Democrats have no executive experience

David Broder:

It was fascinating to watch the three top contenders for the Democratic nomination discuss their concept of the presidency during Tuesday night's MSNBC debate in Las Vegas. 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 behind 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 home states of Massachusetts and Arkansas, Rudy Giuliani served as the mayor of New York City, and John McCain, as he likes to remind audiences, commanded the largest squadron in the Navy air wing.

In the past, voters have preferred to entrust the White House to those with executive credentials. John Kennedy was the last sitting senator to be elevated into the presidency. Since then, the former governors of Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas have dominated the list of successful candidates.

All of them stumbled during their tenures in the White House, and only Ronald Reagan left the presidency with his place in the history books seemingly securely enhanced.

But the public remains convinced that the Oval Office is a place for executive talents -- which makes the current Democratic field something of an anomaly.

Romney's comeback victory in Michigan on Tuesday reflects that bias.

He began to regain his footing after Iowa, when he subordinated his ideological claim to being the conservative champion in favor of portraying himself as a tough-minded executive who could reform both laggard private businesses and swollen, ineffective government bureaucracies.

...

Obama, who answered first, said it involved much more than managing the office and seeing that "the paperwork is being shuffled effectively." He said it centers on setting national goals, recruiting people of different perspectives and then mobilizing public support behind their policies. He acknowledged a degree of disorganization in his personal and business life and said he needs help "keeping track" of things.

Edwards, as is his habit, described himself as a battler -- ready to fight passionately for his causes, and acknowledged that emotion sometimes clouds his judgment.

Clinton called herself a change agent, with 35 years of experience, but emphasized that the presidency involves managing the bureaucracy and insisting on accountability -- not just setting goals. A perfectionist, she acknowledged that impatience for results is at times a problem for her.

She faulted President Bush as much for his mismanagement of recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina and other problems as for his policy judgments, prompting Obama to counter with the argument that it was a lack of vision and candor, not simply of management, that made Bush a failure.

...

Bush is not a failure. That is a false premise in Hillary Clinton's picture of the office. what is apparent from their vision of the job is they see it as a chance to be the super policy wonk rather than as a place that requires decisions and execution of those decisions. What is surprising to me is that David Broder is just getting around to recognizing this deficiency in the Democrats. Giuliani and Romney have both been very effective at challenging them on the fact that they have never run anything.