PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: How Do You Rank These Candidates According to Qualifications?

Question

Ideology aside, how do you rank these candidates based upon qualifications for the Presidency? Naturally, everyone's definition of "qualifications" may vary, but I trust there are more similarities in everyone's definitions than differences.

CANDIDATES TO BE RANKED:

Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, McCain, Guiliani, Romney, Brownback.

Answer 1

The Four Dem's? Are for High Taxes. Low Ratings, all around! The Republicans? McCain is too wishy-washy. Romney is rumored to be the same. Brownback is a mystery. Rudi is the one, so Far. But, look at if Newt, joins in! That's gonna thicken, the Race, for sure.

Answer 2

superb Ron Paul Mike Huckabee Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Fred Thompson John McCain John Edwards Hillary Clinton Worst Im a super Ron Paul supporter and that i disapproved of John Mccain for being too reasonable.

Answer 3

Its way to early to even think about it. Half or even more will drop out on their own. I dont even think the republican winner is even in the race yet. As for the democrats, theyll eat their own before the end of the year. Look for Al Gore to put his name in the hat.
Clinton and Obama, dont think the U S is ready for either just yet, maybe in peace time theyd have a shot. Lets not forget about Joe Leiberman and Chuck hagel, Im sure theyll run too.

Answer 4

Richardson (By far the most qualified: Foreign and Domestic exp)
Biden
McCain
Clinton
Guilani
Edwards
Kucinich
Bonback
Romney
Obama

That is experience not who is likely to get the nomination

Answer 5

Man, I wish Jack Daniels was running with Jim Bean as VP.

Answer 6

Qualifications are facts with wiggle room.. They are numbers of years in jobs relating to their desired achievement, they are timeline anaylsis' of accomplishments learned/completed during.

What makes peoples "definition" of "qualifications" different is your ability to understand the human brains tendensy to relate + entangle actual, documented, proven "facts" and your persception of what the fact's consequences are..
and knowingly avoid it.

A lot of people don't understand that... Thats why most of America's anti-administration followers base their "corrupt" claims regarding USA Presidential Administration on their personal interpretations of facts and their failure to constantly question and analyze the alleged "fact" by considering past events, different perspectives, current events in America, and current events in foreign countries, rather then supporting their alleged "facts" with what supports their fact.

The difference is.. people like me (im a republican, but im not saying all republicans are like me.. just stating a fact; ..im a rep. FYI.)
get a fact, understand the fact, question the fact, consider the validity of the questions regarding the facts validity and relevance, and then come up with a conclusion/belief...

i see many people who..

get a fact, relate the fact to other similar things they heard regarding facts they perscieved to be relevant, and then came up with a conclusion/belief...

In my experience, most people I see doing this turn out to be Liberal or moderate..

for example.. Steven H... he put John Edwards as #1.
John Edwards Presidential "Qualifications" :
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill grad.
(while in UNC : former Director of the Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.)
- US Senator since 1998
- Select Committee on Intelligence (his position: He authored key pieces of legislation on cyber, bio, and port security.)
- served as John Kerry's running mate for the 2004 presidential election

Those qualifications are very, very low considering what many, if not all, of our past presidents qualifications were. One of Hillary Clintons "Qualifications" serves more relevant for the position then all of those racked up by John Edwards. Hillary Clinton served in the White House, next to her husband Bill Clinton, for 8 years. Even though i dont like Hillary, it proves my point..

My real list, no bias..

Hillary Clinton
John McCain
Bill Richardson
Joe Biden
Barack Obama
Rudy Guiliani
Mitt Romney
Sam Brownback
Dennis Kucinich

again, no bias. I Hillary Clinton as the most qualified because she is.. i hate everything about hillary clinton, but fact is fact...

Qualifications are important when voting for a candidate.. however there are MANY different things that need to be considered before coming to the decision of who you are going to support...

Answer 7

Why do you ask? Can't you make up your own mind? Do you want others to think for you? Or do you want to say you are for the one who seems most popular although you know nothing about them?
In order as I see them:

Edwards
Richardson
McCain
Clinton
Obama
Romney
Biden
Giuliani
Kucinich
Brownback

Answer 8

none