General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOf the three living Democratic Presidents, which one is/was best?
| 43 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Jimmy Carter | |
25 (58%) |
|
| Bill Clinton | |
9 (21%) |
|
| Barack Obama | |
9 (21%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftstreet
(40,723 posts)
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)You could argue for or against any one of the three for a variety of reasons.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Sorry. Could be because he's a decent human being, but there you have it.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Habitat for Humanity, his many overseas trips, and his many books.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Without him, all you'd think ex-presidents can do is make speeches for big bucks!
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)He is a phenomenal human being. He had spectacular insight into what was necessary to create a better future.
He was, on many levels, ineffective president.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Carter wasn't a "good" president. I keep reading on DU that Obama is a "good" but misunderstood president whose perceived failings are all the media's fault, the fault of Congress, the Republicans, the left...in other words, he's a superhero and anything that goes wrong isn't his fault.
I'm aware of the things Carter struggled with. He was the first president I ever voted for. I don't really have heroes, but to be honest, I'd take Carter over Obama or Clinton in a heartbeat.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)For whatever reason, he never really adapted to the role...and having remembered those days, he had a lot of trouble with the Dems in Congress...Byrd was especially a thorn in his side as was Tip O'Neill...so much for party loyalty on their part.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)We don't all agree on what constitutes "effective" either.
I'd rather have a president who fought for issues, who stood his or her ground on issues, than a compromiser. I'd rather stand still than regress. As Republicans have shown us over and over, not giving ground eventually shifts momentum their way.
I'd rather presidents not have a list of supposed "accomplishments" that give away what I want them to fight for.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)He came into office with huge majorities in both the House and Senate, a congress willing to work with him to advance healthcare reform, Ted Kennedy championing a liberal alternative and Carter killed it because he worried about the deficit.
Sometimes standing your ground is the worst possible position to take. Had we reformed the healthcare system in the 70s, like Kennedy and initially Carter wanted, it's likely the U.S. has a universal system today. But because Carter didn't budge, it wouldn't be another thirty-years until we finally did overhaul it - with a plan that was probably a bit more conservative than what the Senate was looking to pass in the 70s.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)except a steady march to the right.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)You're confusing the word compromise. It doesn't mean just compromising with Republicans. Back in the 70s, Carter was to the RIGHT of senate Democrats and wouldn't accept a LIBERAL bill because he didn't want to compromise his position on the deficit.
How'd that work out for America?
on point
(2,506 posts)It was Carter who forced the Soviet's hand by pointing out in Charter 77 that the Soviets had to give unions a free voice that changed everything, not the stupid military spending of Raygun.
Once the Unions had a free voice all of sudden there was Solidarity, Environment movements, and all sorts of other groups across the soviet block that began to take down their various governments. This is how the USSR fell.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)but he should be automatically disqualified from consideration because he doesn't have 2 terms to compare to the other 2. Plus, when your national address about stagflation, high interest rates, gas lines, etc. it to blame the people of America and their attitude...well...
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's sad to put all the blame on him, but he was the one who set in motion the events that led to the hostage crisis by toasting the Shah of Iran. Worse, when the Shah, who had been overthrown, sought medical attention in the U.S., Carter ignored, or was oblivious, to the potential blowback it would have received in Iran. I'm not saying he shouldn't have let the Shah into the U.S. to receive treatment, but before he did, Carter should have closed the Iranian embassy, or forced its evacuation, seeing as it was likely there would be retaliation for offering the very unpopular Shah help.
I mean, I get it's unprecedented to have an embassy overrun and hostages taken, but when you're offering a visa to an exiled ruler who's insanely unpopular in a region that is already anti-American, you've got to plot things out.
But regardless, Carter's support of the Shah, despite his deteriorating power in Iran, was a big blunder and it essentially ended his presidency because he was DOA once the hostage situation unfolded. Don't even get me started on Operation Eagle Claw - a complex plan the administration probably should have never signed off on.
Either way, Carter was a typically overwhelmed president. His lack of experience in Washington, his contentious relationship with the more liberal senate Democrats, and his handling of Iran, make it impossible for me to see him as the 'best' of the three. Obama and Clinton are infinitely better and have a far deeper presidential legacy than Carter.
Still, you can't question the human being. In that regard, Carter is the most noble of all presidents.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that traded arms, etc. to the Iranians in exchange for the hostages being released after the election. I think Bani Sadr recently said something about him being elected earlier then when he was trying to champion releasing them earlier.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Let's be clear: there was no major legislation passed during his presidency (unless you count the Airlines Deregulation Act of 1978 as a piece of desirable legislation).
Jimmy Carter was and is a good man. He was not a successful president.
I would not, therefore, put him at number 1 on my list. Clinton was a bigger disappointment to me than Obama, though I loved him dearly and supported him strongly. So I'll have to go with Obama.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Although Camp David Peace Accords was his own...I think he had trouble understanding how the system works, and Congress always fought him...if he had a second term, there might have been some significant accomplishments, but we'll never know.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)He sold the Presidential yacht for a cool $286,000.
Ended that waste!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sequoia_(presidential_yacht)#U.S._government_service
BeyondGeography
(41,107 posts)He was completely blown out after one term and the main policy of his that survived is deregulation, which many people voting for him hate.
PennsylvaniaMatt
(966 posts)In the end, I would have to say Clinton.
liberaltrucker
(9,168 posts)Should have been Obama, alas.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Perhaps a number of people are still upset about the Lewinsky thing.
SamKnause
(14,897 posts)My 2 cents for what it is worth.
I was never upset about the Lewinsky thing.
I didn't vote for Clinton in this poll because of;
NAFTA
repealing Glass Steagall
DOMA
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That's why our media is so messed up today.
And putting in the DLC in to a powerful position in the Democratic Party that was at the time secretly funded by the Koch brothers is inexcusable as well to me.
SamKnause
(14,897 posts)I knew there was something I left out.
Thanks.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)And the "democrats" hated him for it.
He had vision like no other modern president and ridiculed for it.
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)causing many of his accomplishments to be under-estimated
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)hard to rebut.
rug
(82,333 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)arming religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan.
rug
(82,333 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Of course he wasn't as horrible as they say either.
What I like most about him is that he doesn't give a fuck about anything except doing the right thing. He's vexed every single one of the Presidents that came after him and they all hate him for it.
Good for him.
boilerbabe
(2,214 posts)
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)Carter is the most honest, sincere, and altruistic, the least tainted by expediency/compromise with evil forces. In personal terms, Obama has done me more good, as the health care subsidies make a huge difference in the poverty level faced by pre-Medicare retirees. Clinton may well be the best politician of the three, and by far the best at unifying Democrats and outwitting Republicans.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Jimmy Carter is a Democrat.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The issues that came up were so different. The difficulty level was so different.
Carter was presented both massive economic and foreign policy challenges. Clinton's Presidency doesn't seem so difficult by comparison and Barack Obama had slightly worse economic challenges but not as bad foreign policy challenges as Carter.
Hard to put either in the other's shoes and say for certain that one would do better than the other.
I can guess, for instance, that Clinton and Obama would both have gone to war with Iran over the hostage crisis, but I don't know that for sure.
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)Carter was the best human being, but the worst president of the three.
Clinton was the best president, but the worst human being of the three.
Obama is right in the middle.
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)I don't like thinking that Clinton was the best president of the three because he was the worst human being, and vice versa for Carter. But having read your post, like it or not, I do suspect that. It's uncomfortable to consider the kind of person it takes to succeed in US politics.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I was not alive for carter... so I feel weird voting for him.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)He belongs in the mix with Poppy Bush and and Shrub for best Republican.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)There's no way we'd have passed any health care reform of any sort under any Republican. Obama got that done. Clinton couldn't get that done, and Carter never seriously tried.
Obama loaned money to Chrysler & GM. Carter also loaned money to Chrysler. I'm dubious that any Republican wouldn't have just left them to be picked apart by the vulture capitalists.
Obama has ended combat in Iraq, and is winding down involvement in Afghanistan. The GOP would have kept up those wars indefinitely. Clinton took steps to end Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, and did so without putting our troops in combat situations. Obama gave the green light to terminate Bin Laden, and has generally done well keeping Al Qaida on the run.
Barack was late to marriage equality, but he got there. Many Republicans are still desperately trying to hold back the tide.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I'd rather have a president who fights for universal healthcare and loses than one who never brings it to the negotiating table and let's the insurance industry write the ACA. If you fight for something long enough you get it. If you never fight for it, you never get it.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)..so much different...
Clinton as President is looking worse as time goes on...NAFTA..letting Wall Street and the banks loose..
Wounded Bear
(64,332 posts)Carter probably had the best character, but he was also the first modern "Christian" President. Points off for that, actually, as it led to the strengthening of the religious right as a movement.
Clinton got the most done, but he was a champion of triangulating and undermining true Democratic values with his DLC trappings.
Obama is hard to figure. He usually talks a good progressive line, but he's been too willing to 'compromise' with recalcitrant Repubs who had no intention of doing so. He's lost ground for progressives in his term. Too much third way, DLC crap. He's made some progress, but mainly on side issues. Even his signature health care bill could have done much, much more than the Republican Lite legislation that it is. He's certainly had the most opposition, TBS, but really hasn't used the groundswell of progressive power that launched him into office to great effect.
All were better than the alternatives, but maybe not by as much as they should have been.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)force the republicans to compromise more. He had the electoral vote and the popular vote. He had the momentum of the people. The people would have supported him. Why didn't he use it? He stopped listening to the people and listened instead to all the Washington insiders and lobbyists who were whispering in his ear telling him how things had to be. And poof, our voice was silenced.
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)That counts for something with me.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It's just too bad that Reagan had to tear all that he had done in this area down after he took over. If Carter's changes incentivizing this energy had taken root, we might not even have the severe climate change problems we have now!
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)democrank
(12,604 posts)by a mile.
Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
FSogol
(47,624 posts)Reagan era hijinks. 
LostOne4Ever
(9,753 posts)hamsterjill
(17,582 posts)I honestly believe he's done more since his presidency than during his presidency, so I had to vote for Big Dawg...who I think is awesome!
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I'd give Clinton the edge in regards to effectiveness, charm, charisma and all that.
I'd give Carter the edge in regards to the policies and his humanity.
I'd give Obama the edge in discipline.