‘Nowhere Man’ for President : Politics: Will voters be asked to choose between Clinton and Not Clinton?

This campaign is tied up in nots.

Between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Lamar Alexander surged because he was not Bob Dole, who then bounced back because he was not Pat Buchanan. As he looks to the general election, Dole is pinning his hopes on not being somebody else. One of his top advisors recently told the New York Times: “This election is going to be Clinton versus Not Clinton.”

Clinton, however, will not roll over for Not Clinton. Strategist Dick Morris is pushing a “triangulation” spin, in which the president would emphasize compassion to show that he is not a Republican but talk about balanced budgets to prove that he is not a traditional Democrat.

Meanwhile, Ross Perot fidgets on the sidelines, just waiting to deploy his slogan: “I’m not either of those guys!”

Other candidates were just not right. Steve Forbes, who just dropped out, understood wealth creation but he was not a Nelson Rockefeller. Rocky may have had a silver spoon in his mouth but he also had brass knuckles on his hands. In Phil Gramm’s cutting words, Forbes was “Richie Rich” and few voters were inclined to hand the Oval Office to a character portrayed by Macaulay Culkin.

Pat Buchanan stokes passion, but he’s not Ronald Reagan. The Gipper talked about hope and opportunity, whereas Buchanan snarls about closed borders and class warfare. Reagan envisioned “Star Wars,” while Buchanan invokes the Dark Side. Mainstream Americans won’t want to support a Darth Vader, especially one who looks like Fred Flintstone.

And so we’re left with Dole, Clinton and maybe Perot. All will have a tough time winning votes on the basis of who they are.

Despite his wartime heroism and long legislative record, Dole can only get semi-hurrahs. Voters rally to candidates who believe in what they say; Dole is the political world’s David Letterman, putting an ironic distance between himself and his shtick. At the United We Stand conference last year, Dole solemnly discussed his support for term limits. But then he wisecracked: “I’ve said to those who think I am too young to be running for president, I may put Strom [Thurmond] on the ticket for balance. He’s only 92. . . . And he’s thinking about endorsing term limits.’ ” In other words: Don’t take me seriously on this issue.

Dole chose an odd audience for this routine, because mocking term limits at a Perot event is like telling dirty stories at a Billy Graham crusade. The joke also drew attention to the one certainty of the campaign: The 72-year-old Dole is not going to get younger.

Nevertheless, he still has a chance because Clinton is not going to get any more trustworthy. When Clinton looks at Truman, he sees what he wants to be; when he looks at Nixon, he sees what he is. Like Nixon, Clinton has become a cuss word to a large segment of the electorate. Like Nixon, he slickly maneuvers between left and right to gain a base of support that’s broad but thin. And like Nixon, he has an ethics problem; some of his associates may be watching the futures market in bail bonds.

Looking at an old senator with shallow convictions and a young president with deep character flaws, people might want a third choice. At the start of the 1992 campaign, Ross Perot seemed an attractive alternative to the major parties until people got to know him. By election day, his wackiness had forever ruled him out as anything but a vehicle for protest votes.

Not Dole, Not Clinton and Not Perot. Pick two out of three. Is that all there is? There could be one more selection. In the television series “Nowhere Man,” a photojournalist stumbles onto a mysterious conspiracy, which strikes back by erasing all records of his existence. The hero of his program should run for the presidency. He could beat all three candidates, because he is not anybody.