And the American most qualified to be president is ...

The economists among us might like to take your proposed list of qualifications and correlate them to a consensus of historians about the "best" presidents.

I'll bet that success in other political roles, as well as prior electoral success in wide circles, would do well in predicting presidential success. IQ might count for a smidge. (It would seem to help pull in any residual errors for the last two presidents.)

So while it IS a fun game to watch the intellectual dishonesty (mostly, we fool ourselves), or the outright electoral dishonesty -- I'm amazed how McCain has run his campaign with so little emphasis on long-term themes, rather, emphasizing niche opportunities he perceives that his opponent has left available -- in the end, the qualifications are age and being a natural-born citizen.

Hmmm. I seem to remember that Abraham Lincoln had never held elected office before being elected president. Nor George Washington. Although George was, um, a war hero (there's another one, Justin). If you can find a correlation anywhere, I'll be amazed.

I would actually suggest the best candidate may be Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate who is the first Mustached American running for the Oval Office since Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.

Does a vast amount of experience make a person a better president? The President with the most experience before assuming the office (he was in the Senate for over 10 years, the House for 10 years, the State Legislature for 6 years, and in the Cabinet for 4 years) was James Buchanan.
The President with the least amount of experience before assuming the Presidency was Chester Arthur (He had some military experience and had served just half a year as V.P.)
Neither is what I would call a steller President. So for me the whole experience issue is sort of a wash. Personally I think judgement is more of a factor in what makes a President successful.

Curmudgeon George Washington and Abraham Lincoln had been elected to office before assuming the Presidency.
Washington was a General for over 8 years true. But he also spent 16 years in the state legislature.
Lincoln spent 8 years in the state legislature and 2 years in the House. He has some military experience, but never commanded troops.

I suggest that the ability to pick the right people to assist and advise him is the main criterion I'd like to see. And what we do need is someone with a long term point of view.

Thanks, Ashton. I think my memory must have meant national office. I think you are correct in your conclusions, but judgment is such a difficult thing to assess until he/she is actually doing the job.

Curmudgeon,

I have concluded that our presidential contest is nothing more than a popularity contest.

And I don't think it is cynical to say that most Americans have a far better idea of whom they are voting as highschool class president than they do for their country.

@Bryan from Houston: As a former high school class president (Acalanes High, Lafayette, Calif., senior class, 1981-82) I wholeheartedly endorse that analysis.

@Bryan, I live in New Hampshire. There's the old saw about CNN coming up to the general store in Hooksett during the primary and interviewing an older gentleman shopping there concerning what he thought of John McCain. "I don't rightly know," he replied. "I've only met him four times."

Apparently, there are two other criteria the Palinites consider important:

- You can't be from a big city. After all, just because they are loaded with people doesn't mean big cities are "the real America." Besides, if you are from a big city, your religion may be suspect.

- You can't have above-average intelligence. Anybody above average is a goddamn elitist.

Those criteria would exclude me, which is quite a relief, really.

R from R - Palin Derangement Syndrome Strikes Again!

"Palinites"? Really? "Palinites"?

As far as your above-average intelligence . . . I have a vast array of super-powers! There. Now we both feel better about ourselves after making unverifiable claims to absolute strangers through an anonymous medium.

If you were above average, you would use the far more sophisticated "Paliner", as in, "Ich bin ein Paliner."

In all seriousness, the question of qualifications is just an excuse to complain about the opposition. Each party has its candidates, and that makes them de facto qualified . . . to those who chose them. For example, if G. W. Bush in 2000 had run as a three-year senator from Texas, the democratic party would have howled that he was an inexperienced idiot - not that the democratic party hasn't done that anyway.

I think if you look at the senate democrats, Jim Webb of VA has far more qualification than Barack Obama of IL. Military experience (USNA, USMC, decorated war hero, former SECNAV), fellow freshman senator (2006 vice 2004), international experience (speaks Vietnamese), son in the military, and a former Republican. In what way does either Biden or Obama outrank him, except in that he is a democrat primarily in title only?

[...] was never any discussion of Sarah Palin's wardrobe in this here blog--just the election's season most deep-digging analysis of who is actually most qualified to be president. As for the 401(k), I'm really not out to kill it, just to point out that it ain't all it's cracked [...]