[King of New York]

I would have to say it is close between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and that I would have to give a slight nod to Bush 41.

Bush 41: 1) successful execution of the Gulf War--given what happened in Iraq after W invaded, I do not think that one can criticize Bush 41 for leaving Saddam in power as he did. 2) Successful handling of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact: no gloating, no crowing, just a calm, understated response that did not trigger a pro-communist (or worse) backlash in those countries. 3) Relative fiscal responsibility, and a commitment to keeping the deficit from balooning.

Clinton: 1) Good handling of the economy, and a willingness to embrace welfare reform. 2) Reasonably successful handling of the wars in the Balkans, marred by 1) the beginnings of excessive deregulation, which set the stage for a later economic implosion, 2) the poorly executed intervention in Somalia, and 3) a lack of discipline in his personal life, which hampered his ability to lead.

I regard Carter and Reagan as equally bad. Reagan may have won the Cold War--and I would dispute even that--but his withdrawal of US forces after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon sent a disastrous signal that, if you hit the US in the nose just once and hard enough, we'll turn tail and leave. His fiscal policies were reckless--his successors saved his reputation by getting the deficit under control before it could wreck the economy.