your choices are
Carter
Reagan
George HW Bush
Clinton
George Bush
Obama
Obama still has a year and half to go. But his track record is pretty firmly established by now.
By highest I am referring to effectiveness in dealing with Congress, the Economy, and foreign policy. Who improved America the most by his skillful leadership and administration?
Carter.
I’d have to go with Clinton. His biggest failure, IMO, was signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which helped lead to the economic meltdown of 2008. But the guy was and is an extremely intelligent and canny politician who is able to work both sides of the aisle. We had eight years of economic boom and budget surpluses under his regime. Carter got a bad rap because of Iran, but was excellent with foreign policy. And of course both have done more in their post-presidency years than all of the others combined.
I reluctantly voted for Clinton, and it’s interesting to see that this is the consensus. I was too young to remember much of Carter’s presidency, so I’d be interested to hear more about why he’s a contender. I like him rather better than Clinton.
He’s a contender because he’s one of the past five presidents. 
I find your insight quite compelling.
mmm
Clinton benefited tremendously by his 12 years as governor of Arkansas. He was a tenacious in support of his bills. There are many stories of him walking the hallways of the state capital glad handing the state legislators and encouraging them to support his agenda.
He couldn’t do that as President. But still was quite effective in getting a lot of what he wanted passed. Clinton is just a natural leader and his years in the governor’s office made him even better.
Clinton’s sucess is even more surprising because Arkansas had a 2 year governors term. Clinton had to run many, many times. He was only defeated once by Frank White. He took back his seat two years later. That kind of experience is so important for national office. Ark went to a 4 year term in the late 80’s.
While its too early to judge obviously, I’d say Obama is shaping up to be the best President since LBJ, even if solely because of the Affordable Care Act.
Just take the results from your other thread and invert them?
None of the six are ever going to end up on currency or Mount Rushmore, the fanatical Reaganites notwithstanding. All mediocre and saddled with some form of tunnel vision, letting curable problems and repairable crises spiral out of control while they pursued windmills (or interns).
I’d rank Clinton first only because of the many positive gains during his administration, while fully recognizing that he rode almost unparalleled economic prosperity to his achievements. (Still, a Republican in that era would have slashed not just taxes but tax sources, leaving us in unimaginably bad shape when the indicators turned downward.) Bush I would be second for far subtler and less distinct reasons.
I give the nod to Clinton. Peace and prosperity are a pretty good combination. Of this group, Carter 2nd for his human rights stance and Panama Canal Treaty. Obama 3rd because he’s the least liberal of the three Democrats. George HW Bush actually was one of the better Republican presidents, albeit a rather low bar to hurdle. Then below them (and ALL other presidents, Reagan 2nd worst and W the absolute worst in history.
Clinton. Reagan second. Clinton was the better President, but as even Obama admitted, Reagan changed politics in America in a way not seen since FDR. Clinton, if anything, ratified the Reagan revolution in the same way Eisenhower ratified the New Deal.
So what the GOP needs now is a Kennedy. But I guess we skipped ahead straight to LBJ with GWB.
I think Obama’s health care reform is one of the most significant pieces of legislation in a hundred years. I also think that he was not only cleaning up Bush’s messes, but Clinton’s.
Given the historically unprecedented opposition, Obama has accomplished far more than anyone can expect him to and he’s still got a few more years
My vote is GHWB. He handled the Persian Gulf crises well (and it looks even better in hindsight). He as was willing to wreck his own chances at reelection by agreeing to higher taxes because he thought it was the right thing to do.
I view Clinton as a decent president who didn’t have to deal with a major crises. If he could have kept his hands to himself he might have done more.
Last I checked, he controls the executive branch. It’s neither his responsibility nor his problem what Congress does. Sure, Presidents would like to get legislation passed, but no President’s place in history has required him to do so. There are plenty of international problems requiring the President’s attention, as well as a lot of problems in the executive branch that he needs to fix.
History will judge Obama by how he handles foreign affairs and the problems within his administration, which are directly under his purview.
What makes Clinton a great President despite not having any major crises to deal with is the fact that his competence is part of the reason he didn’t have any major crises to deal with. Presidents can make their own luck. Obama has a lot of “bad luck”.
I said Obama. Given the constraints of a GOP that was far more intransigent even than the one Clinton faced, he’s really done amazingly well. And he had to deal with a crash and a sucky recovery (thanks, GOP!) while Clinton got the dot-com boom.
Funny, this is part of the reason I pick Obama.
He certainly had opportunities to make bad luck, bad luck that every Republican and a lot of more hawkish Dems would have made. He could have armed the Syrian rebels, i.e. ISIS. Instead, his approach there has resulted in Syria giving up its chemical weapons, with a helping hand from Russia. His patient approach to Iran was paying off even before the current Iraqi crisis, but now that’s paying off big time, because if we want to help prop up the Maliki government, a working relationship with Iran is a huge help.
He played a similarly patient game in Ukraine, and Russia has found its own limits there. In general, he hasn’t stirred up shit that didn’t need stirring up, and as a result, he has had allies when he’s needed them. We will need to work with Russia again at some point, and when we do, the fact that he didn’t listen to the McCainiacs of the GOP will serve our interests well.
And of course, he got bin Laden, who the entire GOP was content to let go. I’ve done this paraphrase of Bogie as Sam Spade in Maltese Falcon before, but:
*When three thousand of its citizens are killed, a nation like America is supposed to do something about it. It doesn’t make any difference what you thought of them. They were your people and you’re supposed to do something about it. When 3000 of your citizens get killed, it’s bad business to let the killer get away with it, bad all around, bad for every American everywhere. *
I’m glad to have had a President at this time who saw this the same way Sam Spade did.
I voted “Obama”. Only Clinton and Obama were really in it for me, and my decider was fairly simple: Clinton signed DADT, Obama repealed it.
I voted Obama – largely for ending (and reversing, though the process is still ongoing) the massive economic downturn, the ACA, the great expansion of gay rights, and the vast reduction in dead Americans overseas.
Clinton was a good president, but I think he missed some opportunities, most notably on health care and gay rights. I think Obama has done just about as much as humanly possible considering the opposition. I rank them Obama>Clinton>HWBush>Carter>Reagan>WBush.
So if Hillary Clinton comes along and does more, how will that affect your view of Obama in hindsight?