That’s not a requirement, it’s more a tradition because the “electoral math” is better.

The the office holder is where the power resides and where the decision is made – they aren’t a figurehead after the swearing-in, no matter what their role was in the campaign.

But, sure, depending on their background how “good” their head is, they certainly don’t have to previously have been a chief executive to make a good president.

I’m mostly unaware of Jon Stewart’s roles other than being on-camera / eye-candy, except for possibly some non-scripted interview questions (with him on either side). But, from the entertainment world, I think a directing experience probably does exist in the same “space” as chief executive.

I agree, but clearly lack of executive competence isn’t a blocker for much of the electorate. Jon Stewart does seem genuine informed and engaged on current political topics, so he’d certainly be better than someone that’s “simply” well-known and well-liked.

I think TV stars could be valuable resources to a campaign, but I don’t think they should generally be the candidate. I’d actually prefer a “career politician” that has a career they celebrate.

My understanding is that she didn’t think he should resign, tho.

I think it must be possible for anyone to be “rehabilitated” through restorative service and at least the outward appearance of inner change. If you make it impossible to “come back”, that just encourages bad actors to band together AND get worse.

I’m not convinced that Al Franken has done enough, but I really haven’t paid attention / researched anything around him or the events since he resigned.