 was a wake-up call for not just the U.S but the entire world. We know that Bill Clinton had a chance to take out Bin Laden in the late 1990s and he chose not to. I don't buy into the Michael Moore conspiracy theories that some on the left like to push. With 9/11 being a wake-up call, most Americans were looking for the POTUS to put in policies to keep our country safe and to take the fight to terrorists abroad. That is exactly what Bush did. We can argue all day about the Iraq war and the intelligence that led Bush and other prominent politicians like Hillary Clinton to vote in favor of going to war, and in hindsight we should not have gone in, but that's what it is...hindsight. Despite the Iraq move, Bush maintained a broad assault on terrorists throughout the middle east, beefed up our intelligence gather tools, and remained strong and steadfast in the fight, and because of that, he kept this country safe. Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

<p>

 

This poll of British academia "experts' place Reagan as # 8 a few years ago. Which would be in the 'near great' category in some rankings.

Obama wasn't rated

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-12195111

 

In total, 47 British academics specialising in American history and politics took part. They were asked to rate the performance of every president from 1789 to 2009 (excluding William Henry Harrison and James Garfield, who both died shortly after taking office) in five categories:

• vision/agenda-setting
• domestic leadership
• foreign policy leadership
• moral authority
• positive historical significance of their legacy

Recent Presidents

• 8. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
• 18. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
• 19. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
• 22. George H W Bush (1989-93)
• 23. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
• 24. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
• 31. George W Bush (2001-09)

Top and Bottom Presidents

• 1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45)
• 2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
• 3. George Washington (1789-97)
• 4. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
• 5. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

....................................................

• 36. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
• 37. John Tyler (1841-45)
• 38. Warren Harding (1921-23)
• 39. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
• 40. James Buchanan (1857-61)

"Obama wasn't rated" makes in sound like they thought he was bad. He wasn't included in the poll because he's the sitting president.

The bold was understood or should have been.

The phrasing was weird. When I say "Nebraska wasn't rated" right after mentiong Iowa is #4, it's because Nebraska wasn't good enough.

 

Ah, I see what you are saying. Let me restate it: Obama wasn't rated in this survey because the survey did not include the current president.

[Landlord]

Obama has basically done just the opposite, and has taken a weak approach toward fighting terrorism, and because of his failure to lead the fight abroad, ISIS has grown by 4400% under his watch. These are pure facts. The threat of terrorism is far greater now than when he took office.

 

 

How many Americans have died at the hands of terrorists under Obama compared to Bush?

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, "strong leaders" tend to "do the right thing." Unless you're trying to insinuate poor leaders tend to do the right thing, too?

 

 

So giving $150 billion to Iran to get hostages was the right thing? Considering that money is being used directly to fund terrorism?...

 

Other countries like Obama because he's a pushover to them. He has consistently in his tenure bad-mouthed his own country. I wouldn't consider that being a strong leader whatsoever.

[knapplc]

No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing'

Trump said under the Iran nuclear deal, "we give them $150 billion, we get nothing."

Trump is referring to the amount of previously frozen Iranian assets the deal releases. To be clear, this is money that already belongs to Iran so we’re not "giving" them anything. The $150 billion is a high estimate, and most experts say the real figure is closer to $100 billion, while Iran is probably only able to access a fraction of that.

In exchange for lifting the sanctions, the United States and its allies get to block Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the near future. One can argue whether we got enough, but we didn’t get "nothing."

We rate Trump’s claim False.

 

[TAKODA]

 

No, Donald Trump, we are not giving Iran $150 billion for 'nothing'

 

 

Trump said under the Iran nuclear deal, "we give them $150 billion, we get nothing."

 

Trump is referring to the amount of previously frozen Iranian assets the deal releases. To be clear, this is money that already belongs to Iran so we’re not "giving" them anything. The $150 billion is a high estimate, and most experts say the real figure is closer to $100 billion, while Iran is probably only able to access a fraction of that.

 

In exchange for lifting the sanctions, the United States and its allies get to block Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the near future. One can argue whether we got enough, but we didn’t get "nothing."

 

We rate Trump’s claim False.

 

 

 

Maybe his wording needs refined but I suspect his view point or comment "nothing" is not without some valid concerns.

 

 

Meanwhile, U.S. officials are concerned about Iran’s renewed ballistic missile testing, which had been paused during negotiations. Since October 2015, Iran has conducted at least three tests of variants of its single-stage, liquid-fueled Shahab-3 missile, which is nuclear-capable. The most recent test occurred in March, when the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps conducted two days of large-scale ballistic missile exercises.

 

On May 9, a senior Iranian defense official announced the recent test of "a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers and a margin of error of 8 meters." Iran's defense minister quickly refuted the specifics of this claim, but not the test itself. This appears to be the latest in a series of Iranian missile tests since last October, all of which are considered by Western officials to be "in defiance of" anew U.N. Security Council resolution that took effect on January 16— the same day as the nuclear agreement.

 

http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/nuclear-iran-weekly/missile-sanctions-must-target-irans-suppliers

[knapplc]

And? Iran is always going to test missiles. They are always going to continue to upgrade their nuclear program, and at some point they'll be a nuclear power. No president, not even Reagan himself, is going to prevent that.

 

The treaty opened avenues of dialog between the two countries that haven't existed in 40 years.