No experience required?

The past few weeks I've been wondering if the voters are so turned off by the Bush Administration that they're willing to overturn an almost unwritten rule in this year's election: that Presidents must have some executive experience before they're elected. In today's Washington Post David Broder notes that none of the leading Democrats has ever been in charge of anything before.

But it was also stunning to realize that the three current and former senators who have survived the shakeout process -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- have not a day of chief executive experience among them.

By contrast, the Republican field is loaded with people who are accustomed to being in charge of large organizations. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee were governors of their states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Democrats are practically a shoo-in this year. Maybe they are, but this is a serious chink in their armor.

The more the campaign focuses on the economy, the more I think that favors Romney above all others. His Massachusetts experience is a good story and that's what won the day for him in Michigan. I still think he's the favorite for the nomination and if he can overcome his plastic-ness he could well win in November.