There are still 17 months to go before the 2008 presidential election and nearly eight months before the people of Dixville Notch, N.H. get the primary ball rolling, but we may already have the best summation of Mitt Romney, his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, and his contributions, or non-contributions, to this state that we’re probably going to get.

It came from Ralph Whitehead, long-time Journalism and Politics professor at UMass-Amherst, who said in a recent interview: “Romney is trying to say that he foiled a robbery in a brothel, the brothel being Massachusetts. But the question people will ask is, what was he doing in the brothel in the first place?”

The answer is simple. He was adding a line to his resume — one he knew he needed to get where he wanted to go: the White House. Recent history shows that, with the exception of George Bush the elder (who was vice president when he was elected), presidents of the past 30 years have been governors or ex-governors. Apparently, voters have more confidence in someone who has led a state than one who has merely sat in the House or Senate: John F. Kennedy was the last individual elected directly from either body, and that was nearly 50 years ago.

Problem is, Romney was governor of Massachusetts, a blue and ultra-liberal state that has become political kryptonite for recent White House seekers. Just ask John Kerry and Michael Dukakis. The Bay State is apparently such a problem that Romney has gone out of his way to downplay his connections to it.

He announced his candidacy for president in Michigan, where his father was governor in the ’60s, and in some campaign ads he’s running he boasts that he was “the Republican governor who turned around a Democratic state.”

Hmmmmmm.

And when he does mention Massachusetts, he refers to it as “that difficult state,” or “the toughest of states.” In an internal Romney campaign memorandum obtained by the Boston Globe, Massachusetts is listed as a potential “bogeyman” for Romney, along with “European-style socialism,” “Jihadism,” and “Hillary Clinton.”

There is some poetic justice to all this. Apparently, being a 40-year resident of Massachusetts and its governor does nothing for Romney as presidential candidate except give him headaches. Well, one could easily argue that Romney did nothing for the state and its 351 cities and towns but give them headaches.

He was the governor who was going to bring jobs to Massachusetts. He was the one with a Rolodex full of CEOs’ phone numbers. Either he didn’t call them, or they didn’t call him back. He was supposed to make this an easier state in which to do business. Instead, he helped make it a little more difficult to do so.

While Romney did start Springfield on its recovery from scandal and near-bankruptcy through formation of the Finance Control Board, he never really understood how local government worked, and if they were candid, officials in most cities and towns would say Romney ran the state like an absentee landlord — collecting rent (in this case, political capital) but not taking care of the building.

We’re glad Massachusetts is a problem for Romney, and we hope it goes right on being a problem. He was in the brothel Whitehead referred to because he is, above all else, an opportunist; there was a serious void of strong candidates for governor in 2002, and he rushed to fill it.

But the country doesn’t need an opportunist, especially one who waffles on the issues to suit his needs. It needs a leader.

And we don’t think Romney has that on his resume.