He describes 3 recent incidents. One is something we discussed a few days ago, here, her inability to handle a predictable question about Jussie Smollett. Another, as Continetti sees it, was that on her televised town hall, she didn't seem ready to handle questions about her own health insurance proposals. The third is that joke about legalizing marijuana — "Half my family is from Jamaica, are you kidding me?" — which provoked pompous pushback from her own father...
"My dear departed grandmothers (whose extraordinary legacy I described in a recent essay on this website), as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to their family's name, reputation, and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics. Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this controversy."I'd been thinking Kamala Harris just isn't practiced or adept enough. She's not comfortably glib, that's for sure. But Continetti detects deceit. He thinks she's trying to look more left-wing than she is.
I'll do a poll. Pick the best of the 4 explanations I'm offering. If you have a better idea, explain it in the comments, but don't tell me the poll is wrong because it doesn't have your idea. The question is phrased to resist that criticism.
Posts
131 comments:
She is pushing too hard, too fast.
Play left in primary, run to the middle in the general. These pre-season losses are either prologue or a useful learning curve.
She's been over-promoted, but had a pretty good roll out.
I do not think she wins the nomination for Pres. ticket. Maybe VP.
Other option:
None of these three things are influential (e.g. w/ voters that matter) other than w/ con trolls/concern-trolls and/or others involved in the biz/hobby of mind-numbing jabber.
She indicated her support for reperations. I think that may be a bridge to far for many, but I could be wrong. I just can't get a good read on what the current true prevailing viewpoints in the Dem party actually are. On the surface it seems like they've shifted so far left that certain ideas that were absolutely bonkers just a few years ago have now been "mainstreamed" (I hate that word, but it fits here). Do most Dems think reparations are a good idea?
I doubt she gets the nomination, she uncomfortable and it shows. Too much overdone laughing, not consisive, not impressing me at all. There are much better candidates.
“Do most Dems think reparations are a good idea?”
It’s an unrealistic idea and will never happen. Too far reaching, undoable.
What she has going for her (especially in the Dem primary) is just identity -- she's the black/asian female. She's just clinging to what brought her to the party (both senses) in the first place. She's just not very good at politics.
KH presents an interesting contrast with Hillary! (another candidate who was no good at politics) and how Hillary! tried to navigate through a similar minefield. Anyone remember those painful episodes when Hillary! would find herself cornered by some BLM types demanding that Hillary! toe the required line (cops are racist thugs, etc.), and Hillary! would try to squirm out of it. KH doesn't feel the need to squirm for purposes of the Dem primary (quite the contrary, squirming would hurt her), and she knows the reporters covering her campaign will run interference when/if she ends up as the nominee.
Weeell, I imagine there'll be one or two identities left untouched...
I'd like to revisit the pull quote:
""What trips up Kamala Harris is an evident desire to please her audience. She wants no enemies to her left, no identity politics left untouched.""
Seems to me there are two ways to campaign through a Primary season. One is to do what George W Bush and Barack Obama did which is to stay vague, prepare an enormous amount of boilerplate for every situation, and never go off script.
Alternately, you can follow the Trump model -- a model usually taken on by underdogs -- of winging an enormous amount of public appearances, happily accepting the gaffes and blunders, and knowing that your supporters will forgive and the media machine has a mayfly memory.
So in the "what trips up Kamala Harris" quote, I question the premise. Why does Continetti assume that this politician that wants to capture the left has tripped up?
His criticism seems similar to the criticism that came toward Sarah Palin back in 2008. Like Trump, Palin objectively blundered multiple times, but despite that she showed other qualities that captured incredibly loyal support. Had Palin been running for President in the primaries that would have gotten her through.
The race to the far left is really frightening.
Proof young people in this nation are mostly ignorant of history.
She's from California where she's only had to face other Californians to secure office. She hasn't had to work that hard at campaigning in a state that is basically a one-party state.
She isn't quick on her feet, can't improvise.
Thanks for all the comments. I based my judgement of her just when she announced and she looked and sounded great. Sounds like she's not ready for prime time.
Give her a teleprompter and she will do just fine. Keep her away from inquisitive reporters, especially those that might ask question for which she has not been briefed.
Harris wants to be loved for her gender, her courage, her beauty and her skin tone. Having no idea at all what a President does is not a problem for her, because she will do what her wealthy backers tell her to do. She will not question why they want things done, she will obey them.
We just saw what she can do on her own without her brain trust instructing her before she is faced with a question...she is smart enough to refuse to give a response and walks off.
She has to consider soap opera women's interest and reactions, which is new to her.
Personally she may be quite at home with what she thinks about things. Soap opera women are hidden land mines, however.
Up until recently I felt fairly certain she was gonna end up the nominee. But she seems like the type of candidate that seems good from a distance, but the more she talks, the more she says, the more people learn about her, the less appeal she seems to have. A candidate that's her own worst advocate. It's the Hillary Clinton problem.
Ultimately if it's not her, I seriously doubt it'll be Elizabeth Warren. So you have two women left. Gillibrand always seems like a deer in the headlights... awkward, not very practiced or elegant. So Amy Klobuchar? Or someone a long line of mostly white dudes. Sparticus? I find it difficult to take him seriously.
I guess if things get bad enough they'll draft ol' Joe.
Looks like most of the commenters have nailed it.
They seem to think her prosecutorial past will somehow play well with Independents and some on the right.
I don't think she can walk the tightrope.
Inexperience. She's in an unfamiliar position: selling herself, as a candidate, to a skeptical and wary audience that doesn't know her very well. She has to get comfortable with being uncomfortable.
She indicated her support for reperations. I think that may be a bridge to far for many, but I could be wrong. I just can't get a good read on what the current true prevailing viewpoints in the Dem party actually are.
This could get her in trouble but not necessarily how you think. It could mess her up in the dem primary not because it will be considered too radical of an idea, but because she may not tailor her proposal properly. While she is Black, she isn't a descendant of an American slave. This will make a big difference in the dem primary because Black folks who are descendants of American Slaves, tend to view themselves as having their own beef with America, that black folks who are not the descendants of American slaves do not share in. This is compounded by the fact that there is a view that blacks who are not descendants of slaves look down on blacks who are descendants of slaves. If she just talks about how all black folks deserve reparations it will blow up on her. If she tries to tailor it so it only descendants of American slaves it still might blow up on her. That issue already seems like a minefield and it hasn't even gotten to point of trying to sell it in a general election which will be much much harder.
Even with the typos, it's a tough choice between the first 3. Known Unknown points out her fixable handicap, 2 cream puff Senate campaigns and the helpful Willie.
I'll go with 1. It must be nerve-wracking to get on the national stage for high stakes. We can't all be Dan Quayle.
Who gave her the tag?
If she’s elected, no cars, no.... and she’ll throw you in prison if your kids miss school.
She's not very bright and it will become more obvious as the campaign goes on.
Howard: "Thanks for all the comments. I based my judgement of her just when she announced and she looked and sounded great. Sounds like she's not ready for prime time."
Howard, if I am correct you are at Ground Zero of Kamala-ville and you should know better. Kamala has never been challenged (dems never are) and she has never demonstrated the kind of competence you just assumed.
For each of these dems it will be a trial by fire and since dems never get pushed, until they get into the muck and start pushing each other we have no idea who will emerge.
It does seem as though one by one they are all exposing themselves as utter lightweights who can't do even the minimal thinking on their feet and, worse, as with Kamala and now with Bernie and certainly Warren, they betray an absoulutely tin "instinctive ear" as to what will appeal to a winning cluster of voters.
This goes back to that fundamental question that has been raised over and over again (and was illustrated somewhat by Althouse's son's post the other day): Are the dems strategically weakened or strengthened by being completely cradle to grave coddled in terms philosophy and never having to really test your ideas and wits?
Always pros and cons.
Pros: dominant cultural alignment, army of robots (see Inga)
Cons: very limited or non-existent ability to engage on actual ideas, cause and effect, philosophical underpinings of beliefs, etc.
The "con" aspects are certainly forefront at this moment.
How about this: she has a very inflated sense of accomplishment, like most Dems, and is not ready for the big time.
Why do you describe the "pushback from her own father..." as "pompous"? To me, he sounds quite intelligent and very reasonably disapproving of what he understandably hears as a cheap 'slur' by his daughter. You seem to empathize with her failures - the worst you can say is that she isn't "comfortably glib"?
"So Amy Klobuchar?"
I think so. She is more experienced on the national stage and she has a history of action, if not outright achievement, that she can refer to while campaigning. Plus she is knowledgeable and pretty solidly Left-Middle, which she can fall back on when pressed or pressured.
Go Amy!
Like Nancy Pelosi, she can off as a dingbat doing retail politics and is deadly competent when it comes to wholesale.
Wow, hope Kam isn't falling apart already.
Another thought: which ones are most susceptible to the pointed Trump nickname? Already set with Warren. I say the one with the least natural and cutting potential nickname will be the nominee.
Go Amy!
She's used to being a position of authority, asking the hard questions, not answering them.
If she tries to tailor it so it only descendants of American slaves it still might blow up on her. That issue already seems like a minefield and it hasn't even gotten to point of trying to sell it in a general election which will be much much harder.
The whole issue is completely wraught with contradictory absurdities that render it untenable. How do we determine who gets reparations? Genetic testing for "Sub Saharan Africa" markers? What percentages do we use? And even then, how do we know for sure that they're definitely decendant from a slave? What happens if someone is decendant from both slaves and slave owners?
I voted the way most people did (third choice).
My first exposure to her was the Kavanaugh hearing. After that I felt nothing but contempt for her. Since then she has confirmed my impression that she's a racist, talentless hack.
It's ironic that the one and only thing I still like about her - that she was a tough prosecutor - is what she may need to apologize for the most.
My mistake, Harris has only been in the Senate 2 years, so she's almost as precocious as BO and twice as quick witted.
Kamala Harris better hope that nobody asks her whether she ever has talked with anyone at the Kasowitz Benson Torres law firm.
2020. Economy good? Biden/Beto ticket. Economy bad? Progressive Identity Politics ticket.
I note that many cite Hillary Clinton as a negative example - yet she won the nomination ivy acclaim and was widely predicted as the POTUS winner. So, what does that suggest about this group of candidates and the nomination outcome? Maybe that the final Liberal/Dem nominee will be far, far from perfect - but no one will ever, ever mention that....?
“...army of robots (see Inga)”
...army of Trump sycophants, cultists and propagandists (see Drago).
Kamala Harris needs to focus on her major issue, which is that the Federal Government needs an anti-lynching law.
When she is asked questions, she always need to bring the discussion back to our need for an anti-lynching law.
Again, this isn't difficult.
Obama and his Super Secret Hidden Records library as well as the continuing media rollout strategy designed to shield her from any negative commentary while continuing to build up goodwill through one scripted event after another, means but one thing:
Michelle obama is going to be the nominee....(there is a caveat, which comes later).
Michelle is being cordoned off and protected, unassailable, unreachable, cult-like reporting, visage splashed across all manners of media all the time, awards in the works, no doubt another movie about her life and "rise".
Its a perfectly coordinated effort run right out of obama's and Jarrett's home in DC. Which is also the central coordinating location no doubt for the Coup Team.
The caveat is whether or not Trump is able to get the documents released that show what the coup plotters have pulled on the nation across all the federal/executive departments.
We already know obama spied on Congress, spied on journalists, spied on Americans on a massive scale. Were that to emerge in alignment with what is happening with Big Tech, that could prove to be a formidable electoral hurdle in the swing states.
On the other hand: Michelle: Philadelphia/Detroit/Milwaukee/Minneapolis
It's Michelle. She is going to let the dem Clown Cars fill up and run off the road and then she will come sweeping in at the last minute as the candidate by unanimous acclamation!!
The dems have already demonstrated conclusively over the decades that the powers that be can select and coordinate the coronation of their candidate and the dem base will simply shut up and take it.
I wonder, is it possible that Michelle could be coronated at the convention by having enough top tier dem primary vote getters together to step back and throw their support to her at the convention?
Say, after 1 or 2 or 3 ballots that don't yield a winner? (what are the fake dem "rules" these days?)
Pay close attention to the democrat convention rules committee activity for early tippers on precisely this sort of setup.
If Jussie had gotten away with it, he'd be an invaluable asset to her campaign. I wonder if that was part of the motivation for Jussie.
Inga: "..army of Trump sycophants, cultists and propagandists (see Drago)"
hey Inga, did you read up on Craig Livingstone and the Clinton FBI file scandal in the NYT link I provided which laid out what you claimed never happened?
My guess is "no". You might have tried but, lets face it, with you, once you are one or two sentences into an article it all just begins to "swim" on you doesn't it?
LOL
You can still fall back on just reading the headline.
Inga literally claimed the Clintons never had 900 raw FBI background files on republican office holders and candidates pulled by a little henchman named Livingstone and was timed oddly enough right around the Lewinsky investigation and utterly "unexpectedly" resulted in a number of "interesting" "out of the blue" reports in liberal publications on the very republicans whose FBI background files were in the possession of Mr Livingstone!
LOL
Again, Inga asserts this never happened. It's all propaganda!!
She's sticking to her guns when her ignorance is exposed! Just like LLR Chuck!! What a great team they make!
My answer: She is concerned about Trump trashing her in tweets like he did Warren. She does not want to go down like Warren.
Like Hillary and Warren, she can’t keep up with Trump. Biden can’t either. It’s showing. She’s got Trump-induces stage fright. Her fucking Dad took a shot at her. Her Dad is MAGA
The pot issue is interesting.
If you want to be the Dem candidate you must have smoked dope. Obama has established this as necessary.
I'm wondering if Kam actually hasn't smoked weed? Or at least not to the extent she claims. And she is just clumsily trying to build her street cred.
I don't think she is insulted by her father's admonition.
Don't count out Kamala too soon. Sure, she's an empty suit, but so are most of her competitors. She's the right color and gender for the party faithful (and given that high African-American turnout in the general may be necessary for a Democratic win, that's not irrational), she has enough of a record to qualify her but not so much that there's a lot of old votes to haunt her, and she should get momentum from a win in the California primary, which will be early.
“Inga literally claimed the Clintons never had 900 raw FBI background files on republican office holders and candidates pulled by a little henchman named Livingstone and was timed oddly enough right around the Lewinsky investigation and utterly "unexpectedly" resulted in a number of "interesting" "out of the blue" reports in liberal publications on the very republicans whose FBI background files were in the possession of Mr Livingstone!”
When Drago is cornered he comes out with the outright lies. Go find where I ever opined on the Clinton’s and whether or not they had the files you spek of.
Seriously Drago, what the hell is wrong with you?
As isn’t AK a mean bossy femal?
I regret to say this, but I actually think Harris is a formidable opponent, and has a good shot at becoming our next, Prez. I hope I'm wrong.
Here's my take: she's close to being the female Obama. She looks good, speaks well, has a nice smile, has a strong resume (DA, AG, Senator), and fights hard (see her in the Kavanaugh hearings).
In years past, her background as a "tough on crime prosecutor," would have been a huge strength. However, I do acknowledge that the Dems now have practically shifted to a "pro-crime" position, which handicaps Harris. Also, her white husband and white step kids, may hinder her a bit in the black community, but they will be savvy enough to downplay this.
I wouldn't underestimate her. I would bet she's either the Dem nominee or VP in '20.
Yes Drago speks, not speaks. Speculate, lie, mischaracterize, exaggerations galore. He is getting even more hyperbolic and hysterical in the last week or so.
Inga: "Go find where I ever opined on the Clinton’s and whether or not they had the files you spek of."
LOL
You called it "propaganda".
So, settle it now: is it "propaganda" Inga, or did they have them?
This will be fun.
I humbly suggest "Pushin[g] Too Hard" by The Seeds, and The Electric Prunes.
Rule #1: never vote for the socialist persecutrix.
Inga: "He is getting even more hyperbolic and hysterical in the last week or so."
This represents the 17,459th week Inga has claimed I've gotten more hyperbolic.
This tactic is similar to claiming that Trump's polls have fallen AGAIN for the 95th time in the last 2 years, which should result in Trump being at about Negative 117% approval.
LOL
This is one of several Inga "go to's" when she has nothing left and is treading water desperately waiting for her Knight In Lefty Shining Armor (LLR Chuck) to reappear.
I think the Dems assume they will be facing a weakened Trump come election time. The ferocity of attacks against him would wilt any other politician.
This guy grows stronger.
I'm predicting no contest in 2020; the Dems are just auditioning for who will run against Mike Pence in 2024.
“It's Michelle. She is going to let the dem Clown Cars fill up and run off the road and then she will come sweeping in at the last minute as the candidate by unanimous acclamation!!”
LOL! Hysterical Drago.
Limited Blogger: "I'm predicting no contest in 2020; the Dems are just auditioning for who will run against Mike Pence in 2024."
Michelle is the wild card.
That makes this unpredictable....not to mention we have no idea what will occur between now and Nov of 2020. For all we know, there are 25 more Hoax dossiers, in addition to the now proven 3 (FusionGPS 1: Nellie Ohr/Steele, Sidney Blumenthal/CodyShearer/KerryStateDept, FusionGPS 2: Nellie Ohr/BruceOhr/Strzok/McCabe/Page)
Michelle Obama will never run.
She is too lazy and self entitled.
The next Democratic Ticket will be Kameltoe Harris and Beto O'Rourke. The perfect storm of socialism and idiocy.
Inga: "LOL! Hysterical Drago."
This will be good.
Okay, (clears throat), ahem, "why?".
What makes it hysterical?
For once, step outside your lefty/LLR paradigm and survey the landscape and tell us why it's hysterical.
Use your own brain. Seriously. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's at this point.
Why is that "hysterical".
Why am I feeling a bit of deja vu with the Bill Maher show where Ann Coulter was asked who was the republican most likely to win the nomination and Coulter said "of the declared candidates right now? Donald Trump"
Oh how the lefties in the audience and on the stage laughed and laughed and laughed and laughed.
One of them was Maggie Halberman, "genius" "journalist", NYT!!
LOL
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/04/flashback_june_2015_bill_maher__his_audience_laugh_at_ann_coulter_for_saying_trump_could_win.html
What's in it for Michelle? She already knows what a pain in the ass the Presidency can be, even for a low-effort guy like Barack. Instead she can just wallow in money and adoration.
tcrosse: "What's in it for Michelle?"
Hmmmmm, this answer exists on a couple of levels.
On a personal day to day level, nothing.
On a personal glory level, massive: first chick pres
On a policy level, the advancement (completion?) of the far left experiment in transforming the nation into something quite socialist along with permanent entry of enough votes to secure all future elections.
Bottom line: she literally might be the only dem who can beat Trump assuming the republican base remains as loyal as it is and the economy continues its stellar performance, and the russia-collusion hoax is fully destroyed, Jussie Smollett style.
I wonder if all of the people who applauded President Trump's leadership on prison reform and pardoning non violent criminals will support him instead of Kameltoe who incarcerated innocent people in California?
Answer: they won't support Trump regardless of everything he did for the blacks such as lowering black unemployment and instituting prison reform. They will never vote for him. You idiots who think they will are really really stupid. They will vote for someone like Michelle at about 90% rates. Which is why he is really foolish to do it. If it is natural because of his pro America policies than that is fine. A rising tide lifts all boats. But the President should do things that benefit his base. Which is the white working class.
Hey Inga, don't leave us in suspense!!
What, specifically, makes a Michelle potential run "hysterical"?
Are you having trouble googling stuff? Is Chuck not answering your emails?
Very well, extra time is awarded. A small concession for our classmates who are just a tad slower than others....
"which provoked pompous pushback from her own father"
What do you mean, pompous? Are you putting down Jamaican scholars, or the way educated Jamaicans speak?
Knowing some of the latter, I'd say they tend to be "pompous" and have a lot to be pompous about. I'd say they have standards, the sort of thing that happens when you try to beat the mother country at its own games. Kamala slumming like an American black girl would not be appreciated.
On a personal glory level, massive: first chick pres
There are those who would debate that.
her "Wakanda Forever" gives way to "Wakanda When Expedient"
I actually think Harris is a formidable opponent, and has a good shot at becoming our next, Prez. I hope I'm wrong.<
I thought so and am beginning to doubt it. She has stumbled a couple of times lately.
The Smollett hoax is going to hurt her.
Re Amy, everyone knows about the eating salad thing w/ a fork.
But, there's new salad news:
https://twitter.com/cspanJeremy/status/1099036747806199810
Like tcrosse, I'm skeptical of the whole "Michelle will run" idea too. Not unlike Oprah or any number of big name celebrities, their lives are just too good to bother with such aggrevation. They already have loads of money and plenty of adoration. They don't seem to have the burning need for anything beyond that, or even if they did it's not worth putting themselves in an uncomfortable situations for extendend periods of time, subjecting themselves to unparalleled scrutiny. The known comfort of their status quo is easier.
But I could be wrong.
Kameltoe has the same problem that Michelle will have. The longer they are in the public eye the longer their true character will be exposed. The media can not shield them anymore because everyone has a cell phone camera.
I think the key moment of the campaign was when Hillary collapsed and was thrown into the van after the 911 ceremony. They couldn't hide her physical health anymore. I think that was a significant factor in the election.
Kameltoe and Michelle will never be able to hide the fact that they are just nasty bitches. When they interact with normal people their true nature will be shown and they will not be able to suppress it the way they could when the mainstream media controls the narrative. Their true nature will come out. Angry Black lady. Nobody wants to put the lady in the DMV in as President.
Correct answer:
Today's Democratic politics is such an impenetrable maze of bullshit, lies, and false choices that nobody can make it through unscathed. Trying requires so much dishonesty, virtue signalling, and pretense that nobody making the attempt can come out looking good even to the crazies living there let alone an outside observer.
lp: "I think the key moment of the campaign was when Hillary collapsed and was thrown into the van after the 911 ceremony."
Who can forget how desperately LLR Chuck jumped online to raise smear-y questions about Trump health/fitness in order to deflect from Hillary's travails on her travels?
LOL
Good times, good times.
Sack-o-tater's candidate Hillary!! For a minute there in that video I thought the Bosnian snipers had gotten her........
The Democrats will form a Mexican firing squad leaving Hillary the only one left to run. All of her skeletons are out so there is nothing more to suppress. Michelle Obama at best would be a vanity candidate. She has zero experience in anything remotely presidential. Being married to Obama gave her insight on the White House mansion and staging state dinners but nothing else.
Sounded pompous to me.
Politician makes trivial joke. Father issues press release.
She needs to get comfortable with campaigning for president on a national stage.
"I don’t wanna be president!" she said with a laugh, when asked by a girl at the Lower Eastside Girls Club in Manhattan about whether she'd run for the White House, the New York Post reports. My path has never been politics," she said. "I just happened to marry somebody whose passion was politics. Just because he likes it doesn’t mean that I like it!”
Michelle Obama
Roger Sweeny said...
She needs to get comfortable with campaigning for president on a national stage"
Well, that's a problem for her, isn't it? She's used to California, where they will elect a kitchen sponge to office if it runs on the D ticket. Hence Eric Swalwell.
Looks as though 77% of us have her pegged right.
“I will not run for president. No, nope, not going to do it.
She also cited her children as a reason not to seek the office.
"They've handled it (the presidency) with grace and with poise, but enough is enough," Obama said.”
I have not thought that Trump has much of a chance in 2020, but the Left is doing so much damage to the Democratic party that he could end up in landslide. He's no longer the crazy unknown he was in 2016. He's now a successful President presiding over a prosperous domestic situation and a relatively peaceful and improving foreign policy, and he seems to be accomplishing things in both areas that have needed done for decades. Or we can throw all that away for fairy tales about free stuff and the next socialist experiment with cold fusion.
Suddenly it's 1972.
It's going to be Hillary Clinton again. She will lose .... again.
“It's going to be Hillary Clinton again.”
LOL, what now, group hysteria?
It WILL NOT be Clinton or Michelle Obama. You people are just wishful thinkers.
Inga: "“I will not run for president. No, nope, not going to do it.
She also cited her children as a reason not to seek the office.
"They've handled it (the presidency) with grace and with poise, but enough is enough," Obama said.”'
If in fact Michelle does not run, these might very well be the "official reasons" why she won't run, and, they are entirely legitimate reasons.
I think there would be other reasons as well, but that would remain permanent conjecture on my part.
Still, I doubt that the idea that she would run as "hysterical". "highly unlikely" to describe the likelihood of her running on the other hand is quite easily defensible.
Some polls show Trump losing to the nameless, generic Democrat. That would be Amy Klobuchar.
Inga- you were all for her before. What's changed?
All four are true.
Inga: "It WILL NOT be Clinton or Michelle Obama. You people are just wishful thinkers."
You missed the entire point.
My point is that I believe Michelle would easily be the most formidable. I would prefer she not be the dem nominee.
I made that quite obvious in my post.
I am hoping that the variables align to keep her out.
The debates are going to be hilarious, because they will basically be run by Trump.
Can Trump enter the Dem primaries?
That would simplify things.
I don’t know if she has any potential this cycle, and it’s not unusual for a future candidate to make a dry run (I still believe that’s what Obama was doing in 2008 before the media decided he had to win and they would do whatever is necessary to make that happen). I think she has a bright future, whether that’s leadership in the senate or a serious white house run remains to be seen.
My own thoughts on what would have to happen for me to vote for her are another matter entirely.
Go to YouTube for some of her SJC work (e.g, Kavanaugh, Kelly and other hearings).
She comes across as nasty, deceitful and not all that bright.
Inga said...
"I doubt she gets the nomination, she uncomfortable and it shows. Too much overdone laughing, not consisive, not impressing me at all. There are much better candidates."
Like who?
I mean Kamala Harris is an empty suit, but I do not see *ANY* democrat candidates presently announced that are better.
Not to go all Drago here, but if Kamala, Amy, Beto, Elizabeth, Bernie, et al. cannot project competence, the system is begging for Hillary! to run again.
Go to YouTube for some of her SJC work (e.g, Kavanaugh, Kelly and other hearings).
She comes across as nasty, deceitful and not all that bright.
Blogger Inga...Allie Oop said...
It WILL NOT be Clinton or Michelle Obama. You people are just wishful thinkers
We couldn’t believe you guys ran her last time, so all bets are off when the Democrat crazy train leaves the station.
This will be decided, as usual, by the Big Money donors. At this point it looks like they're buying the nom for Kamala, with the help of the turd-polishers in their wholly-owned media. As always, follow the money.
Speaking as a leftist, the "left" in this country has a massive identity crisis. They just float from one half-baked idea to the next, and seem to have a penchant for needless self-embarrassment. That's because they don't actually believe what their saying (other than Corey Booker), and their real goal is feeding that campaign money machine.
Funny, you could say the same about the "right".
In years past, her background as a "tough on crime prosecutor," would have been a huge strength.
And will be today if she wins the nomination and wants to pivot to the center, as any competent politician would.
When you are trying so hard to please the nut job left that you compare immigration and customs officers to the KKK - there are no words. You totally suck.
Leader out of the gate rarely wins. That Harris wants to start her push now shows she lacks the political savvy to prevail in the long run ahead.
I had to choose between 1 and 3. Her deficits are pretty obvious, but I think she will get better. Her biggest problem is she isn't really all that bright, and thus can't think on her feet, but that can be overcome- she just needs to remember rote answers to questions that she will mostly be fed by her media acolytes before she has to answer them.
It is very clear. What you witness is what a person that believes in nothing, has nothing they are passionate enough about to attempt to sway you to their vision...because there is no vision.
Do I have to explain, yet again, why Donald Trump is President?
And will be today if she wins the nomination and wants to pivot to the center, as any competent politician would.
The Etch-a-Sketch has been smashed by an internet that never forgets.
I don’t think very many people can “think on their feet.” I think that you have to have spent an awful lot of time thinking before you run, so that you don’t run into stuff you haven’t thought about. Yeah, some of it is “briefing” but if you don’t have a foundation of core beliefs, you are not going to look good in novel situations.
Reagan wrote a LOT before he got into politics. Trump has thought about his ideas for a lifetime. Bill Clinton had a vision, well a scheme that acted as his lodestone. Of course it had to do with trading favors for power and power for money, but still it was something. W had governed a large state successfully.
Obama? He hung around in the faculty lounge and palled around with terrorists. it showed. Kamala is another highly visually attractive nebbish.
“Today's Democratic politics is such an impenetrable maze of bullshit, lies, and false choices that nobody can make it through unscathed. Trying requires so much dishonesty, virtue signalling, and pretense that nobody making the attempt can come out looking good even to the crazies living there let alone an outside observer.”
All true, which actually increases the possibility of the Democrat primary process belching up some plausible Blue Dog as a Savior Of The Party. At the end of the day, the hysterical Democrat (which is most of them) primarily wants to oust Trump. Does that empower the Leftist wing-nut wing (which, admittedly, is most of them) of the Democrats or the older faux-Centrists who have a broader appeal?
And always Hillary is watching. Watching and waiting.
I don't think there's a relatively sane candidate out there, almost all even the mayor from Indiana is committed to the green agenda, among others
Willie Brown is not a dumb man. He has basically prevailed -- through 50 years of politics -- over Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson in transforming California into a leftwing paradise.
He tapped Kamala Harris as a future star.
He tapped Gavin Newsome as a future star.
He tapped Kamala Harris in more ways than one.
He said something intriguing in his recent comments re young Kamala:
"And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.
I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians," he added.
"The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I 'so much as jaywalked' while she was D.A.," Brown wrote. "That’s politics for ya."
Suggests that DA Harris was not too pleased with Willie - she may have received the short end of the stick, if you get my drift.
HILLARY
They both have a "charisma deficit"
Harris and Warren play like Basil Fawlty
Sybil Fawlty:
*** You never get it right, do you? You're either crawling all over them, licking their boots, or spitting poison at them like some benzedrine puff adder.
Trump is a showman and has improved through his rallies
He is *funny*, relaxed, connected, and has good timing...
Of the candidates, maybe Biden could look OK being on the same stage with him...
I have always thought Hillary would run again but the Dems are way to her left. But if not her, then who? I understand it might be past the time of politicians I can understand. A new generation, a new vibration. Yet after reading the comments above, I was left feeling that nobody's got a passion for any of them. The party as a whole looks like that guy in some kind of insurance ad who has trees fall on him and gets run over. The party of Jussie, Faucahontas, of Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein and other rapers, of great reporters like Robin Roberts, of great thinkers like the Farting Cow Girl. And the individual party candidates sound like used car salesmen - great offers, basically untrustworthy. A third party guy? not Mr Starbucks who turned Starbucks into a homeless shelter staffed by lefty bullies. Suddenly, Bloomberg? Suddenly Hillary, scratching at the car windshield?
I thought Sinema was too far left from her anti-american youth
but she flopped into Congress with AOC, Omar, and Talib
the young-uns may be more commie than the WW2 babies
even the mayor from Indiana is committed to the green agenda, among others
That might be a real problem if next winter is as cold as I expect it to be. It snowed in Tucson today and Flagstaff has had 22 feet of snow this season. It snowed in Orange County today.
Unless sunspots start to return, we are in for a very cold winter again next year. Green agendas might start to freeze.
From Bill Clinton saying he didn't inhale to Kamala inhaling Willie Brown's cock: times change.
I think men who disagree with leftist politics would have an easier time accepting Kamala as President rather than Hillary, for the reason that we KNOW Kamala has sucked at least one cock in her lifetime, whereas with Hillary it is easy to believe that she has never sucked a cock in her entire life*. (*unless Huma etc etc etc.)
Men instinctively have more trust in women who suck cocks than women who don't: there is the implied feeling that, despite political differences, you might be able to find a middle ground.
The only fly in the ointment is that there are a lot of crazy women who suck cocks.
But a sane woman who does not suck the occasional cock will surely drive a man crazy.
Because: women.
I am Laslo.
I think America is ready to accept a Presidential candidate who sucked cocks for career advancement.
The problematic question for Kamala is whether, with Willie, she ever indulged in anal.
I am Laslo.
My name goes here: "Not to go all Drago here, but if Kamala, Amy, Beto, Elizabeth, Bernie, et al. cannot project competence, the system is begging for Hillary! to run again."
This spot on comment raises another question: a little over 2 years ago the entire media and political class (dems and NeverTrumper) and the entirety of the academic and cultural "elites" told us that Hillary was the most qualified candidate to run for President in the history of our nation.
That wasnt hyperbolae, that was literally the argument across the board.
The current complement of democrat Campaign Clown Car Candidates are showing they arent ready for primetime and/or lurching off the lefty policy cliff, so why wouldnt Hillary or Michelle simply sit in the bullpen, as viable nominees, awaiting the sign from the DNC head coach?
"I think America is ready to accept a Presidential candidate who sucked cocks for career advancement."
This also applies to Amy, Elizabeth and Beto.
I am Laslo.
The Democrat Big Money and the Establishment seem to be behind Kamala, just as their opposite Republican numbers were behind Jeb! So we shall see.
Pundits have remarked that the Kamala/Wille B was purposefully leaked early, so it had time to become old news later in the campaign.
I would argue that it was leaked to make her more relatable to men, and to keep their interest.
Amy and Elizabeth seem like angry ex-wives. A leaked blowjob story would probably help them, but they are not smart enough politicians to make the move: they are decidedly spit, not swallow, at best.
Meanwhile, Beto looks like a guy who needs a 'pup mentor.'
I am Laslo.
The problem with being a good-looking female candidate who seems to have a sexual side to her life is that the feminist base will despise her intensely.
The fat girls in the school cafeteria with the unwashed hair and loud breathing never like the popular girls.
I am Laslo.
She is where she is because she performed on the casting couch. Just like Obama she is a mediocre mind at best.
Bragging about smoking pot when your previous job included sending pot smokers by the hundreds to jail is just fucking stupid.
She has flubbed several questions so badly Rick Perry was laughing at her.
But she is a democrat/uniparty candidate so she doesn't have to be smart. She just has to do what the globalists tell her to do.
"Obama? He hung around in the faculty lounge"
He didn't even do that. At Chicago, he didn't have the chops. I believe Epstein said he didn't have a single conversation with O.
Kamala is a stupid person. There's no getting around that.
Like Lizzy, she'll say she believes in whatever you want her to believe in to get votes. Unlike Kamala, Lizzy is not a stupid person.
Kamala Harris should teach all young female attorneys how to properly suck cocks. Instead of "pro bono", she could call it "pro boner"
I am not Laslo.
This spot on comment raises another question: a little over 2 years ago the entire media and political class (dems and NeverTrumper) and the entirety of the academic and cultural "elites" told us that Hillary was the most qualified candidate to run for President in the history of our nation.
@Drago, considering that the job description (the text of Article II of the Constitution) was written around George Washington, it’s an assertion that is pretty ahistorical. We have had terrible presidents among the most highly qualified — Buchanan, for instance — and greats among the most poorly qualified — in 1860 the Republicans nominated a man with only one term in Congress and an unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in his CV. So it’s a specious argument.
please professor, kamala compared ICE to the KKK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNb8ZiHsZ4
she's very anti catholic too (along with masie hirono)
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-knights-of-columbus-religious-test/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/30/kamala-harris-mazie-hirono-target-brian-buescher-k/
Post a Comment