Above is the graphic that The New York Times used with its editorial board’s interview of Bernie Sanders before it ultimately glibly and cynically dismissed his entire candidacy and endorsed instead two candidates who probably would go down in defeat in November 2020. Below, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and other candidates for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination march arm-in-arm today in the Martin Luther King Jr. Day march in Columbia, South Carolina, but the “progressive”-come-lately Warren still is dead to me after the “sexism” bullshit that she pulled last week, starting with leaking a fake “Bernie Sanders is a sexist” “news story” to CNN, which CNN then shamelessly, grossly unfairly weaponized against Bernie in the debate that it co-sponsored the very next day.
That headline is mostly a joke.
I mean, Robert’s Virtual Soapbox does endorse Bernie Sanders for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, but you knew that for years.
I am responding to The New York Times’ “woke,” cowardly, ivory-tower “endorsement” of two of the weaker contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
Apparently the “woke” elites of the Times — who concluded their endorsement editorial with the “woke” line “May the best woman win” after lecturing the rest of us on the perils of divisiveness — were responding to the “woke” Woman Power! tag-teaming that Warren and Klobuchar did in last week’s primary debate; it was well-organized, ironically sexist tag-teaming that only could have been planned beforehand, like the misandrist hit job that it was — and even worse, it was with the help of the corporate media whores of CNN, including the shamelessly partial and unethical “debate moderator” whose clearly premeditated “questions” regarding Bernie Sanders brazenly just assumed that he is guilty as charged of having told Warren during a private, one-on-one meeting in 2018 witnessed by no one else that a woman couldn’t be president. So fucking much for being fair and balanced!
On that note, that apparently is what the “woke” eggheads of the Times were focused on while determining whom to endorse for president: not wanting to be unfairly smeared, like Bernie Sanders has been, for being “sexist” — by endorsing yet another white guy for president.
But the Times’ stated reasons for endorsing Warren and Klobuchar are nonsensical, except that you can’t expect a corporately owned and controlled media giant — like CNN or The New York Times — to advocate for a politician who, if elected, might actually do something about corporate over-privilege and corporate abuse. The corporations (including, of course, CNN and the Times) feel quite safe with the likes of Klobuchar and Warren (and, to be fair, Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg).
The Times glibly dismissed Bernie Sanders right before endorsing Warren thusly:
… Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern.
Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive.
He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda.
Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.
Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left. …
Wow. Warren would be 71 years old if she became president (which she won’t). There is such a huge difference between 71 and 79!
And according to the “woke” elites who regularly lecture us commoners from upon high, we are to be “woke” in every other way, but hey, ageism is A-OK!
As heart attacks are quite treatable these days, no one with two brain cells to rub together actually is seriously worried about Bernie’s health right now — except the Times, which is throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick to Bernie.
(On the heart-attack “issue,” the American Heart Association, which might know something about this, states that “After a first heart attack, most people go on to live a long, productive life.” The Times could have just Googled that fact, like I just did, but that would have gotten in the way of their agenda.)
And Bernie is — wait for it — divisive! Ooooo! Can’t have that! No, we want our “Democrats” to be “nice” and “polite” and quiet and inoffensive and thus utterly ineffectual in pushing through a political agenda — you know, just like the Repugnicans are!
We want our “Democrats” to be weak and to be “above” the fray and to give the store away to the Repugnicans (when these namby-pamby, apologizing-for-their-own-existence “Democrats” even can win office in the first place, that is).
The Times tries to finish Bernie off with this pronouncement from upon high: “Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.”
Ooooo — comparing Bernie to Pussygrabber! Oh, sick burn! Oh, you sure got us “Bernie bros,” New York Times! You found that magic silver bullet; you drove that wooden stake right into our cold, misogynist hearts!
After the elites of the Times in their “woke” little circle jerk have, in their minds, polished Bernie off by quite falsely having compared him to Pussygrabber, as so many politically fucktarded others have done, they then inform us that it’s “Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.”
Oh, thank the Lord! Elizabeth Warren is here to swoop down and swoop in and save us!
Thing is, the electorate doesn’t think nearly as highly as Warren (or Klobuchar) as the Times does.
After the last man-hating debacle of a debate that inspired the Times to endorse Warren (and Klobuchar), Warren’s nationwide polling has gone down while Bernie’s and Biden’s have gone up:
That graphic is from Wikipedia’s page on the nationwide polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
You’ll see in the graphic that while Biden (the green line) and Bernie (the blue line) have veered upward in the nationwide polling, Warren’s nationwide polling, represented by the red line, has veered downward. I’d say that her toxic-identity-politics stunt at last week’s debate has backfired if her goal was to help herself, as it apparently was.
Wikipedia’s average of the nationwide polls right now puts Biden at No. 1, with 27.1 percent, Bernie at No. 2, with 19.8 percent, Warren at No. 3, with 15.7 percent, and, to show you how much further in touch with the electorate the Times is, Klobuchar nationally is at seventh place, with a whopping 3.2 percent!
In New Hampshire, Bernie sustains his small lead over Biden. (I think that Bernie will win New Hampshire, but it’s probably best for the Berners in New Hampshire not to assume that he’ll win, but to cast their ballots for him religiously.)
Biden’s lead right now in the third state to weigh in, Nevada, is about 6 percentage points ahead of No.-2 Bernie — not insurmountable for Bernie should he pull a blowout win of both Iowa and New Hampshire, which of course is possible, according to the polling.
As I’ve noted before, if Bernie manages to win the first three states, I don’t see No. 4 South Carolina saving Biden’s ass.
Why do I endorse Bernie and not the “pragmatists” who are so beloved by the corporately owned and controlled “news” media?
It’s pretty simple, really:
In power politics, you always go for more than you expect to actually get. You know that you’re unlikely to get all that you want, but if you are smart, you know to push for more than you think you’ll get.
If your starting-off point is to defend the status quo, or to promise to only maybe very slightly improve the sociopolitical landscape — you know, in such a non-threatening, almost-meaningless way as to avoid offending as many people as possible — then you are going to get rolled by the Repugnicans. Sensing (correctly) that they’re ready, willing and able to roll over and play dead at the drop of the hat, the Repugnicans eat these “sensible” “moderate” “Democrats” for breakfast, lunch and dinner (and in-between-meal snacks).
Elizabeth Warren is “a standard-bearer for the Democratic left”? Really, New York Times? Let’s see:
Warren was a Repugnican until 1996. (“She does not talk about her Republican past in either of her books or as part of the biography she recounts in her stump speech,” notes Politico, adding that “the information often comes as a surprise even to Beltway politicos and longtime Warren allies.” Yes, unlike her affiliation with Native Americans, Warren’s affiliation with the Repugnican Party was quite real.)
But there’s more: The former Repugnican and the currently capitalist Warren is a calculating party creature, a fucking cowardly and craven party hack, having dared not to step on Queen Billary’s royal cape by having run for president in 2016. She’ll gladly try to fuck it up for Bernie Sanders now, though, because she’s a true progressive, and if she cannot have the White House, then Bernie cannot have it, either! Bwaaa ha haa haaa haaaa haaaaa haaaaaa!
Three strikes (former Repugnican, apologist for capitalism, and self-serving Democratic Party hack); Liz is out.
I don’t even need to say anything at all about non-factor, polling-in-the-low-single-digits Amy Klobuchar, The New York Times’ co-endorsee, but I will.
Thing is, Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters are famous for not turning out to vote unless they are particularly jazzed. Someone coma-inducing like centrist-on-crack Amy Klobuchar is not going to generate nearly enough excitement among the Democratic-voting electorate to ensure a win against the rabid cultists who would crawl naked through miles of broken glass and fire ants in order to cast their vote for Pussygrabber’s “re”-election in November 2020 (or before, if they vote early).
Much is said about the corporate media’s disconnect with the American people.
Again, the polls bear this out. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are the choice of some elites at The New York Times. They (especially Klobuchar) are not the choice of the people. They are not now, and they aren’t going to be.
Bernie Sanders is like “President” Pussygrabber only in that both of them do have hordes of loyal supporters; both of them are popular among considerable swaths of the American electorate.
You know, though, political excitement and political energy in and of itself is not bad or evil. It’s how you use that energy that matters, and how “President” Pussygrabber uses the energy and excitement that he generates and how President Sanders would use the energy and excitement that he generates are as night and day.
No political energy among the populace at all benefits our corporate overlords (like CNN and even The New York Times) because it maintains the socioeconomic status quo, so fully expect them to support political candidates who don’t meaningfully threaten the corporately owned and controlled status quo by bringing a wave of (yes, populist) political energy with them into office.
Again, populism in and of itself isn’t evil; Adolf Hitler was a populist. But so was Jesus Christ.
All that the Bernie-bashing, if ultimately successful, could achieve is that Joe Biden would become the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominee. (Maybe, given her fealty to the Democratic Party establishment, Warren actually is trying to help Biden out by trying to cripple Bernie? Maybe for the veep spot should Biden win the nomination? I wouldn’t rule that out.)
If you truly don’t want to see “President” Pussygrabber “re”-elected in November 2020, then Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate should scare the shit out of you.
The people — the “experts,” you know, like those who work at CNN and at The New York Times — who were so smugly certain that Billary Clinton would beat Pussygrabber in November 2016 are the very same people who today are so smugly certain that perpetual blast from the past Joe “No Malarkey” Biden can beat Pussygrabber in November 2020.
What possibly could go wrong?