vote of 174-14 in the house and 40-2 in the Senate. Democrats completely supported the war, but Whigs were divided.

Divided?  All 4 of them?  Just kidding.

I place him in the top 10 as well, perhaps a little higher.  But Nearly Great?   I guess one termers are that.  Still, you missed (or did not state) the nuance of his term.  We went from being an also ran, to a run after me nation.  In that I mean, for the first time, we really defeated a soverign nation in a real war. 

The kernal that popped into the 20th century America. 

Rank of the articles:  About a 5.  Still great tho!  I did miss them.  But I guess we cant get a Frank Herbert Dune Book every year!

I supppose. It's blurred a little bit by how the war started, in my opinion. Nearly great, yes. Great, I generally think of the top 6. If you extend that a little, he was a great president. If my ranking is to be believed, he was the greatest 1-term president we ever had.

Hmmm, yes we do have to be selective.  point NJ (dont compromise just because I am a loose person!).

But the Greatest one term?  Damn, I have never thought of singulars before!  Now I have a whole new realm to ideate upon!

A 5 out of what? Still great is good. Next up is another died in office. But don't worry, since he actually did stuff, he will be ranked.

Out of 42 of course!  I have to reserve the best for the last (so I can reorder them). But, hmmmm,

ok, relative to the others, this is Number 2.  So you know it may go down, ok?

Damn you have an addictive series!

And thank you for your thoughts on Pope John II. 

Actually, my rankings are going out of 40(Harrison and Garfield will not be ranked, and Cleveland counts twice but is ranked once). Number 2? You really must've liked it! If it wasn't addictive, how else could I have gotten you to read all 11 of them so far? Of course I would put in my thoughts; he was my pope too, you know.

How long did Garfield serve?  I dont remember, but I will wait for your blog on him (I could google it, but that destroys the fun).  Out of 40?  YOu could always make them 21 and 22.  you know, dead center?

So-called leaders cannot be 'great,' or 'near great'. So-called leaders merely ride the tide of history; history is a course determined by impersonal processes, independent of any one man's imprint, doing; historians have a bad habit of romanticizing history by slapping faces on historical periods, and proclaiming the Reagan era, etc.; sure this satisfies a psychological desire for control over one’s environment; fortunately those of us on the left are intelligent enough to understand the psychology at work here, and do not fall victim to the historical fairy tales that great white Anglo -Saxon males created civilization; the course of history is determined by the collective, and not individual will. Among other things, the collective will is constrained by environment, technology, etc. In sum. it takes a village to determine the course of events; No single man can be great.

Technically, that wouldn't work. I would have to place them between those who did good things and those who hurt America, which is really more early or mid 30's.

I see your optimism!  Ok, then out of 40!

I agree with your rating. Without the west and midwest, where would our country be now?

I agree with your rating. Without the west and midwest, where would our country be now?

You know what they said:

"Go west, young man, and grow up with the country."

Thank you very much. When I do Verdana, my font is extremely strange looking, though. It's much larger than yours.

Heh. Damn these contacts!

I might be able to scrape enough money together if Child Labor Laws were repealed.