Rising Hegemon
For some reason it ranked Obama 15th after 17 months in office, though that's rather meaningless (and to be fair to Bush him too -- although really -- he did suck an awful lot so...).
But the hilarious thing is some of the criteria:
Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.
"Most of the presidents came from elite backgrounds, and he certainly did not," said professor Douglas Lonnstrom, who crunched the numbers. "He grew up without a father."
Uh, so did Washington -- and Lincoln without a Mother -- so they must have really been dragged down by this criteria too. So much for getting credit for that whole "up by your own bootstraps" thing.
7 comments:
So sayeth the mighty Siena College of the hamlet of Loudonville, New York. BTW, enrollment for their 2010-11 "academic" year is open now.
Don't forget Jesus!
seriously? they dinged him for his "lack of father"... or was this the only way they could code for his father's color without appearing racist?
Some much for our egalitarian utopia.
can we BLAME him now for the fucking debt/deficit? PLEASE.
Like sukabi said, I wonder how much he got dinged for being, well, you know. I think I'm going to make up my own ranking. Taft? Fat. Roosevelt? Cigarette Holder (what was up with that?). Other Roosevelt? Weird facial hair. Lincoln? Ditto. Obama? Hair too short. Washington? Wore wigs. Nope, by my criteria, they all suck.
So the "family background" criterion is why Bush wasn't last ?
How is family background relevant to performance ?
Post a Comment