Does History show us what intellectual qualities in a candidate decide whether he a) is chosen as a presidential candidate b)wins the ensuing election ?

Our Prime Ministers have been , in general, highly intelligent individuals who were already marked out as intellectually and academically able.For example Blair qualified for the Bar, as did Thatcher, who also had a degree in chemistry, Wilson was a first rate economist , a scholarship boy at Oxford University and an adviser to the Treasury; even the unknowns were generally academically bright.Even Churchill, though portraying himself a poor student, was still able to write A History of the English-speaking Peoples when out of office.

Now is this kind of quality sought in your Presidents ? How do they 'pass the tests', as it were, to survive to become candidates and leaders ? ( I ought to say that the opposition leader here,whose party I myself support, a worthy ex-army officer of no such qualities,usually gets 'eaten alive' in questioning Blair each week in Parliament; this failure to match up in presenting arguments and defeating critics is not unnoticed, if the polls are any guide ).

Fred, over here it is largely about popularity and who cqan get the best sound bites. Most americans pay little attention to the actual issues but go with the soundbites that they hear. This is generally true of both major parties.

The trend has been away from brains and principles and towards simplicity and money.

You get de votes, You got de office !!!

Most Americans are too self-centered to look past their own agenda.. If a candicate endorses pink garbage cans, then those voters who like pink gargage cans will vote for him., reguardless that green ones would be best for the country...Sounds sorta stupid ? Yup, but thats the American voter for you.....

The big difference that I see is that your system in Parliament requires public servants in office to debate each other publicly on the floor of Parliament. Our system allows elected congress members to get up and take the floor without interuption... I haven't seen the kind of back and forth that you get in Parliament.

The other thing is that there is the time allowed for Parliament to ask direct questions to the Prime Minister... haven't seen that with our system.

I admit to enjoying watching Parliament broadcasts on CSPAN... I'm a geek for it. I love how the cast of characters address each other and enjoy the way the system works. It's really good Reality TV in my opinion

Anymore, I think we elect a speech writer more than a President. I am very cynical but I don't think most Americans actually have a firm grasp of the issues and are woefully mislead about various candidates positions on things. (myself included on all above)

Heck, I'm not sure most politicians have a position except that they will do anything to remain in office. They also try to get a real good sound byte now an again.. see Bush "Bring em on" "Dead or alive" "Gonna root em out of their hiding places" It's pretty ridiculous if you ask me... which I guess you did

A couple of other things to consider. What is the mood of the country??? Some candidates have risen up at the right time due to the mood of the country not being very good.

Or if a sitting President is popular, many times the opposing party will go through the motions. Whoever is his turn to get in the limelight. The candidate being a sacrificial lamb, so to speak.

Aminator, you are on to something here.The job requires different skills.

Really your men need good advisers in office and an ability to be the part ; it won't matter that they personally can't answer questions about say, the national debt or immigration figures, when in Congress because they won't have to now and never did then.

Mr Bush, to us, sometimes seems rather lost when drawn off his script; but unlike Blair, he's never been called upon to speak or answer impromptu ; he's not had years of practice under pressure to hone the skill.For all I know he could make the exact same speech in 50 towns and not be cross examined on it once in a campaign.

Here unless he or she is red hot on the facts, figures and argument and uses the best research, and above all think on his or her feet, no junior minister can hope to be promoted .All prime ministers have come up through the ministerial ranks either in government or the equivalent in opposition. So all have been cross-examined frequently in Parliament on every aspect of their performance and the results noted by friend and foe alike.

The media gleefully report these battles and clips from the Prime Minister's questioning weekly in Parliament always figure in the national TV news; the public may not know the detail of issues but they can sure see a man floundering or scoring. That image counts for an awful lot when they decide whom to back.( Mrs Thatcher was so fiercesome in this that she even had extra questioning sessions scheduled; Mr Blair, less confident in these battles, had them reduced)

The amusing thing here is that we are describing the perfect king in describing a President. Our kings had to look and act regal and statesmanlike but they needed top spies, diplomats, financial advisers and all the rest at court, in the background , to do the serious thinking and planning . As today our Queen makes a speech to Parliament but every word in it is written by the government !

Fred, understand that as a measure of your politics over there it is desired that your politicians have quick speaking skills etc, however it is not "always" desirable that that is the strongest suit, some people make better decisions out of the public eye, some a re better administrators etc. Harry Truman comes to my thought as a President who could get things done but not be effective on camera or in the limelight. It takes all kinds, doesn't mean some are less capable than others.