really? jefferson? what about the embargo? he was a great statesman of course but not as great a president imo...

and jackson? he precipitated the biggest financial depression of the 19th century because of his irrational dislike for the Second Bank of the United States. I don't see how he was a good president aside from the fact that he was well-liked.

FDR led the country through the Great Depression and WWII with remarkable dignity. On both a personal and political level. And by the end of his time we went from desperate times to the biggest boom our country has ever seen. How can he not be top 5?

and lol @ anyone who mentions reagan.

i teach us history btw.

I did not specify whether those on my list were good, bad or otherwise. I simply listed five that were better than FDR. That plenty of fault can be found on the list only makes my point that FDR doesn't belong on any "top 5" list. Anyone at all familiar with his time in office has already heard your rather pedestrian endorsement of him in one form or another. Such endorsements are not going to change the fact that as a president he was fair at best.

So to put it as eloquently as you:

lol @ anyone who mentions fdr.

So your response to my pedestrian endorsement is an even vaguer and unsubstantiated statement. Gotcha.

Just being President when an event is occurring is not the same thing as "leading with dignity".

His policies were mostly ineffectual.

FDR did not "lead" us out of depression any more than Obama is "leading" us out of economic problems now. They both just happened to hold office during the period in question but had no real clue what to do about it to actually solve the problem.

I like FDR, I think he was a good guy who tried his best. Trying your best is not the same as being good at the job though which is what you must do to be considered "great".

Criteria for a great president.

I think a great president should ...

1. Not start a war if it can be avoided. (Peace should be the number 1 goal of any leader of peoples)
2. Lead in a time of economic prosperity or been part of the cause leading up to it.
3. Be progressive in the area of social reform (Its more impressive if it was unpopular.)
4. Be effective as a public communicator.

True enough. But that does not mean decimating all military strength.

This is basically luck. Economies are cyclical and the president can't control the cycle. We were coming out of recession with Bush I but not fast enough to get him re-elected. Clinton reaped the reward for a robust economy when he had absolutely nothing to do with it.

This is the problem with (current) politics. Social stuff like the abolition of slavery and later equal rights were extremely important and overdue and should have happen much sooner. But the monster bureacracy is growing exponetionally and the governement has gotten way too obtrusive with way too many social agendas. The president/governement should run the country and not peoples lives.

For me this is totally meaningless as long as they do a good job running the country.

On my phone so I can't quote

I think a 5th criteria should be how policies did in the long term. I.e under bill Clinton the economy was prosperous but his policy on mortgages that gwb continued was a huge contributor to the housing market crash so he should lose points for that

As should reagan for the policies that he implemented, which were unsustainable long term and have caused a lot of problems sorry for not going into more detail but it's a pain to type via phone and I assume most people here have a solid enough grasp of history to figure out what I'm referring to

Seems like JFK should get pretty high marks, then, though in general I would agree that he is an overrated (but not bad) President.

1. Cuban Missile Crisis as a defining event. Not only did he have to play an elaborate game of chess with Khruschev and far more hardline Soviets, but he frequently had to navigate between hawks in his own government and the Pentagon who were pushing for war (a war that might have killed hundreds of millions). Balls of steel for sure. Vietnam is another story, but he avoided the fatal mistakes of LBJ... but who is to say what would have happened had he lived.

2. This is mostly luck, as economies in Europe and Japan were still recovering, and China and India were still in the infant stages of development relative to today, but he certainly didn't counteract the prosperity.

3. Big check here. The first President to really tackle the issue of civil rights with a profound amount of courage. Deeply unpopular in the South (which at the time was a large base of Democratic support), the civil rights issue might even have contributed to Kennedy's assassination.

4. Big old check again. In the modern era, he was as good as Clinton or Reagan, and probably better in individual interactions (Reagan's unscripted interactions were hardly the stuff of legend).

you guys are correct on 2. Is there a way that we could change it to be say something like "Was a positive on the economy" without making it luck based.

@mrbaseball - I think being an effective communicator is very important to be a leader. Yes we are all desperately happy that he ran the country well but usually criteria 4 helps out in other areas - I.E. If your a good communicator you have help in being a good leader

@mgv1208 - Thats definitely an interesting idea. The Presidents policies are obviously of utmost importance and you can't underscore how important it is to have a good long term impact on the nation.

Its possible for this to benefit someone as a leader, however theres not really a correlation. For example Obama is one of the greatest if not the greatest Presidents in terms of communication, but as a whole he hasn't done much to demonstrate great leadership. Same with Reagan, i wouldnt consider him great but he was a great communicator. I think this criteria is just not as important as other things such as policies, ability to work well with congress, negotiating, etc...

I vote Eisenhower..... and before you start bashing my choice please remember all presidents have good points and bad points...

I liked Eisenhower's speech on the military industrial complex

This. Even though Old Hickory is my favorite badass of all time, Washington is the undisputed #1 president in my mind as he had the integrity to step down from office when everyone else was begging him to be king instead. I do not think that there are that many people in the world who would refuse such power, especially when all of your constituents are begging for you to take it.

FDR is mediocre at best. This is the guy who brought us such crap as the current wacky interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which is why we can no longer have good things. He also outlawed possession of gold at one point to stop people from fleeing the dollar. Think about that precedent for a moment.

I would consider Lincoln, Truman, Ike, Old Hickory, Bull Moose, Wilson, Jefferson, Monroe, the Gipper, and Polk before even thinking about FDR. From a pure policy prespective, I would add Tricky Dick, Clinton and Ford beforehand too.

terrifying clip. gives me chills every time I watch it. it is one of those speeches whose meaning becomes clearer every year.

You can definitely hear the wisdom in his words. Eisenhower was a career military man, who knew the dangers and influence that the Military Industrial Complex can have if left unchecked.
So did Smedley Butler before him...now there was a man who warned us a long time ago of what to come....
Look up the " Business Plot (1933) "