I'd buy your list with the following exceptions: Al Gore ever - just for claiming to invent the internet. And Hillary, because her husbands deeds don't count as her own and the 1993 health care bungle (but I'd sure feel better about her as the Democratic choice than the current pick).

If Palin doesn't make your list due to inexperience, why is Obama on it?

See Reason 3.

If the election were all about foreign policy, Obama would be just a footnote in a landslide. Against.  But it is about the economy (that is what cost Bush I the re-election).  The irony (for the colonials as I find the ignorance of most non-Americans even here on JU to be astounding when it comes to America) is that the president has the lions share of responsibility in foreign policy, and very little in domestic (congress has that agenda - and they have to agree with him - he cannot even propose officially).  If America was smart, it would elect presidents based upon that criteria, and congress based on domestic. 

But as I did say foreigners were ignorant, Americans (as a whole) are just stupid.

Precisely.

There is a difference between unimportant and useless politicians and NO SUPPORT.

Being between the list means that I might support that particular politician depending on the issue.

He was not president, but the C-in-C.  which last I checked, they fight fureners.  And while the president is the Executive, congress is the Board of directors.  They make the rules.