It isn't that you must know who delivered the Ghettysburg address to evaluate a current candidate. It's that IF you don't know at least a reasonable amount about basic civics, I assume you are either a) stupid, or b) didn't care enough to learn. And accordingly, I highly doubt you have been either a) intelligent enough to understand, or b) cared enough to learn, about the policies these candidates run on.
Or, you omit option c) you are smart and you simply don't care about any of that crap and slimy politics makes you sick. You're not a poly-sci nerd. You can still evaluate information when the time comes around to vote and make an informed decision.
So far as evaluating "character," that is something which voters will base on very superficial factors.
What you call superficial may be perfectly fine, not to mention that it might be correct. Who's to determine what the "correct" way is to decide what you think about someone?
Insofar as this being true everywhere as you allege, I doubt it is equally true everywhere. I've been to Israel twice, for example, and the people there are very well informed about their history, as well as the candidates and the ins and outs of policy. While that pertains to only one alternative culture, it does tend to support the notion that collective ignorance is NOT inevitable.
I've never lived there so I don't know what people there are like, perhaps they waste more of their time on politics, but they end up with the same scum we do, so it's not helping them one bit.
At any rate, even assuming that what you are saying is correct on the whole, I would remind you that the topic at hand was Craig and his supposed "elitism." If the TRUTH is that the typical American voter is astoundingly uninformed and/or stupid, then it doesn't really matter if this is true in other cultures.
The point is that even if the average voter is stupid (a faulty premise if you start by defining stupidity as not being informed about politics), it does not give someone else the divine right to make decisions for you as to what leaders are the ones to elect. That's why everyone gets one vote, not some number of votes based on your level of political knowledge.
Speaking the truth does not make you an "elitist," and even if it does, then "elitism" would seem to be the proper frame of mind. Broadening this beyond Craig, the real issue is that the right tends to accuse the left of elitism, claiming that they are out of touch with the common man. Not only is this allegation cheap populism meant to pander for votes, but they are attacking liberals for basically speaking the truth about the mental state of the greater part of the electorate.
Hey, if the shoe fits, gotta wear it. You've made it clear you think pretty much all voters are stupid, and that you know better than all of them who should (or should not) be elected. That's called elitism, pure and simple. Democrats are often accused of this because it's true. It's not a matter of speaking truth (neither side does that very much), it's a matter of looking down your nose at people and assuming that you know better than they do what's good for them.
Bottom line, the people of Ohio by a wide margin would prefer to have Bush back over Obama. There are two ways to interpret that fact: 1) "lots of things going into it, bad economy etc etc", or 2) (the elitist way) look down your nose and proclaim them all to be stupid because they don't share your views. Guess which one most dems (including those in this thread) went with?