Grooming the Perfect Candidate

Why did I make light of Berlusconi (post January 16, see also NYT today) and the Italians’ obsession with their Prime Minister’s appearance? Surely they can tell us to examine our own back yard. In full remorse, I will now give my complete attention to creating a list of 5 imperatives for a Presidential candidate in the US. I am, unfortunately, almost completely serious. To gain sizable support, a candidate for highest office here must do the following:

1. He (at the outset I may as well say it – the candidate must be a he; therefore, any attempt at gender neutrality in this list would be pointless) must never ever do anything that Leno or Letterman will be able to imitate in a physically exaggerated way, leading the nation to be convulsed with laughter at night, and dead serious in disliking the candidate for it the next morning. [Just to make my own position clear: I do not understand why lack of enthusiasm or an over abundance of enthusiasm in a political speech of ANY candidate should be a defining moment in a race; I don’t get it, I’ll never get it, so please don’t try to explain it to me yet again; many have attempted to justify the plummeting support for Dean “after the scream”, all have failed. I saw the damning speech, it made no impression one way or another, call me politically stunted, I just don’t get it.]

2. He must be someone most Americans would enjoy having over for dinner. [Time after time I have this conversation: “why don’t you like him?” I ask. “I don’t know, he’s just not someone I would feel comfortable with; I wouldn’t enjoy having dinner with him” goes the answer. Is this an outgrowth of viewing this country as a land of opportunity? For the record, Americans please take note: 99.999999999999% of you will NEVER HAVE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 99.98 % will never even see him eat on national television.]

3. He must not appear boring [take a look at the comment on why Gebhardt is out, just today in the NYT. It’s so common to hear this: “he’s boring” “he puts me to sleep” “I can’t stay awake when he talks” “I can’t get myself to listen.” Are these statements about the impact of policies promulgated by the future leader of the country or are they statements about a nation that’s sleep deprived? We've known this for years, “entertaining” trumps “political agenda.”]

4. He must have a spouse that we can all rally behind [grumblings about the inadequacies of Dr. Dean, the wife, drive me insane; see post January 15], and a personal life that rises above the collective sins of our own backyards [Clinton, naturally, will always come to mind here].

5. During debates, he must not sigh (Gore), look with piercing eyes (Clark), cry (remember Muskie?),use complicated words that will make Bush look dumb (many). [a legal blogger recently wrote that in the last elections, SNL made Bush out to be stupid but well-meaning, and Gore to be robotic. In fact, the blogger writes, neither are true, Bush having proven himself to be ruthless, vindictive, and cunning. But note how hard it has been to shed our preconceptions, shaped by so little information, and so much irrelevant ...hogwash (see bacon post, January 21).]

Move over, Italians, we’ve perfected the art of political trivialization.