Isn’t it interesting how, on the one hand the Obama and HClinton candidacies supposedly signal a new day for America, but at the same time all this ugliness can’t help but seep out around the edges?

Admittedly, I don’t have much faith in Romney, but I did expect better from John Edwards, before the Esquire thing (see below).

First, of course you’ve seen this: Mitt Romney posing with a sign that reads “No to Obama, Osama, and Chelsea’s Moma.”

Now, I’m all for poetry. I even harbor a genuine soft spot for prosody in general. And I must say, the sign is quite genius in its use of thematic regression, using “osama” to shine some radical Islam/terrorism on Barack Obama, and “moma” to shine some black on Hillary Clinton. Lead-footed American genius!

But really, Mitt. Show some class, not your ass.

Romney:

I don’t look at all the signs when I’m having pictures taken.

But, then, an unexpected touch of poetry:

There are a lot of jokes out there. I’m not responsible for all the signs I see.

Sigh. That’s one way of putting it.

Meanwhile, also at CNN, a second headline, “Elizabeth Edwards: Can’t make John ‘black’ or a ‘woman’”. Apparently:

Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is gaining attention for recent comments on why her husband may receive less attention from the media – and campaign cash — than the two leading Democratic candidates.

“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” said Edwards…

Oh but if you could…

Wendi Muse, writing on the Edwards’ cover at Racialicious:

Sound dystopian, doesn’t it? I think some people have an unrealistic expectation that wealthy white male political, economic, and social dominance will come to an overnight halt now that the babymakers and the coloreds have been given rights, and, God forbid, a few also happen to be gaining considerable support as they campaign in hopes of becoming the next titleholders for presidency of the United States, but anyone with half a brain could look around and see that the equality apocalypse is a loooong way off.

Yes, it is all very subtle and more than a little bit sinister, hiding behind irony and a new self-conscious sense that, if you know what you should say about race or class, then of course it’s okay to say it…

The video is so interesting, as it uses Angelou’s blackness to authenticate Clinton’s femininity, and by some kind of metaphysical extension, her integrity as a candidate. Mainly consisting of images voiced over by Angelou, the video intercuts all these images of women of color (look Latinas! look AA&PIs!) with Clinton spending “quality time” with black children. Don’t get me wrong; I really like Angelou. She even wrote me a really sweet letter for my first book. But there’s something about the way the Clinton people use her in this video, an image amongst many others, that doesn’t sit well with me.

Elizabeth Benjamin on The NY Daily News’ blog reads the endorsement as “humanizing” Clinton. Angelou at best historicizes Clinton, reminding us that it is really meaningful that a woman is running for president. But at worst…

“Along with Hillary Rodham Clinton…and me!”

I am displeased. Not necessarily with the endorsement; I’m still working through that one. But the message was already a little, say, “thin”– vote for Hillary because she is a woman. And it is absolutely degraded by Angelou’s role here as Hillary’s black friend.