Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 05/16/2008

Don't Even Bother to Vote

[Need personal advice of a political nature? Or political advice of a personal nature? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]

Dear Stumped,

Hillary is an insufferable egomaniac; Obama is a posturing debutante; McCain is midway between senility and intermittent dementia. What is a voter to do?

-- No Name Given

Dear No Name,

Ah, yes, we've reached the inevitable "in-a-nation-of-300 million" moment in the election cycle.

That is: "In a nation of 300 million people, is this really the best we can come up with for president?" A fellow think-tanker here in Washington posed that exact question to me at lunch the other day, and your letter expresses the same sentiment. You're at the mall, you need shoes, but all of the offerings amount to compromises. In a mall of 200 stores, this can't be it!

The 300-million figure is a nice touch that adds to the outrage. It used to be a "in-a-nation-of-200 million people" moment. In 1876 I'm sure people went about complaining, "In a nation of 45 million, I can't believe we have to choose between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden!"

Deep breath; the important thing is not to panic. Let's remember that it wasn't long ago that plenty of you were excited at the wonderfulness of this year's crop of candidates, and this election seemed to be one in which this moment might never come. Before they did that nasty thing they do -- campaign vigorously, that is -- both Sens. Clinton and Obama were being feted as veritable titans, and Democrats (before they started sniping that they won't vote for the winner if their candidate lost) couldn't stop boasting about Clinton and Obama, and going out of their way to praise the likes of Joe Biden and Bill Richardson -- both of whom, it was said, might have had a chance in "an ordinary year."

Let's be real. In a country of 300 million people, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are precisely the type of people you'd expect -- and hope! -- would rise to the top and be among our presidential choices. Hillary Clinton was a bright, idealistic star in college, whose graduation speech at Wellesley in 1969 made Life magazine. From there, she went on to study law at Yale and landed a prestigious gig on the House committee looking into Watergate. There's a reason Bill Clinton was dazzled by her, and there is no doubting her formidable intelligence and dedication.

Barack Obama epitomizes the meritocratic promise of this nation of immigrants. To be editor of the Harvard Law Review is, by definition, to be among the nation's best and brightest (and maybe most elite, too, but that's a column for another day). And there is no denying his magnetism and charisma. There have been candidates with charisma aplenty but lacking intellect, and vice versa. But Obama, like his opponent's husband, is the complete package. (What he may lack is experience.)

The Republican field this year may have lacked the depth of the Democrats, as many disgruntled Republicans were quick to note. Yet McCain is as compelling as the two Democrats still in the race. How many among us could have endured what he did in a North Vietnamese prison, and emerged with our dignity intact? (I know I couldn't have.) And whether you agree with his policies or not, there is no denying the tremendous appeal of a senator who has defied his party's orthodoxy repeatedly and calls things as he sees them.

So why the creeping "Is This the Best We Can Do?" malaise? It all comes down to process. I don't think Abraham Lincoln -- or Jesus Christ, for that matter (what did Mike Huckabee say about this? -- would look too good after campaigning for the presidency for some 16 months. Imagine how unimpressive you'd look by now! (In Fred Thompson's case, it only took the process about a week to shrink him to a "Mini-Me" version of his former self.)

I count Obama's Canadian intrigue among the most amusing scandals this primary season, and not only because the words "Canada" and "intrigue" have never been paired before. It was almost poignant when Obama's representatives reportedly told Canadian diplomats not to pay attention to what the candidate said about NAFTA on the campaign trail -- because candidates would be well served by a broader disclaimer that covers the entire campaign. Obama should have cut an ad the minute he declared his candidacy. Here's how the script should have read:

"Hi, I'm Barack Obama and I am running for president. I cannot believe that in a nation of 300 million people, this is how we choose our leader, but I have no choice but to spend the next 18 months kissing every baby across this land of ours, coddling every interest group, speaking endlessly 16 hours a day, and eating every greasy kind of ethnic food put in front of me. But please, don't hold any of it against me. Rest assured I am a smart, level-headed individual, and hope to remain so on the other side. Wish me luck. And please, don't pay attention to anything I say until after the election."

Posted by Andres Martinez | Permalink | Comments (46)
Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This