By Steve Fey

Presidents are easy to judge. Everybody does it. I recently read someone who was seriously blaming Clinton for the mess in New Orleans. Of course, that’s not possible, because he’s been so busy causing those insurgent attacks in Baghdad, but it still happened, which indicates just how easy it is to judge a President. But I don’t think that things like whether he’s got the brains of an artichoke, the heart of a small child, or some other body part of a porn star, should be the thing we really judge Presidents by. I know, it seems bad when some guy does or doesn’t start a war, may or may not be lying about his personal life, might or might not be a crook, but in truth none of that really matters in day-to-day life. Everyday what matters is the entertainment value we get out of the chief executive. That means first, is the Prez a good speaker? And, if not, is he otherwise entertaining? A few, the great ones, have been both good speakers and entertaining. Let’s review, shall we?

I can’t say a word about anyone before Eisenhower. I do remember his "Military-Industrial Complex" speech. In fact, that’s the first political speech I remember. It was, as I well recall, very dull. And, although he was one heck of a general, he lent very little in entertainment value to our lives. So, sadly, fine man that he was, Eisenhower was a lousy President.

Next came John Fitzgerald Kennedy. The man was a superlative speaker, but otherwise he was dull as dishwater. So while some thought him a good president while he was in office, he was never regarded as great, or even especially good. Until of course he had the PR savvy to be assassinated, an event that thrust him into immortality, riveting the nation for weeks. I remember well the riderless horse, little John-John giving a salute; it was tragic, to be sure, but at the same time it was the entertainment event of the decade. This explains the plethora of Kennedy schools, bridges, airports and whatnot. Thanks to his final act, the man was both a good speaker and entertaining as heck. Had he been entertaining all along, he’d have been a great President. Too bad for him.

Thus arose Lyndon Baines Johnson as the next President. The man talked like a double-dealing used car dealer (apologies to the double-dealing used car dealers as he was actually much worse than that.) Also his idea of entertainment was to entangle us very deep into some other nation’s civil war, a war that was ultimately won by our opponents using pretty much the same tactics we used ourselves to win our war of independence. Johnson was a heck of a guy, but he couldn’t speak and he wasn’t entertaining. Bad President, bad!

Richard M. Nixon was up next. I sort of feel sorry for the guy, because he inherited that whole Vietnam thing and had to work his way out of it. He almost got it done but then something hugely entertaining happened. Watergate! To this day, if you add a ‘gate’ to the end of any word at all it indicates a scandal. "Whitewatergate", "Monicagate", "Irangate", you see the pattern I’m sure. As a speaker Nixon was sometimes entertaining (and he wasn’t a crook, you could’ve asked him) but not particularly adept. However, for riveting entertainment he was top notch. So he was an above average good President in spite of his failings. I think he did something with China, too.

Then came Gerald Ford, one heck of a nice man by all appearances. His speeches were dull, and he quite deliberately did absolutely nothing entertaining during his time in office. Another flop as a president. (But when Nixon said, ‘Pardon Me’, he was right there, eh?)

After the dull Ford came the duller, if saintly, Jimmy Carter. He was entertaining in a sort of tangential way: he had a brother who liked to drink beer while cruising the back roads in his pickup. But Jimmy himself? Sorry, even that hostage crisis seemed trite after what had gone before. Nice man, bad President.

Then came Saint Ronald of Reagan, to use the term favored by his ardent supporters. The man was an actor, so of course he could talk very well indeed. He might be the best speaker we’ve ever had as a President, in fact. The rest of his abilities did nothing to make his term less dull, however. Whether he indeed laid the groundwork for the ninety’s boom, or whether he was a senile fool (both views are current these days) he did what he did with a complete lack of excitement. Falling asleep in meetings is what I do, Mr. President. Therefore he’s good, but not great.

I invite you to watch an old speech of George H.W. Bush and judge for yourself. He accomplished some things as President, but speaking well and entertaining society were not two of them. Sorry, George, bad President.

William Jefferson Clinton, aka Slick Willie, aka all sorts of invectives, is an excellent speaker. In addition, he managed to rivet the nation with the endless accounts of the precise details of his marital infidelity. Me, I could have lived without knowing, but the entertainment value is indisputable. So, and sorry to the conservatives out there, he’s our only great President (since the 1950s.)

Current Presidents are harder to judge. In this case, we know he’s a lousy speaker. But, and this is important, he’s so lousy that it’s entertaining. We’ll have to wait a few years to assess the entire term, but we’re looking at a good President. Could he really be great? Stick around and we’ll find out.