FDR and Teddy both dealt with the economy: FDR with the Depression, and Teddy beat back the Robber Barons. Lincoln just seems good in a crisis in general, ditto Kennedy, but they didn't deal very much with the economy.

Washington. I'd like to hear squabbles about an unAmerican president THEN.

Me...

-NO WAY I want Regan... he's last on my list; I'm a Democrat, but I'll acknowledge Reagan was, for HIS time, a good President... but he also started some bad trends RESPONSIBLE for today...

-JFK, as much as I love him and find him fascinating, just isn't going to work here... maybe if we were in a one-shot diplomatic battle (see: Cuban Missile Crisis)

-Jefferson is good, but seeing as his understanding of what makes the American economy tick goes back to cotton and slaves, he doesn't seem right for the moment

-Lincoln is perhaps the greatest ever (I'd personally tie him and FDR, and then have Washington and TR tied for 2nd) but we need an economic mastermind with some war experience... and of all the things he did, economic recovery wasn't high among them (he had bigger issues, like keeping the damn country in one piece!)

-Washington's our Father... but we need an economist and Commander in Chief, and like Jefferson, I don't see Washington able to wrangle AIG

That leaves...

The Roosevelts.

So alike, they're like two sides of the same coin, and really it's win/win who you pick... TR is more inclined to end the war in the Middle East (and I mean the WHOLE AREA- he'd be so mad and so ready for justice that if he were President in 2003 the war would've lasted a few months... and the terror groups would all have been caught and personally whipped by Teddy himself) and FDR's more inclined to fix America's economy and radically change it without somehow being impeached (HE'D find a way to get healthcare reform done... he'd likely have to wheel and deal and fireside-chat until he was out of breath, but it'd be done.)

So, basically, if the Republicans ran Teddy and the Democrats ran Franklin...

We'd be the happiest nation in the world! :D

(But I'll take FDR just because he's a tad better suited to economy first, war second... if this were 2003 or if we were at war with Iran I'd flip it and go for "speak softly and carry a big stick" Teddy.)

Either way, with a Roosevelt in office- we'd be SET! 20 years combined... GREATNESS!

None of the above. Richard Milhous Nixon is the man. The others rank in the order FDR, TR, GW, TJ, RR, AL and JFK thoroughly last.

NIXON?!?!?!

Great with foreign policy.. but you think after 8 years of Bush and Obama, as much as I like him, not always telling the whole truth, that we need the BIGGEST LIAR IN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORY?!?!?

You'd better explain that one thoroughly...

They're ALL liars, when it suits them, its just a question of degree (or maybe of getting caught).

Foreign Policy wins it for NIxon for me. (I should explain that I am not from the USA, and therefore Foreign Policy is the overall imperative in my scoring...

Yes, they all lie... but I AM from the US, and:

-I want a president who'll get me a job- that's TR, FDR, maybe JFK or Reagan, not Nixon
-Ecomony trumps war over here right now... again, TR or FDR...

I nominate Alexander Hamilton to come back from the dead to help America out. He'd straighten out the economy quick enough. Out of the aforementioned though, I'd have to go with the Reaganator.

Big Reagan and Jefferson fan here. Wouldn't touch FDR with a barge pole.

What is with this outpouring of affection for the Gipper? Granted he's a GOP hero and a good President in HIS time... but I'd go so far as to say that he has more "black marks" the any of the others here... even JFK:

-Iran Contra
-Poor handling of AIDS
-Wanted to CUT education spedning and the cabinet post altogether
-Over-spending on the military is part of the reason we're now picking up the tab...

And wow, TGM... what do YOU have against FDR?

The English don't like him... I know he and Churchill had thier rough points, but through and through that was the best pairing of world leaders in history, FDR and the Bulldog... "Nothing to fear but fear itself" and "We'll fight them on the beaches..."

I vote for William Henry Harrison.

I nominate William H. Taft, on the sole grounds that he was eaten by wolves.

Lincoln, easily. He'd be a Democrat without doubt today and he wouldn't be afraid to declare martial law and fix the Senate by force of will.

Other than that, Obama's perfect. He's doing his job - foreign policy - and he's doing it astoundingly well. He's handling terrorism extremely well ( http://bit.ly/capTg3 ) and repairing our image abroad. There's simply nothing he can do on the domestic front unless he were to take Lincoln-esque extreme measures.

I'm surprised I didn't see Andrew Jackson as an option. He was the most badass president, settling all his problems with duels.

Washington had an uncanny ability to find good people and make them work together. He could do the pretty speeches and get the right people do the work.

Lincoln is the man.

Steve Jobs? Bill Gates?

JFK.

Garrison Keiller. We could do with some of that back to basics Minnesota, home baked, wisdom once more. Happy days

FDR was a great speaker, I'll give you that. I oppose FDR because of economics.

And breaking the two term limit, of course.

I oppose FDR because of his arrogant abuse of the TLAs

Teddy would not fit in the 21st century. Military spending too high already. Would need Lincoln.

However Teddy could serve to unite this country from its bullshit partisanship.

I don't think that would be worth an expansion of the military-industrial complex though. But maybe I'm not giving him enough credit.

Ok let's go with Teddy.

Ghost - Even though his economics worked really well, you mean! He was more than a great speaker, his foreign policy was also great and he surrounded himself with smart people in all fields.

ottovanbis, I would argue the opposite, that government intervention ultimately hindered the recovery from the great depression. Note that we have the belief that WW2 brought America out of recession... years after FDR came to power. Hardly a great recovery program that takes a decade to still be unsuccessful.

FDR got the US *through* the great depression, which seems to be the point everyone misses. We could have taken the "lets do nothing" approach and taken our chances that a quasi fascist demagogue or the commies didnt get anywhere. No thanks. never mind when FDR tried to reign in the new deal we slipped into a recession (37? 38?), or that WW2 was marked by *massive* government spending and regulations.

To answer the question though, I opt for a Serpentor like creation where we combine the DNA of all of the above to make a super president.

When FDR reigned in the new deal, a recession resulted. That only proves my point, the new deal didn't improve the economy, it covered the truth of it.

GDP isn't a good measure of economic strength anyway.

Hands down.....FDR. No doubt in my mind.