What do you do when you’ve been defending the poor for weeks, nay, years, and you have to bow out of a Presidential race because, well, you don’t have enough money?
What does this say about democracy?
Here in the Pond, democracy is when all of us PondDwellers agree that human beings are self-deluding nonsense-mongers.
But out there, the notion seems to exist that the majority is right about all things.
It must therefore be very difficult for John Edwards to decide who should be blessed with his endorsement.
He had hoped that he would be the best-looking candidate, as well as the one most in touch with his feminine side.
Instead, he was out-prettied and then had to endure rumors that he had impregnated a feminine aide.
Yet surely Edwards has the opportunity now, more than at any other time, to prove that his beliefs will live on, even as his political career might wave to oblivion from just beyond its ‘n’.
Instead of choosing to nominate one of the two remaining people who happen to be more famous than he is, he should swiftly get together with the principled, or at least the principals, at Google.
The famous search (and destroy anyone who gets in our way, while doing no evil, absolutely, not never, ever) engine seems to have suffered a difficult day at the hands of the New York betting community.
They need positive publicity. And it is generally accepted that they are friends of the Democratic Party.
So might it not be a good time for Google to contact every single American who either intends or is even vaguely thinking about voting Democrat on Mr. Edwards’ behalf?
Google knows where they all live (near water), how often they shine their shoes (never) and what they have purchased in the last seven days (organic wine and porn).
And I understand Google have already prepared a questionnaire in the hope that Mr. Edwards will call on them to participate in his very difficult decision.
It was designed by one of the Google’s finest engineers- he even refused an arranged marriage to concentrate on his true calling- and is guaranteed, I am told, to determine an accurate community preference for one of the remaining candidates:
1. Which candidate do you think is better looking and has more money?
2. Which candidate do you think is better looking and will get you more money?
3. Who do you think spends more money on their hair? Clinton or Obama?
4. Do you think they spend more money than Edwards?
5. When you hear the word ‘change’ do you automatically think of money?
6. The Iraq War? Is the most annoying thing about it how much it has cost?
7. Have you ever slept with, had your hair done by, or ever been a black woman or a black man?
8. Have you ever slept with, had your hair done by, or ever been a white woman or a gay man?
9. If your answer to questions 7 or 8 was ‘yes’, how much did it cost you?
10. Which candidate last week purchased online a Canon 32587 Thumbsize Surveillance Camera?
11. When you think about the two remaining candidates, do you find yourself wondering how big their houses are?
12. Do you think their houses are bigger than Mr. Edwards’ 27,000 square footer?
13. Whose house would you rather be watching the Superbowl at? Mrs. Clinton’s? Or Mr. Obama’s?
14. Which candidate do you think is more likely to be supporting both teams?
15. Which candidate do you think will have accepted donations from the owners of both teams?
16. Which candidate might describe a win by the New York team as a ‘giant fairy tale?
17. Which candidate’s aim is to be ‘likeable enough to buy groceries online’?
18. Which candidate do you think is more likely to watch NBA games while smoking, snorting or ingesting by other means controlled substances? (note: Xanax, Vicodin and Krispy Kreme donuts are all controlled substances)
19. Which candidate do you think has the more likeable spouse?
20. Which candidate is more likely to agree to a judo match with Vladimir Putin?
I understand that Google’s famed mathematicians, who sleep at work, regularly exchange clothes with each other and only eat grapes and All Bran, analyze the responses, crank up their algorithms and produce the absolute and definitive answer for who would be better served by John Edwards’ endorsement.
I also understand that Google see this questionnaire as a dry run for taking over the whole election process, their reasoning being that even if you choose to believe they are not infallible, they are certainly less fallible than Diebold machines.
The Pond thanks Erik Charlton for his hawkish eye.