Which criteria will you use to pick the president? Education reform or tax-cut plans? Strategies for Iraq? Or maybe just the way the candidate laughs?

Recent buzz about Sen. Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her policies, initiatives, or political plans. She’s under fire because of her laughter, what several reporters have dubbed,

“The Cackle.”

At last week’s Democratic debate, Sen. Mike Gravel criticized her vote on an Iran resolution; she laughed before responding to his attack.

On Sept. 23, Clinton appeared on all the major morning talk shows and laughed several times throughout the programs. She laughed at a question on Fox News about being “hyper-partisan,” and she chuckled before responding to a few questions about health care.

The reactions to her laughter are, in a word, laughable.

“The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” assembled a montage of Clinton’s so-called “cackle” from the talk shows and mocked her seemingly oddly timed chuckles. Some critics call her laughter overly calculated and controlled, a way to dodge hard questions. More conservative critics wage harsher attacks.

Dick Morris from Fox News described “The Cackle” as “a loud, inappropriate and mirthless laugh – a scary sound that was somewhere between a cackle and a screech.” Morris said her laugh is “often too long and too loud” and she sounds “just like a laughing hyena.” (Another fine example of “fair and balanced” reporting in the Fox “no-spin zone.”) Sean Hannity has questioned whether her laugh is presidential.

What exactly does “presidential” laughter sound like? And more importantly, how do several hours of interviews with Clinton about her policies and goals get reduced to a three-second sound byte of laughter? And not just laughter but “scary” sounding, “inappropriate and mirthless,” hyena-like laughter.

Laughter isn’t the only bad joke in the political conversation. Pundits criticize Hillary’s hairstyles and clothing as if those attributes influence her political judgment. Al Gore was attacked for kissing his wife too passionately at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

Howard Dean lost all of his political momentum when an excited holler at the end of a passionate, rallying speech became known as the “Dean Scream,” which caused people to question the man’s sanity.

And Barack Obama has already been smeared because he smokes, because his last name sounds too much like Osama, because his middle name is Hussein and because he’s not “black enough” (or “too black”).

These political diversions add little depth to the public’s knowledge and awareness of the presidential candidates.

If we’re going to nitpick and debate, let’s focus on more pressing issues rather than attacking the candidates for their human quirks and behaviors.

What about the 47 million Americans without health insurance (including more than eight million children)?

What about more than 36 million Americans living in poverty?

What about our immigration concerns? I suppose it doesn’t matter – as long as our president doesn’t “cackle.”

The hubbub over Clinton’s laugh is much ado about nothing. We need more ado about the issues that keep many Americans from laughing.