[Slantwire]

Originally Posted by jamber97

good grasp of the issues

What is a "good grasp?" And which issues? People have differing ideas about what they consider to be an issue - and a particular issue's importance relative to the others. Some people care more about immigration than gun rights, some people focus more on education. Or the economy, or whatever.

(Not commenting on those who figure gun rights will fix the "immigration problem".... )

Originally Posted by jamber97

effectively be able to articulate their stance

Effective articulation can be difficult. Especially after it's been heavily edited and redacted by a third party. Or when the teleprompter dies.

Originally Posted by jamber97

be well educated in the areas of law and American History

I'd agree those are two good topics to know. Personally, I'd consider them very important secondary "skills." Such knowledge will allow a leader to make a more informed decision, but over-analytical paralysis is fatal. The leader still has to have the character to make a decision.

My minor nit is that "well educated" is still a vague term. An ivory tower legal historian will probably not make Putin or Hu blink. Besides, an engineer who is a history buff may well be better versed than a history major who skated through. And people start getting snobby about school rankings when this topic comes up, as well.

Originally Posted by jamber97

proven track record of more than 2 years

What proof? Just the fact of having held office, or do you have some kind of performance metric in mind?

Originally Posted by jamber97

have performed a substantial amount of public service prior to seeking office

Harder to define than a lot of your other criteria. There's a very fine (and blurry) line between public service prior to seeking office, as opposed to public service to position oneself for seeking office. I'd put military, first responders, and maybe even the PTA in the first category. A year of law practice or community politicking goes into the latter, I'd say.

Originally Posted by jamber97

no prior criminal background or punishment received

I'll agree to this one.

Originally Posted by jamber97

multicultural

I don't see this one. And if I did need it, it would mean that we've never had a qualified president. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and those other white guys just weren't multicultural enough.

Originally Posted by jamber97

be well respected

By whom? When? Everybody is disliked by someone. Obama is well respected, even revered, by many - and loathed by many others. Reagan was beloved by many, and reviled by others. Lincoln is well-respected now, but his election triggered half the country to walk out.

Originally Posted by jamber97

nondenominational

Why? To me, separation of church and state means that a Catholic president won't try to force the country to convert to Catholicism, or stuff government staffs with Catholics only. It doesn't mean that the president can't be Catholic. Or Jewish, Buddhist, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster worshiper.

Originally Posted by jamber97

easy on the eyes

If this was a major criteria, Kate Beckinsale would be running for her third term or so.

Like you said, subjective. You've stated that you consider Obama "barely qualified," and Palin "not qualified." Since you've stated your total assessment and your criteria, would you care to break down the scoring for us?