Eric D. Snider

Your Candidate/My Candidate

Snide Remarks #593

"Your Candidate/My Candidate"

by Eric D. Snider

Published on September 15, 2008

Audio MP3

Download audio

Your candidate lacks experience.
My candidate is refreshingly free from the stain of politics.

Your candidate has been part of the Washington system for too long.
My candidate is blessed by years of political know-how.

Your candidate is a reckless loose cannon.
My candidate is a maverick.

Your candidate is exotic and strange.
My candidate represents America's melting pot.

Your candidate is a flip-flopper.
My candidate adjusts his views as new facts come to light.

Your candidate is cranky and stubborn.
My candidate is tenacious.

Your candidate makes brash, controversial remarks.
My candidate speaks his mind, no matter what.

Your candidate has a checkered past.
My candidate has a colorful past.

Your candidate has served time in prison.
My candidate has an intricate knowledge of our country's legal system.

Your candidate sold government secrets to Russian spies.
My candidate is a savvy capitalist with international business experience.

Your candidate once killed a Mexican day-laborer and dumped his body in a river.
My candidate takes a tough stance on immigration.

Your candidate is addicted to painkillers.
My candidate takes a pro-active approach when dealing with difficult situations.

Your candidate is a promiscuous bisexual.
My candidate supports gender equality.

Your candidate was seen drinking the blood of a freshly slain goat in unholy tribute to the dark lord Beelzebub at a gathering of Satanists.
My candidate is an active participant in his religious congregation.

Your candidate released a sex tape on the Internet.
My candidate has nothing to hide from the American people.

Your candidate commandeered a Civil War reenactment and fired a cannon into a crowd of people, killing three.
My candidate vigorously defends his right to bear arms.

Your candidate is a pedophile.
My candidate loves children.

Your candidate burglarized a nursing home.
My candidate treasures the things that our senior citizens have to offer.

Your candidate recruited teenagers to work in his meth lab.
My candidate believes in teaching science to young people.

Your candidate visits prostitutes.
My candidate supports small-business owners.

Your candidate is a wealthy elitist who doesn't trust common Americans to make good decisions.
My candidate shares the views of the Founding Fathers.

Stumble It!


It's hard not to notice the double-talk in an election year, where everything "my guy" does is great, while everything "your guy" does is terrible, even when they're doing the same thing. I think I first started paying attention to it when people were debating which privileged, millionaire senator was more out of touch with typical Americans, McCain or Obama. So I started making a list of these double standards, and then I thought it would be funnier if, after a few normal ones, the accusations and spin-doctoring started getting more ridiculous.

On the format: While writing, I dimly recalled a MAD Magazine article from many, many years ago that used the same basic premise. Subsequent Googling informed me that it was from 1980, and it was called "MAD's 'They' and 'You' Book." (A sample: "THEY are pushy; YOU show self assertion.") More Googling reminded me that MAD did exactly what I did -- "Your Candidate/My Candidate" -- in 2004. I don't remember it, though, and I'd like to think that since my jokes grow increasingly divorced from reality as they progress, that means it's an entirely different comedic premise altogether.

SnideCast note: It turns out the word "candidate" is hard for me to enunciate. If I'm not very careful, it comes out "cannidate," almost like "Canada." This becomes a problem when a particular column uses the word "candidate" 42 times.

SnideCast intro & outro: "Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind?," by The Lovin' Spoonful.

This item has 24 comments

  1. ~j. says:

    I love this.

  2. Lane says:

    Very funny. Seemed short, but then, this was one where every single line had to be cleverly deployed. Some of your longer ones have more filler than a cheap Irish Ham Hock, if you know what I mean.

  3. Turkey says:

    HA! I started laughing out loud right around the immigration one.

    What are you saying? It's NOT pronounced "cannidate"?

  4. Sean says:

    The one about burglarizing a nursing home was pure comic gold.

  5. Aaron says:

    A+ on this one.

    I wish it weren't so funny, but the "killing three" addition to the cannon one brought tears to my eyes.

  6. Christi says:

    "Your candidate was seen drinking the blood of a freshly slain goat in unholy tribute to the dark lord Beelzebub at a gathering of Satanists.
    My candidate is an active participant in his religious congregation."


  7. Dave the Slave says:

    I love this. Much like the celebrity gossip article you wrote, the "what they say, what they mean" format of set-up, punchline is comedic gold!

  8. Lowdogg says:

    Good stuff. I especially like the last one.

  9. Rich says:

    Wow. One of those miraculous Snide Remarks that deserves to be lovingly spread all over this ol' Internet of ours.

    "Your candidate once killed a Mexican day-laborer and dumped his body in a river.
    My candidate takes a tough stance on immigration."

    Indeed, priceless.

  10. OMAllen says:

    That was excellent. You had my giggling like a school girl. And I'm not in school or a girl.

  11. Savvy Veteran says:

    I would have thought it was a mildly funny column even if you hadn't crossed over into the crazy realm, but doing that made this a classic. The Satanist line had me in stitches.

  12. Bull Moose says:

    I thought I had figured out which candidate you were referring to. Then I reread it and realized you were talking about the other guy!

  13. Emma says:


    Marry me! I love you!

  14. John Doe says:

    Anybody else think doing it in reverse would've been funnier? Maybe it's me, but I prefer the spin before the details. It gives me a moment to think about what they're actually talking about. Kinda like a riddle. But maybe it's just me.

    Otherwise, I did find it funny because it is true.

  15. DaleD says:

    This reminds me of the MAD magazine "Guaranteed Effective All-Occasion Non-slanderous Political Smear Speech" published in #139 in December of 1970. If you do a network search for the title, you can find it in several places. This Snide Remarks is very reminiscent, and loads of fun.


  16. G & P OZ says:

    I wet myself.

  17. Daled says:

    Just one more note to Eric et. al.

    "Your candidate is a wealthy elitist who doesn't trust common Americans to make good decisions."

    "My candidate shares the views of the Founding Fathers."

    While there is a common conception that the Founding Fathers were "elitists" and that they didn't trust the judgement of the people (because they did crazy things like inventing the Electoral College), this is not strictly true.

    More correctly stated, we might say that the Founding Fathers "didn't trust common Americans to make geographically unbiased decisions." This is the entire Large State/Small State arguement which ultimately led to the Connecticut Compromise and the bi-cameral Congress with a House of Representatives based on population of States and a Senate based on equality of each State. This is, in fact, the same arguement that was used as the basis of forming the Electoral College to elect the President. It skews the vote slightly based on geography.

    Just to set the record straight.

    While many view the Electoral College as an arcane and outdated institution, it is actually another great witness to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in creating a system that would address the diverse nature of American politics between the States. I don't think anyone would ever call the House of Representatives and Senate arcane or outdated. There are other things they are called all the time, but they can't be printed here, as Eric likes to keep this a family friendly site......

    We now return you to your local SnideCast.......



  18. ClobberGirl says:

    This one didn't do anything for me, and I really don't know why because I'm usually pretty good at laughing at both sides, but it didn't. Hmm.

  19. Global Warming says:

    As the situations became more bizarre, I started laughing harder. Well done, indeed.

  20. Brother Reed says:

    "Your candidate once killed a Mexican day-laborer and dumped his body in a river.
    My candidate takes a tough stance on immigration."

    I spit. :D

  21. DaveH says:

    Good stuff. At least you didn't write about something nuclear ("nucular") 42 times. I think it's great and important to recognize the inherent foolishness and "blindered" view of the truth pushed by both sides in any election season.

    Listening to your reading of the column, I wondered if "intricate" is really the word you most intended in "an intricate knowledge of our country's legal system". Intricate is generally defined as complicated. Did you maybe mean "intimate"? Sorry, just the query of a word-lover (copy editor, writer/reporter, English teacher, etc.). :)

  22. Eric D. Dixon says:

    Dale, the Founding Fathers' elitism can be found in the very nature of voting rights at the time. In order to vote, you had to be a landowner in pretty much every jurisdiction, you had to be male in almost every jurisdiction, and you had to be white in the vast majority of jurisdictions.

    In many places, this meant that about 15 percent of the adult population was eligible to vote, without taking anything else into account...

  23. DaleD says:

    Eric D. Dixon #22.:

    I grant you that "elitism" was present...just not in the way that some people try to explain it. The electoral college is not a result of the elitism of the time, as is often asserted. The overall voting patterns and qualifications certainly were, as you've noted. In the early days of the Women's Suffrage movement, most of the women took the tack that the Constitution already allowed women to vote, and that the Congress simply needed to pass enabling legislation. After some of them were jailed for attempting to vote and a couple of them tried to run for Congress (like that would help), they finally took the tack of persuing a Constitutional ammendment. I think the arguement actually held some weight, but no (male) courts would back them up. The Constitution is actually a very good document for the time it was written.


  24. Toby Dillon says:

    Well done!

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.

Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.


Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

This site created and maintained by Jeff J. Snider | Diamond Clarity Chart