By Donald Kaul 
Guest Commentary

It is at about this time in the election cycle that a sitting, two-term president begins to worry about his legacy, that signal accomplishment for which he will be remembered.

There’s some question as to whether that’s a legitimate concern, considering that history these days comes stamped with a 10-year sell-by date. (How can you leave a legacy when nobody remembers anything, good or bad?) 

Still, it’s obvious that presidents think about it and even more obvious that George Bush thinks about it a lot. When one’s approval rating is below 29 percent, the fantasy world of Presidential Legacy can seem a warm and welcoming place.

Mr. Bush likes to compare himself to Harry Truman who left office largely despised, only to become a hero to Cold War historians.

Following along that line, he has put all of his eggs in the war basket. He is determined to go down in history as the man who won the war on terror, brought peace and democracy to the Middle East and stood up to Evil when no one else would. I know, it sounds crazy to me too, but that’s his story and he’s sticking to it. I suppose it could work.

Let’s look at the roster of presidents over the past 75 years or so and see if we can come up with a legacy for each of them:

Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman are easy: New Deal, Cold War. Eisenhower’s presidency is overshadowed by his World War II service as Supreme Allied Commander (although he did begin the Interstate Highway system).

John F. Kennedy: Not much of a legacy, he died too soon. He is remembered for his personal grace and the style he brought to the White House.

Lyndon Johnson: Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam. Johnson might have gone down as a great president, but Vietnam came calling and he simply went down.

Richard Nixon: Watergate on the negative side (when he said “I am not a crook,” he lied); the opening to China on the positive.  China will be longer remembered.

Jimmy Carter: Umm.  Get back to you later on that one.

Ronald Reagan: Restoring prestige to the presidency and legitimacy to the Right Wing.

George Bush: The first Gulf War.  I think his feat in getting in and out of that conflict with minimum cost in blood and treasure looks better all the time.

Bill Clinton: Monica Lewinsky. It’s ridiculous that a man of his ability could throw away his presidency because he could not control his adolescent libido, but there it is. I mean, Marc Antony threw it all over for Cleopatra, but Monica Lewinsky?

George Bush the Lesser: It’s the war. He wants it for a legacy and he’s going to get it. Good and hard.

What then of our current candidates? What legacies might we expect of them should they be elected?

Hillary Clinton: Health care. It seems to be the one thing she’s really serious about, other than getting elected. She’d work at it.

Barak Obama: Perhaps a legacy similar to JFK’s or Reagan’s, a man who infused a dispirited nation with hope and optimism and allowed it to begin dealing with its myriad problems.

John McCain: Hard to say. McCain is 71 and will be 72 by the time he would take office. Well, I’ve been 71 – as a matter of fact, I’ve been 72 – and I’m here to say that’s too old to be president of the United States.

He can drag around his mother, a magnificent specimen of a 90-year-old, and show off his trophy wife all he wants, but he has reached the downside of his abilities. Once you hit 70 the edges of your thoughts begin to blur a little, your memory softens.

Our other two older presidents – Eisenhower and Reagan – both showed evidence of senility by the time they left office and they were younger than McCain when first elected. If elected, McCain’s legacy might very well consist of his choice for vice president. 

Donald Kaul is a former Washington correspondent. His e-mail is This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Article distributed by MinutemanMedia.org.