I would like to take a moment to tell you all about why I favor my candidate for President of the United States. My candidate has made many statements on issues, has drafted many proposals for moving this nation forward, and has attended many locally significant gatherings. But none of that is particularly important, and it would be a waste of time to dwell on it. I would rather highlight the obvious greatness of my Democratic candidate by noting that your Democratic candidate is shamefully inferior. In fact, all the arguments for my candidate can be boiled down to the transparently obvious: my candidate is not your candidate, and your candidate, to put it bluntly, sucks.
For starters, your candidate is not electable. I cannot imagine your candidate getting elected to any office, even the office they were previously elected to, because they are so unelectable. In a world full of unelectable candidates, yours is the least electable of them all. If it were an election between your candidate, a sweater once worn by dog of the late Leona Helmsley, and a bowl of lukewarm soup, your candidate would still be the least electable of the three. Certainly, your candidate may have the generous finances of Leona Helmsley's rich and pampered dog -- but your candidate also smells bad when campaigning in the rain. You may claim your candidate's positions are complex and satisfying, like the flavor of the now-cooling soup -- but it lies under an even more clammy and rubbery top skin, so nobody will ever know. Politicians are like dogs and dog sweaters and soup: when you've only got a single commercial to go by, it's the outer layers that everybody cares about. It's well known that Lassie's dog farts smelled like Hell's own rendering plant, but it was on television so nobody cared.
Your candidate, unlike mine, has no spine. Your candidate is so spineless that they are less politician than cephalopod: after putting down snail and slug bait, I have not once found your candidate chewing on the plants in my garden. Coincidence? No, only the truly cowardly could possibly support your candidate, who is a poster child for political cowardice, a crunchy shell of groveling insincerity around a gelatin-like center of substanceless. Your candidate could not take candy from a baby not because they are above that sort of thing, but because they are physically incapable of taking candy from a baby. They could form a focus group to take candy from the baby; they could draft legislation providing for a committee to explore ways to remove said candy from the vicinity of said baby; they could make a speech about how they are going to accomplish the act next year, or three years hence, given congressional authorization; they could not, however, actually do the deed. My candidate, on the other hand, could not only take the candy, but could look Damn Good doing it, and leave the baby happier and better off besides. The candy, after all, promoted tooth decay. Perhaps the candy was a choking hazard. Above all, my candidate would form a special commission to investigate what sorry idiot gave candy to a helpless, non-candy-digesting baby.
Your candidate is a tool of special interests. Your candidate takes money from lobbyists who steal it from schoolchildren. My candidate takes money from pixies and gives it to schoolchildren -- because my candidate loves schoolchildren, and your candidate hates them and would take candy from them if the opportunity arose. Your candidate once took money from Nosferatu at a shady D.C. nightclub. My candidate personally saw it happen, because my candidate was in the same nightclub, but only because my candidate wanted to try to stop Nosferatu from giving people money. But then your candidate pulled a gun and then ran away.
Your candidate has a history which contains few notable legislative accomplishments, because your candidate is lazy, craven, and apathetic. My candidate has a history which contains few notable legislative accomplishments because they work in cooperation with others, and prefer to let others get the credit for their own obvious fabulousness.
Your candidate is prone to lying and scandal. I know this because I saw it on Fox News, and even though Fox News is misleading, manipulative, irresponsible and fraudulent in every other capacity, is surely a fine judge of Democratic political candidates. What possible ulterior motive could they have? My candidate, however, is scandal-proof. No matter how boring and predictable you may think your candidate is, make no mistake -- my candidate is even more boring and predictable. Your candidate is the spouse of a lobbyist who at age six went to an ecologically inefficient and overly large school for ethnic people. My candidate was virgin-born out of an apple pie left to cool in the shade of an American flag.
Your candidate cannot solve the problems in the Middle East. This is because your candidate, like every American president for multiple generations, lacks simple foresight. When my candidate becomes president, the world will join hands and the entire planet will be transformed into something from a Thomas Friedman book, except without a dustbowl-like economic apocalypse of all American manufacturing jobs, because my candidate is pro-working-families, while yours wants to turn union workers into inexpensive, melamine-free dog food.
My candidate's vanity timed-for-the-campaign book is far superior to your candidate's vanity time-for-the-campaign book, which lacked subtlety, complexity, and sufficient American flags on the cover. I have read neither, but my candidate's book certainly had a better cover.
Your candidate is inexperienced. My candidate is untainted by the stain of Washington.
Your candidate looks funny.
Your candidate's supporters are, frankly, uncouth. They write outrageous and abusive assertions against other candidates, at the same time railing indignantly against anyone who critiques their own candidate with even half of the same ferocity. I fail to see how anyone could support a candidate with supporters like that. My candidate, on the other hand, is supported by patriots.
There it is, then. I suppose that will do for now.
I hope this has enlightened you as to the obvious greatness of my candidate's substantive and well-thought-out positions. Just to make sure, I shall repeat these solid and carefully researched and incontrovertible arguments four times a week for the remainder of the year.
Because as campaigns nationwide have long known, there's no better way to campaign for my candidate than to point out what an idiot you are for supporting yours.