I've debated whether or not I really wanted to make any sort of observation about the recent Siena survey of history profs in which Obama ranked #15. After all, my contempt for Obama is such that I'm probably not the best guy to evaluate his presidency right now. But then again, that is precisely my point -- right now, none of us are really in a position to fairly and accurately evaluate his presidency in an objective manner.

I've long argued that it is not fair to even include a president in such rankings for at least 15-20 years after his term in office is up. As such, I believe we cannot even rank Bill Clinton fairly, much less Obama or George W. Bush. Indeed, I believe we are only now getting to the point where we can rank George H. W. Bush in something of a dispassionate light, although his son't later presidency does tend to make doing so more difficult for many partisans on both sides of the aisle.

And in the case of Barack Obama, one cannot make a fair evaluation of him after little more than 1/3 of a single term in office, much less legitimately place him on the doorstep of the top 1/3 of American presidents. There is too much we do not know about him and his policies, too much about their medium and long term effects, to really evaluate whether of not they had the desired effect or whether they were in fact deleterious in their impact.

Think about it for just a minute. The economy remains in the tank, and even appears to be sliding backwards in terms of any recovery we may have briefly seen. Militarily, we've just come off of the highest death toll in Afghanistan during the entire war, and the commanding general had to be relieved because Obama was unable to command the respect of a military officer he appointed and who had voted for for him in the presidential election. Yes, health care legislation passed, but it is unpopular with the American people and is in large part not scheduled to go into effect until 2014. If current polling data proves accurate, it is probable that his party will go down to an ignominious defeat in the midterm election. His own liberal coalition is turning against him for having failed to be liberal enough for their tastes. Yes, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, but that award is seen as a joke by most folks given that he had no deeds to his credit to justify winning it in the first place. At this point, the signs point towards Obama being a failure, not a success. But then again, I making these assessments in the midst of his administration, as an admitted partisan.

And that is the point -- a president's place in history is like fine wine or vintage champagne, not fast food. I can still remember the funeral of Harry Truman shortly before my 10th birthday, and the commentators noting that his presidency was not looked upon highly by Americans at the time or in the years leading up to his death. Where does Truman rate now? Top 10, along with the equally disdained-in-the-wake-of-his-presidency Dwight Eisenhower. What happened? Temporal distance allowed for historical objectivity to develop and appropriate reevaluations to be made. I believe that we will see something similar with regards to Clinton, Dubya, and Obama -- and I suspect that time will not be so kind to Clinton or Obama, while showing Bush 43 to be a better president than partisans, polemicists, and professors now give him credit.