JFK or LBJ?

[Badger]

Tough to say. Johnson's domestic accomplishments with civil rights legislation and numerous domestic accomplishments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBJ#Major_legislation_signed (also add establishing the National Endowment(s) for the Arts (and) Humanities) is impressive to say the least. But the impact of Vietnam can't be understated, and LBJ bares overwhelming personal responsibility for the vast escalation of American involvement.

Yes, Kennedy and Eisenhower had American troops there already, but nowhere to the degree LBJ deployed after the Gulf of Tonkin. Also by most accounts (e.g. then Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield) JFK intended on gradually withdrawing the then small number of American troops in Vietnam after the 64 election. Anything could've happen, of course, but it seems likely we would've never had the Vietnam War if JFK had lived.

In all, tossup.

[Badger]

JFK for several reasons
1-Everything Johnson was proposing that was any good (Civil Rights, certain parts of the Great Society) were proposed by JFK to a certain extent or another.
2-Vietnam. The most polarizing event in American history which has left scars that have yet to be healed.
3-The Great Society did more good than harm, but it was very poorly executed and didn't resolve the problem of urban decay and poverty
4-JFK was a baller.

JFK's handling of the Cuban Missle Crisis probably belongs on this list. Yes, I know there were untold other facts such as cuban subs with nukes patrolling less than 90 miles off US shores long before the Soviets prepared putting missles in Cuba, but the fact remains he kept Soviet land based missles out of the Western Hemisphere and strengthened America's hand in foriegn policy while doing it (wiping out much of the loss of face from the Bay of Pigs fiasco).