Voters can't pick 'none of the above', so we don't either.

WE RECEIVE A LOT of responses to our endorsement editorials, but rarely any as succinct -- or as unambiguous -- as the one that arrived last fall on the back of a plain postcard.

The message, in toto: "Your 10/4/92 endorsement of D.S. reminded me of an old song: 'If you can't say something nice, don't endorse is my advice.'"

For at least that reader, The Columbian editorial board's ambivalence about the candidate came through loud and clear in print.

Of all the endorsement pieces we write, the most difficult are those in which none of the candidates for a position seems quite worthy of a recommendation. Far better to be confronted with two would-be office-holders of equally fine talents and qualifications than be forced to choose between, say, a bozo and a crook.

Yet it happens that way depressingly often. The Columbian endorses candidates for office at every level from school board to White House. By longstanding practice, we interview all candidates for a particular office simultaneously; the face-to-face interplay by rivals usually helps to highlight the contrast between them.

More than once, however, the candidates have been sent on their way, the editorial office door has been closed, and after the parties in question are safely out of earshot, the board has emitted a collective wail, with members alternately burying their heads in their hands or begging off the endorsement vote to attend some suddenly remembered important meeting elsewhere.

A recent case in point: An incumbent county district court judge's service on the bench had been, at best, lackluster. In addition, he had performed a clever dance around the spirit, if not the absolute letter, of the canons of judicial ethics by posting campaign signs for his supposedly non-partisan post in both the Democratic and Republican booths at the county fair.

Going into the interview, the editorial board had more than ample reason to suggest that voters dump the incumbent in favor of his challenger. At least, we thought we did; then we met his challenger, a young attorney who possessed all the mediocrity of the judge with none of his experience. The choice was agonizingly clear: Doofus or Doofus Emeritus.

In the end, we gave the nod to the incumbent. The editorial was fair but certainly not glowing. It noted the consistent lack of quality of the candidates and explained, somewhat regretfully, why voters should go with the inadequate-but-known quantity. The judge, incidentally, was re-elected.

"Don't endorse"? Certainly there are races in which it would be a whole lot easier to pick "None of the above." Citizens don't have that choice on the ballot, however, and we would justifiably be accused of hypocrisy if, in the midst of our frequent sermons on the importance of voting, we urged people simply to skip the tough races.

We don't serve our readers well by resorting to tortured logic or exaggerated accolades in recommending a subpar candidate for public office. Halfhearted endorsements should be exactly that, obviously so and without apology. Though our postcard correspondent might not agree, faint praise -- with all its damning implications -- is all that some candidates deserve.

NCEW member Michael Zuzel is an editorial writer for The Columbian in Vancouver, Wash.