3.2

First off, I am so sorry for what I'm about to do.

I said to myself, I said, “Self! These people are ravenous hyenas, they are. They want to devour you like a middle-aged gazelle with a slight limp and unorthodox brushing habits, laughing maniacally through the entire sordid, macabre ordeal. They don't want your drivel of opinions or innocuous didactics. They want blood, boobs and inanity, damn it, and that's what you're gonna give them!”

I am fairly convincing when I put my mind to it. (Quite frankly, I got distracted when I mentioned “boobs” and just starting nodding in agreement to everything I said.) So I solemnly vowed to string you guys along for at least three weeks on cheap gags and adroitly juxtaposed parenthetical digressions before I pulled the rug out from under the lulz and got all quasi-sincere up in your grillz.

Well, that's all well and good, but when it actually comes time to, you know, put the chicken to the waffle iron, you rapidly realize there are only so many different ways you can produce a list of “The Top Five Reasons Why Toddlers And Defibrillators Necessitate Good Times,” while maintaining at least a facade of taste and legality. (To be specific, the number of ways is “1” rounded very, very up). Point being, as much as it pains me, I often have to resort to that last refuge of op-ed discourse: sincerity (relatively speaking, anyway).

So what better way to start the brutal massacre of humor off than with a discussion of Sen. Hillary Clinton. I kid, I kid! Sort of.

Specifically, I'd like to focus on what was, arguably, the focal point of her speech Tuesday night at the Democratic Convention: the moment when she asked her primary supporters to what extent they were voting for her, personally, or for her issues.

Avoiding questions of the efficacy and sincerity of Clinton's ideas and statements (simply because I don't want to make this a partisan discussion), Clinton's comment was meant to challenge the notion that a person should place more importance upon the candidate than of the the policies and positions of that candidate. Obviously, the context of a divisive primary and reluctance amongst many HRC voters to support Sen. Barack Obama informed the statement.

But I think it reminds us of two things often forgotten amongst the demagoguery and, shall we say, “unabashed onanism” of party conventions (and popular politics). First, while it might be good times to imagine a wreath around Sen. John McCain's neck reading “Miss Congeniality” or Obama in a sequined tiara, when you vote you're not only voting for a person, you're also helping to promote the various policies and actions that candidate plans to take. And second, that the (arguably necessary) realities of our electoral process mean that candidate you vote for is never ideal.

Choosing a candidate is about priorities and what you're willing to sacrifice. The candidate's personality can be a factor, certainly, but if you vote for Obama because his smile is, like, the dreamiest thing you've ever seen, you're also aiding an initiative towards national health care. If you vote for McCain because he tells good jokes, you're also aiding an initiative for school vouchers.

Those are just examples, but no matter what, choosing who to vote for is a matter of choosing what you can sacrifice in order to support something you consider more important. Do you sacrifice a preferable domestic policy for personality and a perceived ability to inspire? Do you sacrifice a better foreign policy because of perceived discrepancies in religious values? Do you sacrifice efficacy for integrity and idealism (in the case of most third parties)? Somewhat arbitrary examples, yes, but I imagine you get the thrust of my gibe.

No politician is going to be a perfect match for you. Just like no column is going to work perfectly. With this column, I've written a hybrid of entertainment and content which is hardly ideal. I could sacrifice content, and you might enjoy the read more but miss some points, or I could sacrifice entertainment and risk making the entire thing increasingly dense. Even moderation leaves you with diluted effects on both sides.

But that's the nature of choice and sacrifice. By acknowledging what's gained and lost, you can obtain a better perspective and try to acknowledge whether the choices you're making are holistically worthwhile. Fortunately for column writing, some chances come sooner than others. Presidential elections aren't so forgiving.