Historians rank President Obama...

Jefferson is too low on that list, and Kennedy is too high.

 

I think the exercise is a bit silly. It's like naming the greatest player of all time in a team sport that has evolved over decades. Maybe you can be notionally right about the most successful and least successful, but to pretend to rank them is a conceit. I find the historiography of how and why the rankings change over time more interesting than the rankings themselves -- in other words, it says more about historians than it does presidents.

 

ROTFLMAO!!! Thanks a lot, I literally spit the Diet Dr. Pepper I was drinking out on my keyboard when I read that. That has to be the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.

 

But he took all my guns and turned my kid's school into a madrasa!

 

So why is it funny?

He also made the frogs gay! Can't forget that!

 

Not sure. I wouldn't find my keyboard being ruined to be funny at all.

 

Ranking one of the most divisive presidents the country has ever had as the 12th best in leadership is pretty hilarious......but no one should take lists like this seriously anyway.

 

I was looking for more substance than "He was bad, okay?"

I'm sure when they ranked him they didn't just roll a random number and put him there.

 

You're literally not going to get anything more substantive than that from him. Evidently he's more qualified than this panel of historians.

 

I'm suggesting that putting him that high on the list is divorced from reality. It's very likely that the person who made the list is a bit of a fanboy. If you can't tell that the country became incredibly divided during Obama's time in office, I can't really help you, but it should be clear that he was INCREDIBLY divisive. I mean, he's part of the reason you get a guy like Trump winning.

 

Whenever a wing nut starts going on a diatribe about Obama being 'divisive' understand that all they have is platitudes to back up that claim.

I was about to post "waiting patiently for Bobby trigger post" but I was too late.

 

I don't understand how washington isn't universally considered GOAT. Basically invented the job.

 

Okay, but that doesn't really argue against him being that high. It would be great if we had one of these historians here to explain it in depth.

As far as being divisive, well man, not sure if you are looking at that list but a lot of those Presidents led the country through divided times...I mean Abraham Lincoln is #1 on their list...you think the country wasn't divided then? You could make an argument that Lincoln was the most divisive president ever...

(Also that leading the country through turmoil is part of what makes a president great. Which is why FDR always ranks so highly.)

I mean really, if you are going to criticize the list then do so. I mean I'd like to hear the arguments against Obama other than "He's just bad..."

 

It actually lines up real nicely for me - Obama is the latter day Woodrow Wilson, whIle Trump is the modern second coming of Warren G Harding.

To me, they fit those archetypes remarkably well.

 

I could give ear to that, but Abe takes the cake in my opinion, followed by either Roosevelt/Washington in what ever order you do choose.

 

You just made another argument against their list....

 

This is absurd over the top hyperbole.

The most divisive President in US history is Abraham Lincoln and it isn't even close.

He also was arguably the most hated President during his term.

There were other more divisive Presidents as well.... Andrew Jackson and John Adams both were far more divisive than any living President.