In this artcle posted in September 2008, the epicentre of the hype surrounding the Presidential Elections, Saunders speaks about the constant referal in regards to 'Average Joe'. Saunder' is quite right, it would seem that this 'Joe', and his 'Soccer/Security/Hockey Mom' wife, spring up in every political rally; speech; or just in general rhetoric. He also seems quite angry at the use of this 'Joe' and the character that he portrays, because no-one is 'Joe' in his eyes.
The voters can relate to him, and use him as some archityple design when it comes to referencing and representing a stereotypical-middle American, who probably owns a pickup, more than five different guns, watches Fox for its balanced and fair representation on news events, used to play 'football' in college, etc etc. Saunder' instead offers a more updated, and horrifically true portrait of 'Joe'.
"The average Joe" hadn't had a beer with either Bush or Kerry, and in fact had gone from beer to whiskey because his home was in foreclosure, and his investments had vanished in the stock market swoon, and two of his sons were in Iraq, and he was fading fast because he had cancer and no health insurance."
I also drew a relation between this American idea of 'Joe' and how their politicians 'relate' to them personally, and the constant nudges by David Cameron in this years election campaign; how he is one of 'Us' and how he 'understands' how much 'broken Britain' has effected him, and so, us/me.
To be honest, when I first read this article, I decided that Saunder' was 'looking into it to deeply' and was simply taken away in a sudden outburst of anger towards a system that he does not agree with, but I can see that he is simply applying the same ethos from 'Inpersuasion Nation' into his Guardian article. His anger and argument is overstressed, and seemingly blown out of proportion, but conveys a complicated and, almost, hidden message.