Leave it to a child to restore my perspective about what matters most in the 2008 presidential race. In this case, the child is my six-year-old. And the question she recently asked reminds me that the most important election season issues are often eclipsed by the fringe and the frivolous.

It's a pretty safe bet that Asher, my daughter, wasn't considering politics the other day when she posed her innocuous little question. But the connection between her words and autumn's electoral choice is as clear and undeniable as Elmo is furry and red. 

The question came during a news program about the Iraq War. The broadcast was inconspicuously playing in the background, when battle sounds suddenly snatched Asher's attention and redirected it toward the sounds' source. She couldn't help but wonder about the steady chorus of shouting soldiers, machine gunfire and explosions - a jumble of noises much sharper than any found on a playground or the Disney Channel.

My daughter simply wanted to know: "Daddy, what are they doing?"

I answered: "It's combat, they're fighting," hoping that response would be sufficient. It wasn't.

"Why?" she continued.

I don't recall what answer I gave her. Honestly, I don't recall having an adequate answer. After all, why do people fight each other? Why do nations go to war? And more precisely, why is America engaged in this particular war?

The truth is, even if I could somehow explain to a six year old - even one with exceptional reasoning gifts - all of the "right" reasons for international conflict, I'd have a difficult time rationalizing for her why the servicemen and servicewomen on television that night were fighting, bleeding and dying.

Perhaps I could tell my daughter: Awhile ago, really bad people flew planes into some large buildings in the town where daddy grew up. A lot of people died. And The United States had to punish the bad people's friends where they lived (even though one of the countries we attacked wasn't linked to that event); and there were these really scary weapons in this country (which it turns out weren't where we expected to find them - or anyplace else); and a really mean man ruled this country - so we got rid of the mean man and made it safer for his country's people (if you consider dodging daily suicide bombs safer).

Maybe there's an easier explanation: Elections matter. And the winner of the last two elections has dragged us into an ill-conceived adventure that's reaped a toy chest full of undesirable outcomes. I suppose anyone could understand that.

Admittedly, there's little value in endlessly agonizing about why America is at war in Iraq and the imbecilic rationale that landed us in this quagmire. But it does plenty good to recall what a great many voters said they were thinking when they turned over the car keys to the man who has made Iraq our unbearable distraction.

Eight years have passed, so you may have forgotten that many voters believed then that Candidate Bush would make a good President because he was the "kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with."  His opponent, on the other hand, had a stick up his - uh - keg and was a bit too whiny and wonky. Remember that?

Four years later suds had taken a backseat to Swift boats. Bush's opponent fell victim to political shrapnel from a long ended war. And the not-too-swift incumbent rode triumphantly to a second term on the back of a four decades old non-issue. Remember that one?

Memories of the last two elections cause me to think about the chattering classes' seeming obsession with the unimportant and the electorate's willingness to become derailed by it.

I can't help but wonder what issues or perceptions will predominate as voters cast their ballots in the Keystone State this week and as the Democratic primary circus pitches its tent later in the Tar Heel, Hoosier, Beaver and Bluegrass States.

Will voters in those places consider home foreclosures, investment bank bailouts, universal healthcare and the $3.50 a gallon it now takes to fill their vehicles? Will they think about the 4,039 American servicemen and women who have died in Iraq; the $10 billion a month that it costs to remain there and the war's impact on our economy?

Or will visions of Jeremiah Wright and Geraldine Ferraro capture front and center? Will Weather Underground or whining above ground beguile this year? Will principles and policy lose out to Bosnia, bitterness, bawling and bowling?

One can only hope that voters really are more concerned with foreign and domestic policy than with lapel pins and likeability.

My sense is that the trivial still has the advantage; that voters say policy matters, but the beer factor is alive and well. Frankly, to borrow a word from Obama, just thinking about it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I read what the writers are writing about and see what the pundits are talking about and hear what debate moderators are asking about. And I'm just not convinced they fully understand what this race really is all about.

Maybe they should ask my daughter.

Lately, Asher's developed this thing for wanting to watch debates. You can never be too young for a little blood sport I suppose, so I let her watch (then fall asleep on the couch) when she asks. I'm pleased that she's interested even though she understands no more about debates and elections than she does about war.

After all, she won't vote for another 12 years. She doesn't need to know now what elections truly are about.

She's living that blissful existence built around Dr. Seuss, addition, arts and crafts and the Hokey Pokey - a children's dance with no ambiguities about purpose.

You put your left foot in; you take your left foot out. You put that same foot back in and shake it all about. You do the Hokey Pokey and then turn yourself around. That's what it's all about.

-Jonathan Clarke

April 20, 2008