Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

– From the article: A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Why the black community supports Hillary Clinton is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps someone can rectify my ignorance in the comment section, but it appears irrational to support a person so single-mindedly focused on her own wealth and power, as opposed to someone genuinely interested in helping poor and struggling communities.

Perhaps it’s merely a name recognition thing, or the fact that her husband was so popular with the black community. I don’t know, but what I do know is Hillary Clinton is running for President because she wants the Presidency. In contrast, Bernie Sanders is running because he sees America in deep trouble. There’s a huge difference.

That said, the tide may be starting to turn. Time will tell, but an expected endorsement from Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, is a good sign.

CNN reports:

Ben Jealous, the former head of the NAACP, will endorse Bernie Sanders, a source familiar with the campaign told CNN.

The endorsement is a potential boost to Sanders who has struggled to gain traction among African-American voters, though he has made small gains on Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton, according to recent polls. 

Jealous, 43, is set to appear with Sanders in New Hampshire ahead of the February 9 primary to announce his support. 

Elected to the NAACP post in 2008, Jealous was the youngest person to head the civil rights organization. Credited with re-invigorating the organization and making it more politically relevant, Jealous served for four years. 

Jealous joins a list of prominent African-Americans who have endorsed Sanders, among them Nina Turner, a former Ohio state legislator, Rep. Keith Ellison and Cornel West.

In South Carolina, a number of state legislators have also endorsed Sanders, including Justin Bamberg who switched his allegiance from Clinton to Sanders. 

The most recent poll shows Sanders struggling to attract a sizable number of black voters in South Carolina — Sanders earns 17% of black voters, with Clinton earning 74%, according to a NBC/Wall Street Journal Marist poll.

Those numbers are simply insane.

Meanwhile, I found the following editorial in the Des Moines Register to be interesting as well as disturbing. Here are a few excerpts from the piece titled, Something smells in the Democratic Party:

What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy.

The Iowa Democratic Party must act quickly to assure the accuracy of the caucus results, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

First of all, the results were too close not to do a complete audit of results. Two-tenths of 1 percent separated Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. A caucus should not be confused with an election, but it’s worth noting that much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states.

Second, too many questions have been raised. Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.

The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct, and is already finding inconsistencies, said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.

“Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match,” Batrice said Wednesday.

Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no. She said the three campaigns had representatives in a room in the hours after the caucuses and went over the discrepancies.

For related articles on the unmitigated disaster that is Hillary Clinton, see:

A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Not a Joke – War Criminal Hillary Clinton is Now Running on Her Foreign Policy “Strengths”

Hillary “Feels the Bern” – Record Numbers of MoveOn.org Members Vote to Endorse Sanders by Massive Margin

Who’s the Real Progressive? A Side by Side Comparison of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton’s Lifetime Donors

Here Come the Cronies – Buffett and Blackstone President Launch $33,400 a Plate Hillary Clinton Fundraiser

“You Want to Be Free and Dead?” – Billionaire Hillary Clinton Donor Says to Sacrifice Civil Liberties for “Safety”

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

9 thoughts on “Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders”

  1. No big surprise that the NAACP commie rats are supporting Sanders. He’s a stinking communist just like they all are. Of course Hilary Clinton is a lowlife left wing extremist too. So there’s really nothing good that can be said about either Clinton, Sanders or the NAACP goons and whichever left wing extremist they support.

    Reply
    • Think about what you are saying. Wall Street has contributed over $21 million to Clinton’s campaign. When have major banks and financial firms ever supported a left-wing candidate? Hillary (and Bill) gives lip service to liberal causes to get the vote, but she doesn’t walk the walk.

      Sanders is a socialist. There is a big difference between socialism and communism.

  2. Someone yells “Communist!” and flecks of spittle begin showing up on Robert’s chin hairs. Look at what is proposed IN THE WORDS OF THE CAMPAIGNS THEMSELVES, not some lunatic, your pastor or Auntie Evelyn who also thought Thurgood Marshall was a crypto-Stalinist.

    Look at the numbers of what Sanders says he will do with the money.

    Look at Hillary’s record, if you can keep your food down.

    So, I assume you’re all over one of the Republicans who are still in the running (Rand doesn’t count). Which one of those knob polishers is Your Boy, Robert?

    Reply

Leave a Reply