It is nearly undisputed that Abraham Lincoln was the United States greatest president, and because of this other historians have described the greatest leaders of other nations as "Lincolns." Clemenceau is noticed as the Lincoln of France, but amidst his passionate politics, a scandal arose with his Panama financial accounts, tarnishing his record forever. Churchill is considered the Lincoln of England whom was an implacable foe of Nazism, but still managed to hold huge prejudices exemplified in his description of Mahandas Gandhi-a "half-naked fakir."
             In a way, yes. Both leaders presided over their nations in time of war and both showed the steadfastness and courage to survive periods of crisis and early defeat. But there the resemblance ends. Clemenceau, a fiery journalist-politician known as "the Tiger," passionately defended Dreyfus but at the same time broke strikes and was tainted by the Panama financial scandal. Churchill, implacable foe of Nazism, was still sufficiently imbued with prejudices of race and class that he could call Mohandas Gandhi a "half-naked fakir." There is but one other man who can be classified as a true "Lincoln," that man is Benito Jaurez, President of Mexico.
             Skin deep the two men seem quite different, Juarez was short and stocky-a full blooded Indian; while Lincoln was tall, angular and of the old American stock. Beneath the skin, we find two men who could very well be the same. Lincoln lived between 1809 and 1865, while Juarez was born three years earlier and lived seven years later. Both men were born and raised poor, supporting themselves in any manner possible, its not suprising then, that both men valued political power over riches. Both felt schooling was important and felt a study in law was the best preparation for political careers. Neither Lincoln nor Juarez could rely on their looks to get them anywhere, so they compensated for their lack of godliness ...