The metrics they use are of course subject to subjective views. Positive historical impact? Most any US President would have won ww2, for example, it would have had to have been grossly mismanaged to be lost. Not dinging FDR down for the huge negatives of his socialist bent is simply subjective. Ask a bunch of people from a country where middle of the road US democrats are considered "right" and you'll get unsurprising results.
I also think the failure to properly place Lincoln at the top shows how kooky it is. There is a reason he is virtually always at the top of such rankings in the US. His very election precipitated the Civil War. Any difference there would result in a vastly different country (or countrieS) moving forward.
|