Golis: Will this movie ever end?

In the cold and gray of a late afternoon in Des Moines, Iowa, a black Chevy Suburban with tinted windows slowed for a downtown intersection. Through the rear window, we could see the face of Hillary Clinton, staring into the winter gloom.

She knew what was coming, we decided. A couple of hours later, she would lose the Iowa Democratic Caucuses to an upstart senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. Conventional wisdom said she couldn't lose, and then she did.

Eight years later, she is trying again, and we are left to wonder: Why do these people do this?

The short answer involves duty, ambition and history. For Clinton, the prospect of becoming the first woman to be elected president of the United States is never far away. For 240 years, Americans have believed that half the population isn't qualified to lead the country.

Even bad movies provide a glimpse into the popular psyche, and we learn a lot about ourselves through the window of these presidential primary elections.

Are we angry, divided, confused? You bet.

We also hate our government. This may be the first election in which voters decide that experience disqualifies someone to be president.

Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and deal maker, says there will be time to learn more about the duties of office after he's elected. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has some experience (plus two Ivy League degrees), but conservative voters can take heart from the knowledge that no one in Washington likes him. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson talks about foreign policy as if he's five minutes removed from reading the Cliffs Notes.

If conventional wisdom once again turns its back on Hillary Clinton, it will be because she has been part of the Washington establishment for a very long time. Along with experience, she carries more than her share of baggage.

No one will accuse her rival, Bernie Sanders, of being an establishment figure. He is, after all, the “democratic socialist” from Vermont (of all places).

The rest of us remain at the mercy of voters in places such as Iowa and New Hampshire. The winner of the Iowa Republican Caucuses, Cruz, received a record 51,000 votes. In the last general election, there were 244,000 registered voters in Sonoma County alone.

Having watched every presidential debate - yes, every debate - I can testify that they are, in turn, hilarious, depressing and when you least expect it, informative.

For better and worse, we've learned a lot about the people who want to lead the most powerful nation on earth.

Should U.S. forces “carpet-bomb” cities where enemies lurk? Should America be the policeman of the world? Should we stem the flow of immigrants? Do we need to do more to curb the power of Wall Street? Is progress made through radical change or incremental solutions?

All of these issues and more have been debated - some wisely, some to comic effect. If we can manage a country on bravado alone, we're good to go.

So many story lines. Along the way, we've learned there were so many Republican candidates that the party required first-string and second-string debates, leaving people named Paul, Florina, Santorum, Huckabee, Graham, Jindal, Perry, Walker, Pataki and Gilmore to soldier on, even though no one cared. (Several are no longer candidates, and the others won't be far behind.)

We've learned that Jeb Bush may have been the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, but no one knows why. For someone who has spent his life around politics, he comes off as self-conscious and stiff - the anti-charisma candidate.

We've learned that John Kasich is the governor of Ohio, and he never tires of reminding us.

We've learned that Chris Christie is the baddest Republican around. (Never mind the time he hugged President Obama.)

We've learned that Sen. Marco Rubio is probably the Republican Democrats fear most, but first he has to persuade GOP hard-liners that he didn't mean it when he proposed a path to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Just now, we're witnessing the quadrennial dance and its power to polarize American politics. To secure the support of the party faithful, Democrats are busy running to the left and Republicans, to the right.

If the billionaire former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, is pondering a third-party campaign for president, it's because millions of centrist voters don't think either party represents their views.

Come fall, the respective nominees will try to scramble back to the political center, a journey easier said than done. In 2012, Republican Mitt Romney learned that it's difficult to offend large blocs of voters in the primary season and still win a national election in November.

Should he win the GOP nomination, everyone wonders how Trump will walk back insults aimed at women, Latinos and other minorities.

Indeed, how will any Republican walk back statements bound to offend large numbers of voters who don't live in Alabama or Kansas? How will Clinton claim to be anything other than business as usual? And how will Sanders persuade centrist voters that it's time to vote for “a revolution?”

We are awash, it seems, in flawed candidates, and yet one of them likely will be the next president of the United States. What are the chances that he or she can bring the country together again?

The simple and sad answer is: Not very good.

Pete Golis is a columnist for The Press Democrat. Email him at golispd@gmail.com.