The mainstream media suddenly gets it. They realize their much beloved Indian/Jamaican/Canadian resident (during junior high/high school) candidate with the sharp tongue and the icky giggle is in deep political trouble.
(The descriptive terms above are there merely to prove that her ancestors never suffered any systemic abuse toward African Americans in the United States, in spite of her implications otherwise.)
I’ve gone over all her character flaws, her inability to tell the truth, to stick with anything at all, in many posts on this blog. And I am grateful others are catching on.
An experienced top Harris aide just admitted in a resignation letter that she never saw a staff in any political organization treated so badly. And she left abruptly for the Bloomberg campaign.
Kamala Harris is the reason for Kamala Harris’ demise.
But the staff keeps taking incoming from the media. They didn’t schedule right, they didn’t handle her messaging right, they didn’t handle her enormous campaign fund, her many donors and supporters and endorsers right. They didn’t handle her home state of California right or Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina or her phone calls or anything at all right. They didn’t handle each other right.
Her demise is not the fault of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii who called her out. Although I would argue strongly that Gabbard started the slide. With her very valid criticism of Harris’ prosecutorial record–the only record she has–that for some reason most of the press totally overlooks.
The media thought she’d be like Barack Obama in 2008. Diverse, nice, respectful, smooth and thoughtful. That’s not what they got. They got loud, snide, sneaky and obfuscating.
But the DNC secretly pushes her (so far, to no avail) because she’s an unabashed corporatist, who wouldn’t disturb a never-ending gravy train of Wall Street pay for play money in the party coffers. Like Bernie might.
All Harris did in response to Gabbard’s criticism is call her a bottom tier candidate and, more recently, someone who would dare to go on Fox News! Yikes! Army National Guard Major and combat veteran Gabbard had the nerve to go on the opposition TV and criticize our endless war machine in the middle east.
Well, Harris is no longer a top tier candidate. In fact, Gabbard is now beating her in the important state of New Hampshire.
And Harris has been totally unprepared to defend her record as a prosecutor.
But, thank goodness, the people are saying in the states being polled that they don’t like her. That they need solid plans and respect and studious thoughtfulness. Not one thing one day, and another another day.
They want more from a candidate than the mantra, “dude gotta go” They want real and solid plans for what happens after the dude goes.
No one can tell you what her message is, what she stands for, what she wants to do if she becomes president, what her plans for anything are, how her nasty personality would get us anywhere–domestically or internationally–or why in the world she’d be better than any of her opponents. To coin a phrase that keeps popping up: she lacks authenticity.
Harris’ political emptiness is why she is unraveling, not because her staff didn’t plan her schedule correctly. Tanking is what happens when a candidate is acting, and not feeling anything for what she’s saying: when lines are practiced and the merch to go along with them is pre-ordered.
Manipulative, rehearsed and crappy political wrangling does not get rid of “dude.”
People are learning to spot an ill-prepared phony when they see one. And I hope as Iowa gets closer, there’s no crazy surprise waiting for us in those free for all caucuses that no one can really figure out the workings of. Except the Iowans.
When Hillary beat Bernie in Iowa by a fraction of a percent in 2016, she was so excited and proud she “won,” albeit she looked a little guilty and scared, and I knew something fishy happened.
And when John Kerry came from way behind in 2004 to beat Howard Dean and everyone else, I knew something wasn’t right, although I was glad to have a candidate, someone, anyone, and to get going full speed ahead to beat Bush.
When a prosecutor from California with no convictions (no pun intended) suddenly has her eye on being president and plays for the camera 24/7, the voters find out and the polls eventually stabilize in the low single digits.
It doesn’t matter that a New York Times columnist tells you, without any good reason that she’d be great at beating Trump. What’s the evidence? I’d sure like to know what he based his conclusion on.
The voters appear to see through such nefarious reasoning.
She might be good at beating him at one thing, though: hurling insults.
Type your email address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.
Filed under: Uncategorized