Delaware: The pundits still don't get it

And, they still insist that the candidate with more experience is always more worthy, and always must win. . . . even if it's experience raising taxes, approving deficit spending, overseeing the collapse of the financial system, and fighting pointless wars to draws.

Here's a good example:

In Tea Party theory, inexperience is itself seen as a kind of qualification. People like O'Donnell are actually preferable to people like Rove, because they haven't been tainted by public trust or actual achievement. This is the attitude of the adolescent -- the belief that the world began on their thirteenth birthday. It is also a sign of childish political thought.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/09/the_childish_political_thought.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Most people believe that things have gotten worse over the past 30 years. Therefore, a significant number of people believe that if you've been in office continuously for the past 30 years, you're at least partly to blame. It's really not so hard to figure out. And, it's not so illogical.
By the way - - 2 years ago, during the primaries and in the general election, when Obama was running, we were told political experience was way overrated, and "progressive community organizer" was awesome experience for high political office. Well, now the tea party is promoting O'Donnell in Delaware and Miller in Alaska, two conservative community organizers.

Talk about unintended consequences.