We will laud Obama for the ACA, the Lily Ledbetter act, and getting out of Iraq.

While the Teabaggers consider any and all of these impeachable offenses, history will be kind to Obama.

Unlike Bush younger who got us into Iraq on the biggest LIE since 1939 in Germany and Russia.
(Germany claimed to have been attacked by Poland, and Russia claimed to have been attacked by Finland)

i've always thought that his big mistake was running against congress instead of running against watergate.
he was too nice and decent for that strategy (even through surrogates).

running against congress during the campaign set up a difficult relationship once he became president and had to work with them. he pissed off a lot of congresscritters in his own party.

as for taking on too much, neither the oil shocks, the ensuing inflation, nor iran were his doing. he was in many ways a victim of circumstance.

it's interesting to ponder the course of the nation had reagan won in 1976 instead of 1980. most likely he would have been a reviled one-termer, too.

Getting rid of the myth that this country was originally founded to exclude as many as possible(when in fact, the intention was actually the opposite, but couldn't get very far right away thanks to the political realities at the time) would be a nice start. Or how about those two particularly nasty Jefferson myths? That he was a supposed rapist(no proof of this exists, although his adulterous trysts with Sally Hemings have indeed been pretty much proven. Rape? Not nearly to that extent), or that he was a diehard supporter of slavery expansion(Jefferson's writings strongly indicate that he wanted the practice to end.)? And then there's plenty of myths that have been floated about Lincoln as well, mostly by neo-Confederates and their ilk(namely, of the hypocrisy variety).

And let's not get started on today's President Obama, either.....

One could come up with such exceptions for all persons of power, no matter how good they were.

Humans are fucking imperfect; they make mistakes.

FDR was president for over 12 years. He made many mistakes, including your citation.

JFK liked women and was a bit of a dog -- apparently RFK, too. So what?

LBJ did indeed fuck up big time in Viet Nam, and it destroyed his presidency. Then, we got fucking Nixon.

Sorry, I cannot go along with your post.

I note you didn't cite Clinton's Oval Office affair, but cited JFK's apparent dalliances.

I could have listed Clinton too, but heck, we were bombarded for so long with every damn thing the right-wingers could find or simply make up about Bill and Hillary.

LBJ was also a womanizer, the worst womanizer I know of in the White House was Warren Harding.
Harding also had the most corrupt cabinet I can think of.

My point is we shouldn't put any President on a pedestal, and say "Obama should be more like (fill in the blank)."

Obama is who he is, he is not like FDR or LBJ or whoever.

I think we're all pretty much in tune to politics here. I guess I just do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Sorry.

I've been political since JFK and have been legal voting age since McGovern. None of the presidents have risen to my expectations.

Sic transit Gloria mundi.

He can't.

FDR was like FDR.

Obama is like Obama.

In other words, you wanted to stir the pot rather than contribute.

Whatever.

the 'Baggers may not like how he raised top tax rates at one point, but he did also raise taxes on the poor, which is a policy that they seem to be OK with. In addition to this, he got the country involved in another war, he started trickle-down economics, decried socialism, went after the Black Panther Party, and was among the biggest race-baiters in politics. Make no mistake about Reagan--he was a staunch RWer. If he were around today, he might be in the same spot within the party where Christie and McCain are (the establishment).

You counter your own view by overemphasizing most of your points to argue simple facts. A couple of your statements do hold some weight but not in this context.

But my question is, what the hell is a womanizer? I've heard it for almost 60 years and yet it has no definition that anyone agrees on. It's one of those words people use because they don't want to be specific. It's really an outdated term that serves no purpose.

Another question... Who in their right mind would ever consider Warren G. Harding as being on a pedestal that needs to be knocked down? (That does seem to be the underlying point of the OP) Warren G. has always been considered the ultimate in corruption of power. I wouldn't consider putting his name on the same page with any of those you previously mentioned... or maybe you're just venting about "bad things" you think people (presidents) do.

Knocking people down because of their place in time, trying to compare their ethics in their time period to the present is rather absurd, and making personal judgments about their private behavior is silly. Rash judgments about &quot taking) on too much" or being "in over their head" are statements you are not capable of making with any reasonable knowledge; no person is able to do that. Don't create your own myths to make up for the ones you "think" the rest of us have. All any of us need are the facts about history "in context" and the myths take care of themselves without judgment.