My cynical side says that if presidents were more intelligent, they would be just as scummy, but even more effective at performing scummy deeds and covering them up.

Bush is stupid; Bush's misdeeds, while not known to every man on the street, are not exactly secrets. I think a smarter Bush would have been just as unethical, but we wouldn't know about it.

Perhaps the presidents we perceive as "better" merely hid their nefarious deeds more cleverly than the rest.

My cynical side is unsure if he'd prefer a smarter president, if the above is true. Perhaps, he claims, it's better not to know.

Y'see I'd agree with Malice. The political leaders who are more intelligent (or who listen to moe intelligent advice) can make a horrific atrocity seem far more acceptable than a retarded leader, thus giving them better press.

However, as I'm drunk, you'll have toi wait till tomorrow for an example.

Edit: OK, imagine the public reaction if Bush went out and destroyed Sudan's only pharmaceutical plant. There'd be horrified uproar around the world. Clinton, however, a much more intelligent President, was quite capable of pulling it off with a minimum of outcry.

On the other hand, look what he did despite the outcry!

Caffeine, for all their shortfalls, I think the GOP understands public relations. I think they could proceed in a cautious, underhanded way if they needed to, but they've discovered they don't. The public outcry has done very little.

On the other hand, Bush's popularity is at a record low.

And Clinton enjoyed much higher popularity ratings throughout his second term, even at the height of the sex scandals.

Question to debate: Was Clinton's record objectively any better than Bush's or are better perceptions of him merely a function of his skill at public relations?

Is there any reason to think the changes to the economy, environmental regulations, civil rights, and the like aren't real? A person can improve their image by clever propaganda, and they can improve their image by doing a better job.

There are a lot of people who think educated men can't be trusted, since you'd never know when they're tricking you. They end up voting for whoever seems the least educated, because they must be honest - even if it's easy to see they're trying to trick you. That's what got us into this mess.

Exactly the point I was trying to make to the cynics up top.
Clinton didn't just have a good grasp of PR, he had some pretty decent policies.

That would seem to refute assertions that all politicians, whatever their intelligence, are equally evil self-serving treasury-looting arse hats.