politics is one thing i usually steer clear of but this week we have sacked a prime minister who hasn't completed his first three years , his popularity was wayyyyyyyyy down yet he saved us from the depression we just had

For most Americans we're the uncomplicated, happy-go-lucky, perpetually sunburnt ally - which is why the swift extinguishment of Kevin Rudd's leadership came as such a shock to those who actually knew the name of the Australian prime minister.

It seemed so out of character.

Would Kevin Rudd have survived longer if the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig hadn't exploded? If Barack Obama hadn't been swallowed up in ooze outrage so he couldn't make that trip Downunder to stand shoulder to shoulder with Rudd to talk about the importance of their work together at the coming G20?

Ask the likes of Mark Arbib and Bill Shorten.

US papers called it a party revolt and a mutiny. A Washington Post columnist I bumped into pressed me for details, remarking that from a distance it looked disturbingly like a coup d'etat.

A Delaware newstalk radio station called the office.

She wasn't elected the leader by Australians - right? And she isn't married?

The on-air host wanted answers about the turbo charged rise of Julia Gillard.

He seemed at a loss to understand how a party room, with barely a day's notice, could throw out a sitting prime minister, particularly one presiding over an economy in such good shape compared with much of the rest of the world.

He wanted to know whether it was true that she was anti-business and opined that he didn't think an unmarried, childless woman could ever be president of the United States.

And he was mightily amused that Australia's new 'first bloke' was once a hairstylist.

In an editorial Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper criticised the ruthlessness of Rudd's fall:

"In banana republics, coups d'etat often occur when the leader is out of the country. In Australia, the conspirators opted not to wait a day. Instead, Kevin Rudd was dispatched by his deputy the day before he was to depart for the G20 meeting in Toronto."

The paper also took a swipe at Julia Gillard saying her singular achievement of becoming Australia's first woman prime minister was "diminished by the manner of her accession".

For those in North America who occasionally pay attention to Canberra politics, the brutal style of Julia Gillard's rise to power has left unanswered questions about her legitimacy and authority.

Is she really (warning: Bushism) 'The Decider', or is she beholden to backroom factional bosses?

Is she worth investing in?

It matters because on really tough issues, when formal talking points are exhausted, personal relationships between powerbrokers can be the difference.

Maybe it's latent sexism or a dose of good old fashioned cultural cringe...

Or maybe it's another reason why an election and the mandate it produces is so important.

Craig McMurtrie works for ABC News in the Washington bureau