[Vanillas]

Yes, Creativemind, there is an unavoidable amount of subjectivity everywhere. Even, God forbid, in History. I think we are referring to the same poll, though I saw it discussed on C-SPAN. I recall the top 10 being pretty much as you listed them. Rankings rise and fall a bit over time as new information is learned and as public attitudes shift. A case in point would be James K. Polk, who prosecuted the Mexican War, a largely unpopular war at the time. Today, however, he is usually referred to as one of the "near greats." A particularly under appreciated president, in my opinion, is Rutherford B. Hayes. Following Grant's shenanigans, he was honesty and fairness incarnate. Yet he seldom gets more than a passing mention.

As to which historians were polled I'm not sure but I believe Richard Norton Smith was one. I'd be surprised if John Siegenthaller and Robert Remini were not among them, and I would expect Douglas Brinkly and Michael Beschloss to have been as well. They are all respected scholars who have also written widely for the general public. Finally, in your conclusion that I don't respect George Bush, you are entirely correct. And, though his stocks may rise in future polls I think it is more likely that they will stay the same or drop. As I wrote in my original piece, I believe W. H. Harrison should have been excluded (How can you rank a man who died a mere 30 days after inauguration?). This would automatically drop Bush to fifth from the cellar.