Sorry to pick on you here Ironman, but I want to show how the Obama campaign was so brilliantly run.

This post, and the one about 40% more face time then Bush, shows just how brainwashed people got last election.

Obama did not run against Bush, he ran against John McCain. It does not matter how much face time Bush got, or how much positive coverage vs. Bush he got. But he did such a good job portraying that he was running against Bush, that now that’s who we think of when we think of the alternative to Obama.

Everything Bush did that vilified him in the world, Obama continues to do (aside from Gitmo), and the people love him for it.

Anytime the US does something that’s hard to spin positive, we just say it’s inherited from Bush.

No, it’s not. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with that bombing. It once we sort the story out from the media, it was a good thing, it’s 100% Obama’s victory. If it’s a bad thing, it’s 100% Obama’s fault. 

@Kasz216: Yeah, it's sad that neither of the candidates was against that...

Actually McCain was against bombings in Pakistan without government support.

"

In a victory speech on Tuesday night after his win in the Wisconsin Republican primary over Mike Huckabee, McCain described his presumed rival’s pitch as an “eloquent but empty call for change” and taunted Obama as “an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan.”

In a conference call with reporters early Wednesday, Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice accused McCain of “misrepresenting and distorting” Obama’s positions on Pakistan.

She said Obama laid out a lengthy Pakistan policy last summer in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Institute where, responding to National Intelligence Estimate reports that Al Qaeda had re-constituted its forces in Pakistan, Obama called for air strikes against Al Qaeda targets if the United States had clear-cut intelligence.

McCain responded that Obama “suggested bombing Pakistan without their permission. That is still bombing Pakistan.” "

I believe Hilary Clinton was against it as well.

Obama was the only one of the three viable candidates for the continuation of Bush in this regard.

Well, that list is complete bull. What did George Washington do, since 2000, to go up a place?

And President Bush had great ratings at the start of his presidency as well.

This is not to disagree with you, but I suspect that (in one form or another) it has always been thus:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1819340

Change in how his and other presidencies are seen historically... and slight change in historian/poltician.  In general it takes a good 10-15 years before you settle at about the same place.

The Sienna polls are the best ones though.

Even then though there is the problem that the big name presidents have fanboys.

It's like Videogame criticism but to an even greater degree. You don't get a doctorate in history or political science because your an unbiased observer.

Lincoln is kinda like the presidential Ocarina of Time.

Oh yeah I totally agree really. But just like videogames its impossible to have a truly objective view of a president thats worth anything. I mean it'd be like rating games purely on the number of polygons and the resolution of the textures.

Anything thats subjective has inherent human bias and any ranking of presidents by historians will have bias - probably just less bias and more information than a list by the general public.