EDITORIAL: So MSNBC managed to find a racially charged image for the John Edwards campaign as well. Kudos on turning the white, male candidate into an object of racial and sexual politics! Now I'm really torn. Do I vote for the black guy, the white woman, or the white man who appears to be cautiously bi-racial and bi-sexual in his supprt? Its as though they are advertising John Edwards as the rainbow swirl orgy of the political season. "Who did I just put my dick in? I don't know, but it feels good, so I'll keep going", if you will. Is this actually the message this picture is trying to send, who knows. But it doesn't appear as though any of those 4 people above are really ready to grease themselves up and engage in a frothy display of tolerance, if you know what I'm saying.
Perhaps I'm, I don't know, "jaded" here, but follow me on this. The Democrats have always been the party that preached "tolerance" and "inclusion" in politics. So tell me again, why are we being railroaded into sexual and racial politics this year? I guess its easier to be the party of inclusion when your presidential candidates are all white men. When it comes down to actually choosing between two historically under-represented minorities its hard to tell which is the "most tolerant" decision, right? Don't look at it as a vote "for" your candidate, look at is as though you're voting "against" an ENTIRE minority demographic. Clinton supporters are all racist, and if you're an African-American Clinton supporter, then you're selling out your race as well. Obama supporters are foolish and naive, and probably sexist.
And God help you if you vote for John Edwards, you racist and mysogynist dinosaur. Then again, maybe it just means you're "down with the swirl".
Waldo |
|
