You may have already seen this David Sedaris piece from last month’s New Yorker, but it bears repeating the day before election day:
[In the final days of the campaign] the focus shifts to the undecided voters. “Who are they?” the news anchors ask. “And how might they determine the outcome of this election?”
Then you’ll see this man or woman— someone, I always think, who looks very happy to be on TV. “Well, Charlie,” they say, “I’ve gone back and forth on the issues and whatnot, but I just can’t seem to make up my mind!” Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.
…To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”
To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.
Wait, so, Barack = chicken, prepared in an unknown manner
McCain = Poop with glass in it
indecision = asking for clarification on how the chicken is cooked, as if one might *actually* choose poop with glass if the chicken is prepared using some unacceptable method?
this analogy = it is completely rediculous to be undecided in this election and, further, if one has chosen McCain, one has chosen to chew and swallow poop and broken glass?
Okay…I think I get it now.
Ok, the analogy doesn’t hold up under a lot of scrutiny. But it’s effective when you first hear it, right?
So wait…we are going to eat Barack?