Republican voters tend to vote for 'daddy' and/or the guy who talks the toughest. This is why it could be several generations before we see a woman be the Republican candidate. Because in the Republican party they know their place, don't they. Our current leaders sure talk tough, but Bush was AWOL from his cushy assignment (requested training in an aircraft that was never to see service in Vietnam) in the Air National Guard. Cheney sought and got five student deferments from Vietnam. Where were they when it was time to "Cowboy up?" Looks like they did, when their butts weren't on the line.

And you Democrats like the guy with the biggest empty promises, like the great Clinton, and he was protesting our war against communism on communist soil instead of cowboying up, and he is like your greatest President.

and as a(R)vote, I like Mike, but he is not on your list.

The problem with Richardson and Tommy Thompson is while they both possess plenty of executive experience they lack the "vision" thing. You could see them being competent as President but not really inspiring.

why aren't we talking about Bill Richardson?

I dunno. Honestly, I think he's the best general election candidate among the Democratic field. Then again, I like Joe Biden, too, and he's below Dennis Kucinich in the polls.

Republican primary voters are only semi-keen on executive experience.

Republican voters tend to vote for 'daddy' and/or the guy who talks the toughest. This is why it could be several generations before we see a woman be the Republican candidate. Because in the Republican party they know their place, don't they. Our current leaders sure talk tough, but Bush was AWOL from his cushy assignment (requested training in an aircraft that was never to see service in Vietnam) in the Air National Guard. Cheney sought and got five student deferments from Vietnam. Where were they when it was time to "Cowboy up?" Looks like they did, when their butts weren't on the line.

Tommy Thompson, is way back in the pack.

Just wait until he deploys his secret weapon: countless gratuitous photo-ops on his Harley.

T-squared will then swiftly surpass the lesser candidates!

Most of the "running of the Justice Department" falls on the shoulders of the Attorney General.

The exception, of course, is the case of the current occupant of the AG chair.

In the Gonzo justice department, management seems to be the purview of the low-level hacks like Monica Goodling.

Aside from perhaps the vice presidency, there’s probably not much better vantage point from which to observe the day-to-day responsibilities of the job.

Miss Lewinsky might object to this characterization!

No, but as a grassroots organizer, you gain experience in leading and delgation, a working knowledge of compromise, and a "bottoms-up" view of legislation.

They do, however, run the Justice Department.

Most of the "running of the Justice Department" falls on the shoulders of the Attorney General. The President may set some broad policy, but he's not really doing any micromanagement there. (And when Presidents do micromanage Justice, the results are usually less than optimal.)

In fairness to Obama, I think that his years as a community organizer are probably quite relevant to the presidency--more so than Giuliani's years as US Attorney, anyway.

Presidents don't do a lot of grassroots work. They do, however, run the Justice Department. An intimate understanding of how federal law enforcement works would seem to be pretty useful.

"Intelligence and common sense."

And the question, Alex, is, "What are more important than experience?"

We've certainly had plenty of incredibly bright presidents who were awful at it. Jimmy Carter is the most recent example.

The problem is that, unless someone has experience running an executive operation, there's not much basis for voters to judge their "common sense" as it applies to executive decision-making. Further, all of the serious candidates, and many of the unserious ones, are pretty bright and, presumably, possessed of "common sense."

Those are barriers to entry, not effective screening tools.

And the question, Alex, is, "What are more important than experience?"