It seems to me that the signature referendum of this democratic primary -- and suddenly, the GOP primary -- has become the importance of experience.

Yet the media has yet to compellingly de-construct that thought.

To me, "experience" is one of those malleable terms that covers-up a host of ambiguities. Like "change," anybody can squeeze experience into their stump banner, and run with that theme.

But what does experience mean for a presidency? Couldn't you argue that easily half of a president's job is communication and salesmanship, and therefore, a Pastor like Mike Huckabee or a Used Buick Salesman like John Edwards is possibly more qualified than say, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson?

After all, wasn't Ronald Reagan an infinitely more impressive president than his more experienced running mate George H. W. Bush?

Leaving knowledge-aside -- like an understanding of global and domestic affairs -- how does casting senatorial votes prepare a candidate for the presidency?

What exactly are we looking for when we ask our candidates to have "experience?"

So, for a debate, I thought we could reference history, which, as always, provides a mixed record... Buchanan was a far worse, but more experienced president than his green-horned successor, Abraham Lincoln. Kennedy's youth often worked to his advantage... I don't believe a Hubert Humphrey could have lent civil rights the implicit support that Kennedy did. Then again, many say that his Bay of Pigs fiasco inspired our poorly considered commitment to Vietnam. And so on.

Why and how does experience prepare a person for the presidency? Can you cite some historical examples where experience (and what kind of experience) helped or hurt a president?

Which has proven more important? Legislative, executive, military, or 'life' experience?

How could the media be better covering this issue?