One of the great strengths of the Republican Party heading into the Bush era was the number of big-state Republican governors and the perception that they knew how to govern. People like Gingrich could spout their ideological bombast, but in Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere the face of the Republican party was governors who seemed to know what they were doing. Sure, some of them swept problems under the carpet and then stomped up and down on it, and some mastered the art of consequence-free tax cut politics, but they put on a good face. The perceived-successful Democratic governors circa 1997 you could count on one hand: Governor Hunt in North Carolina, Dean in Vermont, Kitzhaber in Oregon and a few others. Peter Beinart argued in the Wall Street Journal early in 2004 that the reason Dean seemed so strong was that there were no other viable Democratic governors, and that was very true. It's easy to say that Kerry made a poor candidate because Senators traditionally make poor candidates, but how many alternatives were there?

There are now, though, and the situation is completely reversed. I was in Arizona the other day when a poll came out putting Governor Napolitano's approval rating at 65% -- she's the anti-Bush, but not the only one.

This shift is as important as anything that happens in Congress because governors are where presidents come from, and they are also where Senators come from. The only sure way to beat an incumbent senator is with a popular governor, and over the next few years some of these red-state governors will be the key to taking back the Senate. And governors are also the face of government to most people, and if they are competent and seem to have the right values, their party will be seen in the same light, as will government itself.

I want to highlight this passage because we all need keep it in mind when it comes time again to choose the Democratic nominee for President, for the 2008 election. As I wrote before the last election (originally in May 2003):

It's conventional wisdom that being a Senator is a natural stepping stone to the Presidency, but recent history doesn't bear that out. Take a look at what our recent Presidents did before taking office in the White House:

Bush -- governor of Texas, frontman, business failure, drug abuser, AWOL National Guardsman
Clinton -- governor of Arkansas
Bush -- VP, head of CIA, ambassador, etc.
Reagan -- governor of California
Carter -- governor of Georgia
Ford -- VP, congressman
Nixon -- VP, senator, congressman
Johnson -- VP, senator, congressman
Kennedy -- senator, congressman

In other words, you have to go back 34 years, to 1968, to reach a president (Nixon) who earlier served as senator, and 42 years to get to a senator (Kennedy) who was directly elected to the presidency without first passing through the vice presidency.

[More]

Let's please remember this, it could conceivably be the difference between re-taking the White House in 2008, and starting the process of putting this country back on track again, or another four years of disastrous Republican retrenchment and mismanagement.