Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Smith who wrote (140115)	7/2/2010 8:17:23 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542909

"Clinton suggested President Obama may need to deploy the U.S. Navy to blow up the well -- with non-nuclear bombs -- "and cover the leak with piles and piles and piles of rock and debris." " One of the stupidist things Clinton has ever said. You now have a broken casing and gas under enormous pressure, so it forces it way thru numerous paths to the surface...the "cracks in the seabed" scenario.

To: Paul Smith who wrote (140115)	7/2/2010 9:15:51 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542909

George W. Bush was no FDR, but Barack Obama could be. That's the verdict of 238 of the nation's leading presidential scholars, who - for a fifth time - rated Franklin Delano Roosevelt the best president ever in the latest Siena College Research Institute poll. In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position - two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan. Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background. "Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not," said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. "He grew up without a father." By contrast, Bush's dad was our 41st president, George H.W. Bush, who came in 22nd in the poll. And yet, the scholars rated Dubya a dud as a president, ranking him in the bottom five at 39th place. That's a steep drop from 23rd place, which is where Bush ranked when he entered the survey after his first year in office. Bush got docked for saddling Obama with two bloody wars and a recession, and he got low marks for "ability to compromise, foreign policy accomplishments and intelligence," according to the survey. Only Warren G. Harding, who was 41st on the list, scored lower in the intelligence category. FDR has topped each of the five presidential scholar surveys conducted by the Albany-area college since 1982. His distant cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, came in second in the survey, followed by Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Lincoln's sorry successor, Andrew Johnson, was rated the worst president. The scholars ranked the presidents on personal attributes such as integrity, intelligence, leadership and willingness to take risks as well as things they have little control over, like luck. Washington was rated our luckiest president, followed by Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan. Watergate-scarred Richard Nixon was ranked 30th overall, but finished dead last for integrity. Lincoln topped that category, followed by Washington and his successor, John Adams. Jimmy Carter also ranked high for integrity, coming in seventh in that category. But overall, the scholars ranked two spots behind Nixon. Jefferson, who was No. 5 on the list, was deemed our smartest president ever. csiemaszko@nydailynews.com

To: Paul Smith who wrote (140115)	7/2/2010 1:04:32 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542909

Is it fair to now conclude that Clinton was/is a more skilled leader than Obama? I think so. An almost impossible assessment to make. Different times; completely different Rep Party; vastly different issues. However, on one issue, it's clear. Obama has done a great deal more in his first year and whatever than Clinton did. And the conditions are worse.

To: Paul Smith who wrote (140115)	7/2/2010 2:36:26 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542909

>>Is it fair to now conclude that Clinton was/is a more skilled leader than Obama? I think so.<< Is it also fair to consider that Clinton's job, at present, is a damned sight easier than Obama's? And that in fact, Clinton never really had to deal with as many catastrophes as Obama has, all at once? I think so. Plus, Clinton is now speaking as a man who has already had the experience of being President for 8 years, and an "elder statesman" for another ten. If we're going to compare the two men, perhaps we should look at how well Bill demonstrated leadership when he had only been President for a year and a half.