"That said, Harris, like Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Warren, never really had a chance to win. After the shock of Hillary Clinton’s loss, Democratic voters were committed to running a man against Trump. And there was really never a chance that Democrats were going to nominate a Black woman. But many Democrats were also never going to say any of that directly, forcing them to look for ways to ding Harris and the other female candidates — 'bad campaigns!' — to avoid citing their actual reason."
From "Opinion: We should rethink how we think about Vice President Harris" by Perry Bacon Jr. (WaPo).
Posts
12 comments:
MartyH writes:
"First, the author calls Democrat voters both racist and sexist. This may be true, but Democratic voters never got a chance to refute that accusation because Harris dropped out before the Iowa Caucuses. It was Democratic donors or the polling that forced Harris out of the race, not actual voters."
Madison Man writes:
"The problem I have with Harris is that I've cemented in my head as a first impression that when she laughs, she subsequently lies. I'm not sure where this came from, but for her to win me over, she has to convince me how it's wrong. Can she even go through a whole interview without that uncomfortable laugh when asked a difficult question? I picture her facing off against an actual foe, and it's not a pretty sight.
The column in the WaPo shows me that Democrats are worried about this view of her. It's something she has to fix, though, not some random columnist."
"It's something she has to fix..."
Yes, notice how the columnist impugns *our* thinking. We're deficient.
TreeJoe writes:
So basically the WaPo is stating as fact that democrats are, as a voting bloc, misogynistic and likely racist.
I'm not disagreeing, but this is the type of patronizing "it's not her fault she lost, it's the voters fault" pablum I've been seeing since Clinton lost in 2016. Where's the engagement with the fact she's basically an unproven retail politician with her state level executive experience representing stances she actively avoids talking about?
Shorter version: Author, editor, and publisher of article are patronizing-mansplaining about why Kamala isn't responsible for her own actions.
MikeR writes:
"After the shock of Hillary Clinton’s loss, Democratic voters were committed to running a man against Trump. And there was really never a chance that Democrats were going to nominate a Black woman."
More of the usual, "You *know* that sexism played a part in Clinton's loss/Harris's loss/Warren's loss." "You *know* that a large part of Donald Trump's appeal was racism." Never any attempt to justify it. Bring some polling data, maybe?
I do not believe that there was a single Democratic voter who "was committed to running a man against Trump". Because Democratic voters aren't idiots just because some pundit needs them to be.
Whiskeybum writes:
After reading that snippet from the WaPo, I think that maybe the piece should be retitled as:
Opinion: we should *over*-think how we think about Vice President Harris
Harris was a bad candidate: no meaningful qualifications whatsoever for the presidency, bad communication skills, and a poorly run campaign. Those are the reasons why she could not garner (ha!) even one vote in the primaries before she dropped out. But with her being next in line, the DNC and its media arm have to come up with excuses as to why she wasn’t on the top of the ticket from the beginning.
JPS writes:
I found this casual remark fascinating, and sad:
"And there was *really* never a chance that Democrats were going to nominate a Black woman.”
Why ever not? Some interesting assumptions about the Party, or swing voters, or both underpin that statement. Either that, or Perry is just really reaching to argue that a remarkably bad politician isn’t actually a bad politician. “Wagner’s music is better than it sounds."
This post is collecting a lot of comments.
I just gave you a quote and left no opinion of my own. If you wonder why I did that, it's just that to me the quote is such bullshit it seems redundant to point it out.
But now I'm putting up a lot of comments that are saying that. In case it's not obvious, I agree.
Wilbur writes: "Ha. I still remember the gentleman (I will leave him nameless) who back before the primaries assured the Althouse commentariat that he had been to a Dem campaign rally, and had absolutely, positively seen the next Dem candidate for President: Kamala Harris. I found it so preposterous then that I never forgot it."
I remember Scott Adams on his podcast saying over and over that KH would be the one. His reason wasn't that he'd seen her in action and been impressed by her campaign skill. His reason was mainly the same reason the linked column says she never had a chance!
Tom T writes: "Harris is exactly the VP that a weak president would want. Anyone thinking of pushing Biden aside, whether through informal persuasion or a legal mechanism like the 25th amendment, has to deal with the fact that Harris would be the successor. I don't think White House staffers are "dismayed" in the least by her recent public appearances; I suspect they're thrilled."
Cheryl writes:
Just wanted to point out to Madison Man…
For you to change your opinion of Kamala and that laugh (nails on a chalkboard to me, too), she would either have to:
Not laugh when she lies, or
Laugh but tell the truth.
Not laughing while telling the truth would tell you nothing.
I predict that neither will happen. But I’m with you on the laughing/lying link!
Mara writes:
Pathetic.
Instructions on how to "officially recalibrate" what you know about Kamala so you can come to think about her only in a way that allows you to favor her and think she is grand instead of trusting your lying eyes.
Post a Comment