Unlike Obama, Paul is not one of the party cronies. He stands on principle and doesn't compromise just to get votes. That's why the establishment hates him.

For me it is between Grover Cleveland and Calvin Coolidge. Both respected the Constitution and tried to avoid expanding the Government.

He did treat the Indians horribly that,s what ruins it for me, if it weren't for that he would have been one of the best, being the only president to pay off the National debt and kill the National bank.

It's a tough choice between FDR, Wilson, LBJ, and now Obama.

Well FDR was , but Obama may be competing with him for that, Woodrow Wilson was also pretty bad in this area.

I really don't care one way or the other. If a woman is the best qualified and I think she has good positions then yes but I wouldn't vote on anyone based on gender, or race for that matter.

I will go with no, mostly because he didn't respect the rights of the state. By that I do not mean the right to own slaves I think that was a legitimate thing to oppose. He wasn't even concearned about slavery until halfway through the war and had even stated he didn't care if he had to keep slavery or abolish it in order to keep the UNion together.

I have to clarify. The constitution says the president can request a declaration of war but it must go through congress to be legal. We haven;'t had that in a long time. COngress has approved money for war, or approved parts after the fact but I think the last legal declaration of war was Dec. 1941.

He is definitely up in the top 5 worst. Up until recently I said I wanted to wait until he was finished to pass final judgement but I don't see how he could recover enough to be considered a good president at this point.

I could see myself voting for Rand. However not for several of the other Republicans, if we got Jeb Bush or Chris Christie I would probably vote third party..again.