That would indeed be a good thing, but is not a requirement in my mind.
Maybe I should have clarified, I mean, elected by fair and free elections, with no doubt that there was no manipulations of the result like Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. A clear majority(60%+) wouldnt hurt either.
All depending on if congress allows him/her to do so.
To a certain degree, a good president will have the ability to get the congress behind him on most cases. The Bush government was able to trick the congress to follow their politics even using lies like the claim of WMDs for the case of Iraq, and the link to africa and Uranium in the state of the union speech.
Hmm, I am not so sure I completely agree with this. Keeping his/her religion to him/herself would be somewhat deceptive. I would much rather a president openly show his/her religion, but not let it enter into the governing part of things.
To a European this would be one of the most important thing about a politician, many Europeans are as religious as Americans, but they realize that a politician is a politician, and that a priest is a priest. There should be no mixup in this. In my book it is vitally important that religion is not USED in politics.
I dont mind however if a politicians states that he is christian, there is no problem with that as long as he dont do more than that.
An impossible requirement. No human being can be such. We can extrapolate from previous statements that you would not want god as president.
I dont really mean that literally, but more in the context of being able to admit mistakes. No person or politician is perfect, but not many politicians make big blunders like Bush and Tony Blair of England has done in my and many peoples opinion.
Agreed. But not, of course, among the fringe groups of both parties. And preferably able to draw in a large percentage of those who make up the center of the political spread.
A president who have no appeal to the "other side" before he is elected will probably not be a good president, the more important is that a president who dont appeal to the "other side" when he is in office will NEVER be a good president.
Indeed, these last few presidents have not been doing a very good job at making America popular around the world.
One must ask, however, how much of this is our fault and how much is the fault of those who we are unpopular with? Usually such a situation is caused by a combination of both sides views and actions conflicting.
Clinton was a popular man in Europe, and as far as I know Asia. Bush senior was not unpopular in Europe and Asia, Reagan was not exactly popular but he didnt really make America the most hated country in the world ahead of terrorist nations.