For the record, this may be the first (and last) column in which I am permitted use of the term ordinary American. This is because my editors at The Washington Post Writers Group oppose its use (and I agree), suggestive as it is of some higher plane from which we in the nation’s capital view non-Washingtonians. It is more than mere suggestion, of course. It is rather a prevailing attitude, perhaps attributable to Washington’s relatively robust economy (government jobs skew the numbers), that folks out yonder have different concerns — somehow more ordinary — than the rest of us. …

Might we admit that we are all more ordinary than the people we elect to represent us — and that thus it should be? The notion that one presidential candidate relates more than another to the ordinary American’s everyday concerns is cringingly absurd. There’s nothing “everyday” about either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney and why, really, would we want them to be? …

Neither Obama nor Romney is remotely ordinary, needless to say. And neither is very good at faking it. Both bring substantial talents, a sterling career in Romney’s case and a smorgasbord of broadening experiences in Obama’s, including almost four years as president.