Though I am no Obama fan i would prefer you leave the current Commander-in-Cheif out of this.  Personally I would lean toward Carter or either of the Johnsons, but thats just my opinion.

Bush Junior by far if we mean more contemporary ones.

Bush Junior by far if we mean more contemporary ones.

Explain please. I don't understand why the world is so anti-Bush. His greatest accomplishment was beginning the War on Terrorism, wherein he initiated plans to take down our enemy leaders. Without that, we would have never have gotten Osama bin Laden, which the Democrats are taking all the credit for. In a matter of years Afghanistan could have easily have gotten as many nuclear weapons as Great Britain.

I'm not saying Bush was good, I'm just saying he's severely overrated and a scapegoat for the money spent trying to terminate our threats.

Oh, and completely off-topic, Chrome is asking if I meant "Obama" instead of "Osama." o.O

Toss-up between Andrew Jackson, backwoods war hero turned debaucher and genocide plotter, and Herbert Hoover, mastermind of the Great Depression. In recent years, the younger Bush certainly seemed determined to do a fair amount of damage in a short amount of time. The current state, and powers, of the executive branch concern me, but the fault for this lies with no president specifically- the presidency has become progressively more despotic with only rare reversals since Nixon's time.

George W Bush, basically ruined the USA.

Explanation: His war on terror didn't involve relying entirely on drone strikes like Obama. It Involved shifting massive numbers of men into a hellhole with poor intelligence reports, poor planning and no backup solutions. Obama deserves credit for shifting focus away from Iraq which had little or no link to any war on terror. Bush epitomizes for most Muslims a man who likes to shove America's boots anywhere he wants; he exacerbated the war with terror and fostered intense anti Western hate, if this is protection for America, I think not.

As for claims that Afghanistan was developing nukes? Please, the Taliban spent most of their time quashing all signs of modernity and humanity, including science. Talk about far fetched baloney. Afghanistan with it's non existent nuclear facilities were no where closer to developing a nuke, let alone as many as the UK as the Zimbabwe'a ability to out a man on the Moon now.

The highly interventionist Bush Doctrine saw the US lose much goodwill, increased animosity, made the world a much more dangerous place for Americans, and helped to fuel Islamic Fundamentalism to a new level. In sum, it achieved the complete opposite of what it set out to.

He initiated one of the largest spending sprees in American history,  increased federal government spending from $1.789 trillion to $2.983 trillion (70%), the increase in spending was more than under any predecessor since Lyndon B. Johnson. Yet at the same time he initiated tax cuts of over 1 trillion, resulting in the national debt doubling by the time he quit. Tax cuts across the board
don't work, even Reagan's administration, long held to be a paragon of conservatism admitted so. Though many wealthy Americans, and some Republicans, insist that tax cuts for the rich help the economy, Ronald Reagan’s chief economics adviser found that the economic recovery during that presidency had little to do with the administration’s tax cuts.

Also, I disagree with his lack of support for environmental policies, his daft anti stem cell policies, the Patriot Act, and his courting of evangelicals.

some african mumbo jumbo.

or is it usa only?
if so plz. state it somewhere OP.

His war on terror didn't involve relying entirely on drone strikes like Obama. It Involved shifting massive numbers of men into a hellhole with poor intelligence reports, poor planning and no backup solutions.

That may not be an entirely salvageable situation, the drone strikes under the current administration have quickly become risen to prominence as a cause of massive civilian causalities.

Personally I think the title for worst president would be divided up amongst various presidents due to certain scandals they presided over, even while excelling in other cases.

Now going back to the OP, I'd say it was Buchanan, his presidency took place during the antebellum period and most people seem to agree that his attempts at playing both sides of the issue simply lead to greater conflict. One could almost chalk his actions up as a leading cause of the events that would result in the United States Civil War, not a good reputation at all.

Herbert Hoover, mastermind of the Great Depression

What a load of Democratic bull, show me one bit of evidence that Hoover deliberately crashed the economy of the world (and how would one man manage to bring down the entire world?)

surprised no one has said Johnson for escalating the Vietnam war, but that probably stems from more democratic stupidity.

(make no mistake, I don't hate democrats exclusively, I hate all politicians, politesse just raised my ire)

~~~Darth Caedus

how would one man manage to bring down the entire world?

hitler made a good attempt