Now that I've gotten your attention...
I found the premise of this diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/2/11/142918/144 a bit silly, but it did make me think...
What makes a great president?
Here's what Reagan did (please correct historical inaccuracies). [Let me be clear before the flaming starts that I despise Reagan - I'm using "great" in a different way.
Also, these are some quick unpolished skethces of thoughts...hopefully some of the comments will flesh them out.
Starting in '66, two years after Goldwater's loss, Reagan became the leader of the modern conservative movement with his election as gov. of California. During the 70s he was the spokesman for that wing - question: how much was he involved in the groundwork of actually building the movement, or were they two parallel but unlinked tracks?
He was able to articulate a simple, TV accessible, coherent vision for America - the shortest summation I can think of is Militaristic Christian Individualism.
I don't think this necessarily is what the Conservative Repubs. stand or stood for. But it does capture somewhat what they claim they stand for. This is the rhetoric.
Upon capturing the Presidency, the footsoldiers were already in place and were able to move into positions of power. There was a committed and rather united grassroots, a simple direct message, and a cognizance of the importance of long-term power. This ensured that the governing coalition would survive Reagan's exit (even survive his demented presidency).
So, he was a great President because he managed to unite various factions in the party, purge or subordinate any which opposed his agenda, and thereby ensured that his ideology would be the governing one long after he left.
The New Deal coalition splintered in the 60s and the Democrats haven't been united since. Clinton did not build any party to govern once he left the scene (or even when he was on the scene). Every Dem. nominee since '68 has been ineffectual in coming up with a vision for what Democrats stand for.
There have been diaries that touch on this issue - Stirling Newberry had one a while ago. What do Dems. stand for? Around what can we unite various factions in our party? Or will we forever be fractured, only coming together in opposition to the much more disciplined, rigid conservative Repubs.?