The President is the Chief Executive. The choice of Chief Executive should be based on the ability of the candidate to run the executive branch. Our Constitution, Article 2, describes the qualifications, powers, and responsibilities of the Executive. The qualifications are minimal:
- natural born Citizen
- thirty-five Years old
- fourteen Years a Resident within the United States
- swear the oath of office
The responsibilities are huge. The President has responsibility over the Military and the cabinet. The president may grant pardons, make treaties, appoint ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the united states. The President receives ambassadors and other public ministers.
The President must give a state of the union report to Congress, recommending to their consideration such measures judged necessary and expedient.
The President can convene the Congress on extraordinary occasions.
The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
It seems to me that the most important of those responsibilities include direction of the Cabinet, and therefore the Departments and programs that those cabinet members run, being Commander in Chief, and taking care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Sometimes in recent history, it seems that appointing judges and recommending legislation has become more important in the eyes of many people. I think this is a mistake. If you elect an activist who will recommend legislation that you like based on positions on "issues", then you elect a candidate of charisma or eloquence who can pound the podium, but may not be able to run the country. There are many examples of this in local governments, activists who cannot run their own city...or state.