Absolutely not. As far as I know, having nothing to do with liberal or conservative, I believe George W. Bush was the worst. I was living overseas most of the time Bush was President and was able to observe him from inside, as an American, and outside, from the perspective of the people in the 3 different countries (and 3 continents) I l ived in/on during that time, plus all the people I met traveling around during those years (about 20 countries) and the people from hundreds of different countries with whom I worked during those years. Also, based on the total mess he left America in when he vacated office. There may have been worse presidents in the past, but there is no way Obama is worse than or as bad as GW Bush.
Agreed. And in my travels internationally in the Bush years I found the same thing.
O'bama would have to commit some major fuckups (and sorry, using a teleprompter and not knowing how Snooki is and having a hair-apparent rich gadfly follow him around barking about birth certificates do not qualify as major fuckups) in order to compete with a guy who abandons a war against terrorism and starts one with Iraq because they "have better targets" -- let alone the economy collapsing. That's a tough act to follow.
The original question is absurd anyway -- the idea of historically ranking a POTUS who's sitting in office, not even finished his term yet, is inherently ludicrous. Ranking his predecessor already, barely less so. It's way too early.
How come Buchanan wasn't mentioned among the worst? That guy not only brought on a war through negligence, it was here at home and the worst in casualties that we've ever had. Just sayin'...