Another poster a few days ago made the cogent argument that as Americans we are thoroughly conflicted about how we really feel about experience in our political candidates. How much is enough? How much is too much? We say we want experience, and then go on to vote for term limits. We say we need someone who understands how politics work, but then we criticize that person's experience as being part of the entrenched power structure.

On the other side we bemoan a candidates lack of experience. If they ahve not had much experieince in office we say they have not spent enough time in the trenches. We say they have are not ready to lead because they haven't spent enough years in public office. I mean which is it? What do we want? We say we want fresh, and then we say you're too fresh. We say we want experience, and then knock that person down for not having enough.

I think a lot of Americans have an ingrained distrust of authority and power, and that lends itself to not wanting to elect politicians who have been part of the establishment for too long. However, we also have a fear of electing someone who is unknown in the sense of having a record of policy we can actually look at. That's why a guy like Ross Perot gained serious traction back in 92, but ultimately was rejected. It's why Ralph Nader has been able to garner some votes.

As long as Americans are unclear just what they want from their politicans, the experience issue will continue to be thrown out by each party where it can be spun into whatver they want it to mean. Personally, I look to the candidate's past record of behavior, whether it is in elected office or not to gain a real idea of whether their actions match their words.

Nice to see you back in all your troll like Republican talking point spewing glory. Where has your good tag team buddy ShawnWM been? I missthe one two knockout punch of goofball extremism you too present for the Salon readers. He must have been paid to post his lies somewhere else after the democratic primary was over.

It's always fun to read some of your greatest hits like this one from your earlier post. "If any group knows how to 'criticize' a woman, it's the frigging, misoygnistic, hate spewing, bile flinging, lying Left." Yeah, Republicans have never done that, except all the times when they have. Do you laugh yourself when you type your screeds. I can't imagine you actually believe them. In any case, keep on writing. In these tough economic times, I'll take any laughs I can get.

"Why did people applaud those statements? Let’s start with a guess: They didn’t know Palin was lying."

Nice post AKA. I would just like to add to your statement I copied. I truly feel that people would have applauded Palin's statements even if they knew she was lying. In fact, I would go as far as to say that Palin could have made such exagerrated statements that no one could plausibly think they were true, and still would have applauded.

That crowd wanted to applaud, and indeed had already applauded several speakers before Palin who had lied. The republican crowd didn't want to hear truth. If they did, they would have been left with a litany of problems this country now has, and that's no fun. No, I sincerely believe Pain could have gone up there Wednesday night and said "Obama wants to kill puppies, snort some coke, and take away your guns and give them to Al Quaeda," and you would have seen the crowd cheering with glee.

"So Sambo beat the bitch." It will will probably be repeated by the Repulican talking heads that the waitress misheard and what Pain really said was "So Sambo's beat's Denny's for brunch."

It really bothers me that so far the McCain campaign is getting away with hidng Palin from real uncontrolled interviews. How can the media not call her out on this contradiction? On the one hand she wants this country to elect her for her maverick ways and personal integrity, yet she won't let anyone question her. It's total horseshit, and I hope to God she doesn't get away with it.

Obama has been questioned on countless moderated debates, and even subjected himself to an interview with the premier douchbag of the right Bill O'Reilly. You can be sure the only interviews with Palin will be by in the tank Fox news. It's that simple, and that sad. She should be accountable to answer for authentic quetions about her stances, her past record, and her statements of record on key issues. If she's expected to go toe to toe with world leaders, how can she hide from the media?

That's all. I got it. Let me just reach into my pockets and...there you go. Debt settled. That was easy. Oh you won't take lint? Ouch, umm o.k. how about my collection of soap scum?

As a devoted hockey fan, I'm glad to see the sport get some much needed publicity.

Hootowl- another Kentucky Fried Troll.

"Unfortunately as I said sometime ago." You mean all the way back to your post earlier today? The first post you ever made on Salon at least by that name. Yeah, that was forever and an hour ago.