Yes, he was the best candidate to take over the Soviet Union, and was very qualified for the job. He is a great leader, and knows how to run a country and make it successful in the global economy, as well as treat his citizens right while keeping them controlled.
Boris Yeltsin wasn't perfect, but he was better than glasnost and the Soviet regimes that came before him. Mikhail Gorbachev was effective, but he was still a member of the Soviet Socialist party. Yeltsin was not quite as hardline as Gorbachev and so he was better. The unfortunate thing for Yeltsin was that he was similar to Barack Obama's first term--they both inherited horrible situations set up by their predecessors.
Boris Yeltsin was not the best possible Russian leader after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although it would be difficult to point out a name of a person who would have been better, I believe that Yeltsin allowed the West to dictate the direction of his country. A lot of poverty and turmoil resulted from Yeltsin's actions.
When you are bookended by great names like Putin and Gorbachev, it becomes difficult to say that Yeltsin accomplished much at all. His foreign policy basically was to keep anyone from being mad enough at Russia to invade. The weapons draw-down and collapse of the Soviet Union left Russia in a very sensitive balance. Yeltsin pulled it off, and deserves some credit for not letting Russia fall into chaos. Damage control is not what makes a leader great.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, Boris Yeltsin wasn't necessarily the best choice to lead Russia. Better leaders were available and would have done a better job. It doesn't really matter at this point since Russia is still a major power in the world today. Still, things could be even better now.