Now that I’ve lost all interest in this year’s NCAA basketball tournament now that Wisconsin and Gonzaga have been knocked out, it is back to the presidential primaries. The Seattle Times, amazingly enough, endorsed Bernie Sanders over media favorite Hillary Clinton in the upcoming Washington state primary. Its reasoning was sound; Sanders was the only candidate who seems to have such qualities as “authenticity” and “consistency,” and a willingness to tackle issues that other politicians are too “timid” to touch. That includes Clinton; the pro-Clinton media calls her timidity about straying beyond the status quo a “presidential” quality, and “pragmatic.” There is this fallacy among Clinton supporters that support for Sanders is forcing her to move “left”; what that implies is that she is not naturally a “progressive,” and of course the truth of the matter is that history has shown that Hillary Clinton has only one constituency she wishes to help, and that is herself.
Meanwhile the two weekly publications in Seattle have weighed in. They tend to reflect the alleged “progressiveness” of the city, which I see more of as rampant superstars-in-their-own-minds full-of-shitness and its own brand of bigotry, laced with a superficiality that prevents them from “associating” with anyone they see as not advancing their social “status”—hardly the qualifications of anyone who claims to be either “progressive” or “liberal,” but evidence of extreme narcissism--more like Clinton.
Be as it may, The Seattle Weekly endorsed Sanders, although unlike the Times which announced its endorsement weeks ago, this one came right under the wire, as did The Stranger’s—sort of. It’s “endorsement” is proof that even among “progressives,” there is still that element that feels gender is the most important “qualification” in this race. I was thus nauseated by the sight of the publication in a newspaper stand at Kent Station, announcing that its “editorial control board” endorsed Clinton, which it advertised with a full front page picture of a smiling Clinton surrounded by golden rays. This is at odds, of course, with the real Clinton, who as I pointed out before has the personality of the Looney Tunes Tasmanian Devil, at least out of sight of the public. Was this supposed to be some kind of put-on or parody?
From Kent I traveled to Seattle, where I was surprised to see copies of The Stranger “endorsing” Sanders. It was all very strange indeed, made more so by the difficulty in finding the page where the actual endorsement was located. While the Weekly’s editorial endorsement was on the third page, the Stranger’s seemed to deliberately hidden away in a deliberately out-of-sequence page in the back.
What was going on? Was The Stranger so “torn” by indecision brought on by “guilt” that in endorsing Sanders, it had to “purge” itself of its sin by issuing an “alternative” endorsement in Republican territory like Kent, out of sight of the “progressive” eyes in Seattle, but perhaps in more “friendly” climes where Clinton is more “palatable” for “right”-thinking voters?