Yeah, I was gonna say, I look at the bill from the Iraq/Afghanistan war and I can't help but ask "what spending spree?" Anything Obama initiated looks like small change compared to that fiscal (and otherwise) black hole. Even the ludicrous bailouts look tame in comparison.

He deserves a lot of blame for continuing them, though.

Obama is most certainly not someone id think of voting for again. He hasnt done much to help, for sure.

But, not only the hawks, but Republican candidates in general wouldve most certainly tacked the "pro-terrorist" BS on obama had he not decided to stay (stupid decision anyway)in afghanistan until 2014. The republicans have almost completely played puppet with Obama, and have been against anything hes proposed throughout the term. then the republicans spoon feed the public this blame train that everything is obama's fault.

I do agree with platypus though. The general population knows little if anything about the way our central government works. Its quite depressing to realize that so many voters have the power to do so and base most of their choices on the torrent of BS flowing from the political debates they see on TV or in the newspaper. They dont seem to realize that theyre being completely manipulated and used. All i ever hear from people is that obama is the worst president in US history and such, and less educated responses.

What a bad joke they are. the way things are going, with the flood of supposedly "bright" teenagers and undereducated (politically) general public, its anyone's guess as to if we'll ever go back to the prosperity we once had.

He has done nothing to help - and instead done quite a bit to hurt.

The guy had 2 years of his own party controlling the entire congress. What does he have to show for it? The problem was and is the economy - but he spent two years apologizing to other countries, forcing Obamacare, trying to force the DREAM act, getting rid of DADT, government bailouts, etc. He didn't focus on the root economic problems at all.

The president has a bully pulpit. The guy gave a speech almost every day - but there was nothing IN them worth a dime. Never once did he propose a bold solution.

Nothing uneducated about that statement. Historically it will prove true. The ONLY thing Obama did on the economy was continue the policies that GWB had - throw money at the problem. It didn't work the first time under Bush - it exacerbated the long term problem. Then Obama did it again. Bush's QE was a failure - that Obama repeated. This is why it is "his" fault. Try something once and it fails - you should learn from it - not try it a second time. Or - in Obama's case - a third (with his latest stimulus bill that has been repeatedly rejected).

Herein lies the biggest complaint - instead of staying focused on the important things - as he continually promised he would - he has focused on everything BUT the economy, and encouraged "solutions" already proven not to work.

That's not leadership, that's not vision - and when your President of the USA, that equates to failure.

It will only be proven true by people who don't know history and specifically the history of our presidents.

I don't know why people these days have to put things in extreme terms of hyperbole.

Bush worst president in history
Obama best president in history
Obama worse president in history

Why do people only deal in best/worst? That is so limiting and frankly inaccurate. Bush Jr was certainly not the "worst" president in history despite my personal dislike for his administration.

What ever happened to pretty good, kinda bad, or just simply "OK"? :D

Obama is not, by far, the "Best" president nor the "Worst" in our history. To apply the label "best" or "worst" indicates a lack of depth in though and, in my opinion, severely lowers the credibility of the speaker/writer.

When ever I read "X was the Worst/Best in HISTORY!", I usually turn off at that point as what follows is unlikely to be anything truly analytical.

Jus an ole guy's worthless opinion. :D

Plat,

Sorry, Obama is definitely in contention for the worst. The only other candidates would be Carter and Hoover. Carter put us in a tailspin - though not nearly as bad as Obama has continued (thought not started). Hoover - well look - any president that was focused on wearing dresses - speaks for itself.

Who else would you nominate for the "worst"?

Just off the top of my head, these rise high on my sucky president list

Andrew Johnson
William McKinley
Warren G Harding (20th century)

Johnson and Harding were involved in several scandals of the type people are concerned with today. McKinely is just a personal worst in my opinion. :)

I would say that with few exceptions the presidents of the 19th century were not so good. Graft and political deals were the norm it seemed and the influences of the rich on politics is worse than it is today in my opinion.

Scandals - pfft - talk nixon with watergate, clinton with interngate, or JFK with drug parties and orgies.

Scandals happen - heck Obama has Solyndra, Sunpower, Fast and Furious, Finnish car companies etc all on his scandal list.

Scandals themselves don't make a president bad. Clinton wasn't nearly as "bad" as some think. His biggest problem was scandal compared to governance. I still am not fond of him - but he did a damn sight better than Obama.

The "worst" is (or should be) reserved for the president's whose POLICIES were failures - and how they adapted (or failed to adapt) to those failures. This is why Carter and Obama are near the top of the list - while D's like Clinton are not.

I can't believe I just wrote a "defense" of Clinton post! LOL

anything is a spending spree when there's an election soon, and you have a political axe to grind