Experience is meaningless. Lincoln was very inexperienced and was one of the greatest presidents in US history. Buchanan was one of the most experienced and is the second worst president in US history after George W Bush. Bush was also experienced and is undeniably the worst chief executive and head of state in the history of all first world democracies.
bears, bulls, white sox fan 4 life!!!
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
While the question is a valid one, the introduction is all wrong. Next time, try it without the partisan hackery so boldly displayed.
I don't tend to rank experience at all, mostly pay attention to policy and beliefs. Well, I do like voting records, so in that case I suppose was incorrect is saying it doesn't matter, but it's generally boils down to if they support the things I support or not. Even if, with Presidents, policy isn't quite as important as it is in local, state, and house/senate races.
I really don't think there is any job out there that can prepare one for being POTUS. Not Governor, even though it is an executive position, not Senator, not CEO of a large corporation, not a former General, not Vice President.
That said, if you sucked at any of those things you probably aren't cut out to be POTUS either.
As much as I dislike Hillary, I actually think being First Lady prepares one to be President more than any of the other things I listed. Why? Because, assuming the marriage is a close one, the First Lady will be intimately aware of what the POTUS is going through. It doesn't mean she will be a good President, it just means she has a better idea of what to expect than anyone else, other than former Presidents.
As to sharing a bed with a president as a qualification, not only to you get the benefit of being a day to day eyewitness to the issues of the oval office, when you get to the oval office, you get to share a bed with someone that has been there before... a hands on, day to day, coach.
Governor would be second, due to the executive aspect.
I really don't place CEO/business executive experience as relevant at all. The two... running a for/profit business where you have to tell people 'no', and running government where you almost can't tell people 'no'... aren't even comparable.
April Fool's Day is the one day of the year
that people critically evaluate news articles before accepting them as true.
One of the top considerations I have. Aside from basic ideological similarities and sheer likelihood of getting support , I go with experience, and then the team the candidate assembles for advisory purposes.
All things considered, I prefer an insider to an outsider 9 times out of 10.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963
I am assuming you mean POLITICAL experience. The biggest problem with our government now is PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. Term limits NOW!!!!