The campaign season is officially in full swing, bringing one thing that I detest more than anything: candidate slogans. Recently, while driving in Hays I happened upon one phrase that I found to be exponentially more ridiculous than the rest, "vote for experience."

You're probably saying, "Surely experience is good, right?" It is apparent (to me at least) that there is one major problem with planting your flag by the experience mantra: How precisely would you define experience? If you define it by the standard of having held the job, then the incumbent county clerk does indeed meet that standard (most of the time).

I'll go ahead and admit it, this isn't so bad. If given the choice, I would much rather have someone who shows up to work than doesn't. Still, that's not nearly enough to consider a job well done. For example, the utter lack of initiative to come out of the county clerk's office in the past two terms to make voting more accessible to all portions of the community comes to mind. Now, I know, I know, we're now considering the college as a polling place (advance only), and believe me, I'm not an ingrate. I and the other 25 percent of Hays' population is appreciative for this happy "coincidence."

I know the stuck-in-the-mud mentality is a long repeated argument, so think of it in these terms. Of the many industries that employ people in Hays, medical, education and small business are three of the primary employers. These three share many things in common, but perhaps one of the most important things they share is a constant need for innovation. Why shouldn't we demand the same level of performance from our county clerk?

Let us put all this aside though, and just accept the experience argument. Given that the incumbent is now the candidate of experience, another word goes hand in hand with that, professionalism. Unfortunately, as many of you have read, there's a whole fiasco with Signgate '08. Now don't misunderstand me, I'm as much of a fan of the law as the next guy.

However, it occurs to me that such a fuss wasn't entirely necessary, and that a candidate with her "experience" could have handled the ordeal more professionally and less like, well, her.

Normally disclaimers come at the start of a letter like this I know, but I'm not one to be much of a traditionalist so I'll make my disclaimer now: I've not only had a Dottie Staab sign in my yard since the start of this primary, but I've supported her long before that. You see, I've supported Dottie from the start not only because she's quite possibly the nicest person I've ever met, but also because she's dedicated and brimming with ideas on how to take the vote to the people, rather than the opposite.

However, the Signgate debacle gave me a bang-up revelation and another reason to vote for Dottie. For my part, I'd much rather vote for a candidate who is more concerned with the well-being of the people served and the professionalism of the office than one who is concerned with her job security.

Matthew Musgrove

1000 Elm St.