1) Washington- the father of our country. He no longer gets the respect he earned and deserves.
2) Reagan-The best President of the last 100 years and the last real leader this nation had.
3)Jefferson- A genius who, like all leaders, made some mistakes.
4)FDR- I disagree with all of his politics; but the man managed to inspire and lead when the nation needed inspiration and leadership.
5) Clinton- How else would we have ever known that blowjobs were not "sex"?
6) A tyrant who trampled the US Constitution and is deified in American history.

There...I chose one...right?

I seem to have misplaced my rose colored glasses and can't quite credit Clinton with every ray of sunshine that broke through the clouds during the 90s, so I can't say him. FDR was in office long enough as it was. Jefferson and Washington would have been fine, but I don't think either were interested in making it seem as though we had created a situation of royalty.

It would be between Lincoln and Reagan. If we get realistic with this fantasy question, I'd say Lincoln. As much as I like Reagan, knowing what we know now he would have likely been in the early stages of Alzheimer's by the end of a third term.  

3 words: Ronald Wilson Reagan

In a world which physical incapacity is no object, I'd go with Lincoln, finished out his second term and getting another.  I think even the completion of his second term it would have changed America for the better in dramatic ways.

That being said, neither he, FDR or Reagan were physically capable of extra terms.  Washington did  the country immense good by choosing not to seek another term.  Clinton is a nothing special pol, and another term would have been a zero sum exercise.  That leaves Jefferson by default.

Lincoln without a moment's hesitation. Our country has never seen the likes of him in the presidency before or since. While every human ever has had flaws, and Abe had his, he is still a reasonable choice, not necessarily THE ONE, but a reasonable choice, for the greatest person we've ever produced as a nation.

I'd take a third term under Clinton in a heartbeat. The country was going thru eight years of prosperity - jobs were up, unemployment down, there was a budget surplus, the water and environment was clean, the crime rate went down every year under Clinton. Clinton had Osama Bin Ladin targeted as the #1 threat to America. There was no War with Iraq, FEMA was it's own organization and not some underling of a Govt agency. Things were working out very well in the Good Ole USA. Then came Bush.........

I like this hypothetical question. Neither FDR, Lincoln nor Reagan were capable physically of another term. Not many presidents have been. Washington knew nobody could defeat him in any election but he nobly (and wisely) set the precedent for two terms which only FDR had the audacity to ignore. I certainly could not imagine the damage to the country that a third (whew, was that a shudder?) Clinton term would have wrought. And Bush will have had enough by the end of 2008. Eight years is a long time. That said, I'm accustomed to the ebb and flow of the two term limit where, as long as you don't screw up completely (like Johnson, Carter and Bush '41) your second term is the time to really implement your true policies. You dare move closer to them because you are not running for re-election, and you expose your true agenda, and the country gets what it voted for. Taking that comfort zone away, and making the president run again for re-election during his second term (and third, etc.) would really upset the apple cart for me. Hey, I'm a conservative guy. I don't like it that that amendment exists. But, now I'm used to it.