What a statesman it was!

Quiet competency served him well.

Why should JFK not set the standards?

Does the typical young Bernie supporter know anything about Kennedy? I doubt it.

The point is why is it that we should set the bar real low for recent presidents?

JFK does not meet the standard of Progressive icon, when evaluated realistically.

Certainly he never set any standards for me. I don't admire the kind of privilege that causes people like him to think they have a special right to high elective office -- as a duty to their family more than to their nation -- and then to be above its more mundane duties, like actually serving their constituents.

And just as certainly Bernie followers are unlikely to have been overly impressed with the media rhapsodizing over "Camelot," the "wealthy and glamorous" Kennedy Dynasty, and Jackie's wardrobe. History has a way of changing former leaders from real, flawed people with real, flawed administrations to symbols of whatever people prefer to imagine they were.

Go figure.

Cuban Missile Crisis?

Bay of Pigs?

JFK also instituted very large tax cuts, benefiting the wealthy the most, including a corporate tax cut.

and many other programs that have come since. We are way to the left of Kennedy now.

but he didn't live long enough to accomplish much. Johnson rode the coattails of his martyrdom to get a lot done in his name, but the credit for that goes to Johnson, who was fearless of the consequences (50 years of the party being in the wilderness was his prediction, and he was right). Too bad about his screwing up the US and Vietnam of that stupid war.

I like them to take issues seriously and not make a mockery of them by saying one thing and visibly going in the opposite direction, I realize most people who run will be more conservative than me, but I am not ready to hand over my life to corporations, more than a liberal and more than a democrat and more than a progressive, I am an anti-corporatist.

I had the chance to watch him give a sermon a couple of years ago. It's was really good.

but a terrible and utterly ineffective executive.


One of the reasons Clinton is a good choice. I have a favorite saying... "it's not always the most popular person that gets the job done". She doesn't need to be the person you want coming over for Sunday dinner. She needs to be effective.

Carter busted the Teamster's Union, destroying the incomes for tens of thousands of blue collar workers. Carter also began the drive for deregulation, which Reagan was most famous for, and which is something that most Bernie supporters dislike about Clinton. Carter was also pro-nuke and nuclear energy. Carter's a great ex-president, but he was not a good president.

... Hillary will win and we'll all progress

I changed the post to include a list of pro/con.

For my lifetime, that's not so much con. It gets worse from there.

I really liked Kennedy, but I was only 2 when he died.

The budget imbalance exploded because of actions under Nixon (and Ford). I would also add things like energy program as a pro under Carter, though mostly dismantled under Reagan. Also his attention to human rights.

I was reasonably happy with Kennedy at the time, approved his focus on big ideas and actions for the future - education, space, etc. I was in HS at the time. Was really scared during Cuban missile crisis, relieved with his handling.

Had have really mixed feelings about Johnson. So many positives domestically overshadowed by Vietnam.

I was happy and excited for about two years with Bill Clinton. Had great hopes with being out from under 12 years of Repubs. Came to dislike having to defend the lesser of evils on policies.

I have generally been happy with Obama, particularly with his style and calmness through crises. At first, his attempts to compromise made him less effective. After a couple of years I decided I was glad he had won instead of Clinton who I had supported in 2008.

I am a Wellstone Democrat. I knew Paul in college. Sanders has given a powerful voice to the policies I want to see during my lifetime. Under Clinton, I doubt I will ever see them. Under a Republican, I know I will not.

1. Met with Snowden in contemplation of a pardon,
2. Ditto for Chelsea Manning
3. Toned down the drone strikes
4. Leashed the NSA

He would be close to the top in my lifetime.

Right now, no one holds that spot.

I'd also add that he was good for making human rights an official part of our foreign policy.

I admire Pres. Carter. VERY smart. Excellent character. But he really didn't have the the personality to be President, IMO.

And the Camp David Accords are a remarkable accomplishment, whatever his failings.

..to Anwar Sadat.

That was class.

People seem to forget about the ugliness of 1980.

Apparently none in his 56 years as an adult.

b ut don't allow truth to slow you down any keep that Hillsbara comin'

Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders once said that he was “physically nauseated” by a speech made by President John F. Kennedy when Sanders was a young man, because Kennedy’s “hatred for the Cuban Revolution […] was so strong.”
“Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. “But I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech#.kygbdd8k8l

yoour original seem to portray Bernie as being sickened by JFK across the board when that is untrue

Does it bother you?

And Bernie wanting to dismantle the ACA is ok with you?

Seems to me, policy-wise, Hillary is much more like Obama than Bernie.

I support him in that, even as I didn't want Obama to lose such a primary. They're not inconsistent.

So Carter was good enough?

What do you have against Carter?

Perhaps I was wrong.

He didn't really substantially change anything though like Bernie is proposing to do. That's why I thought many Bernie supporters would not be satisfied with that.

They can't really be compared

He was always still a progressive in my book, but, he wanted to GOVERN, and governing means compromising.

When he left office he definitely became publicly more progressive.

The convention ugliness of 1980?

and certainly not based upon the standards they criticize Clinton about

Heck 4 of them came from big political machines-bought and paid for by huge Establishment corporate funds-FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson. Arguably 3 of them had Mob ties and/or won by crooked political manuervers

The "New Democrats"/DLC purposefully decided to move the focus of the party away from the working class towards the owner class and professional class. That was the big change.

As far as presidents, FDR was by far the greatest Democratic president. Truman was pretty good but faced a strong republican headwind. JFK had a lot of potential, but his opportunity was cut short. LBJ could have been a great one--he caved to the anti-communist bloc and got us bogged down in Viet Nam. Huge mistake, but other than that his Democratic rating has to be very high.

Jimmy Carter, while a great man and the best human being of the group, wasn't necessarily a great president. My biggest knock on him is he really lacked the "vision thing" or a way to get that across.

Bill Clinton was a guy who also could have been a great one. He started out well. He raised taxes as they should have been and didn't get bullied into an austerity regime. But, then things fell apart. He started buying into the corporate viewpoint on just about every issue. Capital gains tax cuts, NAFTA, deregulation of just about everything. And the fact that he couldn't control his libido made everything even worse.

Barack Obama, quite frankly, has been a disappointment. He ran on "Hope and Change", but a lot of us misinterpreted what he meant by that. The hope part, OK, everyone wants to have hope for a better future. It's the change part where he really failed to deliver. He said he wanted to change the way things were done in Washington. Judging him on that metric alone you've got to admit not much has really changed. While not entirely his fault, his personality and demeanor pretty much guaranteed it wasn't going to happen. "No Drama Obama" is a pretty good description, he's just not one to make waves or have confrontations.

To his credit, although it took him over one full term to realize it, he discovered he had to work around the republicans if he wanted to get anything done. The chances of anything short of total surrender getting the republicans to compromise was ZERO. So, he started effectively trying to make changes. He's been better in his second term and except for the TPP, he's done pretty good.

I'd rate the Democratic presidents in this order: FDR, LBJ (even with Viet Nam), HST, JFK, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter.

So, I hope that answers your question.

watch PBS the Presidents-there were no campaign limits back in those days and no disclosure of graft.

The politics in Missouri made it pretty much imperative that to get elected to any office you had to play ball with the Pendergasts. However, that had ZERO effect on Truman's service as VP and president.

As for LBJ, for all his flaws and Vietnam, he said "Fu_k incrementalism!" We're getting a Civil Rights Act, a Voting Rights Act, and Medicare. We're going for a War on Poverty and will push for strong unions and urban renewal. We CAN do these things. His record on crucial Democratic issues far surpasses later presidents.

View profile
The "New Democrats"/DLC purposefully decided to move the focus of the party away from the working class towards the owner class and professional class. That was the big change.

after they passed NAFTA and I don't blame them. Do you really expect them to support a party that joins with the Republicans to chip away at labor rights?

LBJ put the Democratic party all in on racial justice. The union membership, fat and happy due to Democratic initiatives, began to bite on the republican plays on their fears and biases. In essence, they voted to kill the golden goose by supporting first Nixon and then Reagan.

What I feel strongly was the wrong choice was for the Democrats, or at least the DLC Democrats, to abandon the central pillar of the Democratic party--we are the party of the working class, the little guy, the average American. To their credit the DLC didn't suggest going the "Southern Strategy route" to bring back the working class. But, to their discredit, they just decided to in effect abandon it altogether.

If you accept that pols are cynical opportunists and have no guiding principles except winning, then what the DLC did makes perfect sense. But to those suspicious of corporate motivation and power, it was a total betrayal of central party values.

The DLC/Third way has been successful in national elections. So, the formula of being cozy with the corporate elite and the professional class has worked in that regard. It allows national candidates to position themselves as reasonable and not as nuts as republicans. And it rakes in the corporate money.

But at the state and local levels, it has been a disaster. I think Thomas Frank has some pretty good ideas of why this has occurred. And why it should never have happened.

Obama was the wake up call. A lot of us campaigned for him, voted both times and as usual it was the football yanked out from under us again.


Now? No reason to participate in a bought system.

I held my nose and voted for Clinton twice and still wince. I stopped holding my nose in 2008 and 2012. Obama lost me when he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan.

There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. Lord Acton

Obama I personally am about 65 percent "happy" with. I agree with him often, I trust his integrity, I admire his smarts, and he's a lot of fun. And I love to see his jibes at the GOP....I'm not happy that has aligned himself too closely with the Corporate Dems rather than pushing harder with his Inner Liberal. I don't like his trade policies, I think Obamacare was misguided, and a few oter things....But overall I'd happily vote for a third term.


Clinton. I dislike him intensly. I think he's a turncoat and an opportunistic grifter.I used to kinda like, him, but in the 90's he pissed me off in the same way he pissed Bernie and otehr progressives off..... He deliberately turned the Democratic Party down a Very Bad Road.....He got away with it because like all good grifters, he distracted our attention with his "aw shucks" charm, and he fed the economy some cocaine that was fun while it lasted. But meanwhile he was allowing Wall Srt and Big Bidness to pick our pockets and buy up the government while laying the groundwork for their $195 million family fortune, as his payback.

Hillary will be much the same, without the charm.

Carter I admire a lot now. He has a lot of character and integrity But he had the bad fortune to preside at a very bad time, and wasn't up to the challenge. Since then, however, the contrast between him and Clinton is jarring. He has spent his time on truly huminatarian work. Unlike the Clintons,. he didn't chase the Big Cash.

... bin as HRC by BernVictims

Yes Carter was a conservative, and he did some deregulation things I don't agree with.

But he had a terrible economy to contend with, and he was not a bought and paid for con artist.

I realize that doesn't fit your narrative, but when have Hillary supporters ever let reality interfere with their stories?

But 50 years later, the LAST Democratic President that I like is LBJ.
I hated him with a Purple Passion during his Presidency because of the VietNam War, and the deaths of a couple of my friends.
In retrospect, he was the last Liberal President in the US in over 1/2 a century.

LBJ gave us Medicare, the War on Poverty (back when Democrats admitted there WERE poor people),
The Great Society programs, and the crown jewel, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I admire his guts for doing the right thing despite the consequences.


--------------------------------------------------
"The Johnson Treatment".

Bernie supporter here.

Although I didn't agree with everything Obama has done, I truly like and respect him and I am proud to say he's My President. So calm, so classy, so smart, so cool.

Mark my words: No matter who succeeds him, we mill miss President Obama very much.

- He isn't president;
- He isn't Democratic;
- He doesn't meet the standards.
But except for that.

... looking at the facts.

Point being, purist are never FACTUALLY satisfied with anyone... they'll dismiss things of one person they don't like and accept those actions out of someone they do like

Sure he's a moderate. But he's a moderate who gets things done. (and then they STAY done!)

Would love to see a Bartlet vs Underwood election, now THAT would be fun!

Oh wait.

and even then they overlook the fact he put hundreds of thousands of American citizens into internment camps because of their race. Bottom line: no president, even a great one like FDR, is without flaws.

There were a considerable number of opponents to our Declaration of War against Germany. They would be Sanders supporters today and would rail incessantly about Roosevlt the hawk. Roosevelt the .1% hawk, in fact.

Thank the gods that Reddit didn't exist in the 30s and 40s.

... this is a good OP.

Factually the purist will just keep pointing out their hypocrisy

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 08:22 PM - Edit history (1)

The ultimate anti-oligarchical presidency, 30 days.

but also wasn't in office long enough to matter. (I recommend Milland's "Destiny of the Republic" for an interesting take on what might have happened if Garfield served more than a couple of months).

Otherwise - they were all human, with good points and not so good points. Wilson was a progressive in some aspects, but set back racial politics by decades. Johnson was great on domestic issues, poor on foreign policy. Carter was a micromanager as president, but one of our greatest statesmen after he left office.

I wore a big picture of him on my shirt, going door to door. I don't expect perfection, just honest effort.

He has accomplished a lot more than most people realize. He did the best he could with the criminal Congress. I like him and his family. I think they have done a lot for this country but it has become a huge job to hide our crazy.

His foreign policy has improved greatly since Hillary left.

And his command during the recovery was noble in light of what he was faced with.

The ACA while it isn't as good as single payer is much better than the situation before it. I'm thankful we got that far. I learned about single payer listening to an Obama speech. He lit a fire there for sure..

Roosevelt was their last happy election. Of course most of us weren't alive, but that doesn't matter. It's history.

duh. Not 100% satisfied. But he's done okay.

on one occasion in the past. And I understand what he meant too. Are you really loving that Kennedy started Vietnam?

Yes, and my big hero is FDR. He is the standard I would adhere to.

Robert Kennedy was going to be awesome, completely, absolutely awesome.

Those would be my big three Presidents or presidential hopefuls. At least until Bernie.

But I do think he is too corporate, and there are some things I have been disappointed with him for.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]My reasons for supporting Sanders were always social in origin. The economic side was just a nice side.[/font]

I was too young to know him as an adult.

I had high hopes for Obama, and this last year he has been the President I wanted him to be all along. Just wish he would have started 6 years sooner.

And also for his anti-poverty efforts. Truman was notable, he vetoed the Taft Hartley Act but was overridden. FDR is somewhat obvious. Bill Clinton actually was decent in a lot of ways. He fought cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Obama has his strong points as well. The Medicaid expansion was good. A lot of the health care law was critically important and saved a long of lives. His foreign policy has been ok in his second term.

I have nice things to say about all of these, and also some strong criticisms. That's how it's supposed to be. If you're just uncritically "happy" with a politician you can't be paying much attention.

corporations, dirty fuels, and the like become Democratic ideals?