I like the op-ed's frame because it mimics terribly written high-minded sci-fi streaming "art" into reality, but it didn't matter if Kamala Kamala chameleon was competent or has shown competence. It really doesn't. Hillary would be the first female president if it did. Harris had 4 years to make herself more likable and empathetic to All Americans (Deplorables Included), someone who could be a Bush or Biden like placeholder for a 9/11 moment. As a Californian, I'd been waiting longer to understand more of her redeeming traits. You could peel Hillary's better vignettes and accomplishments like an onion. It'd make you cry, but it had a lot of layers. Kamala's "virtuous" history is just there like a mashed potato sprinkled with chemically construed vegan bits. As for being a rallying beacon, Pence could kind of serve that for one solid year, but he didnt disabuse me of the feeling that he couldn't be any more capable during his time as a spare tire stuffed in the trunk. Politically, Pence also had a lock for His Group. I don't even know what Kamala's ride or die demographic is. Stacey Abrams was the better choice. In hindsight, I guess Biden would've gotten away with it, but the talk at the time was that Biden deliberately wanted "one he could trust." Which to me sounded like he wanted a weaker candidate who wouldn't have the cards or stone to kick him out in four years.
I think the fact that he wanted a weaker candidate is what the editorial is driving at. He never needed her to win California--or the black vote for that matter. (After all, if you don't vote for Biden, you ain't black.) He wanted a weak VP who wouldn't get in the way and who wouldn't threaten his running for a second term. Well, guess what . . . it worked.
I think the editorial wanted this parting shot to be their prime emphasis. This is what happens when a party puts identity politics above governing experience and political skill. Btw, covid fog tells me Abrams stock rose after the elections. Not sure who he should've picked...
You certainly do not speak for Republicans -- although projecting your own racism and guilty conscience on them is so predictable and low-level... The problem Republicans have with Kamala is that she's a buffoon and has horrible policy proposals. Oh, and you'll be pleased to hear that she put a lot of black men behind bars during her career as a prosecutor...
You are a clown. Nobody cares about Kamala being African American. She's an idiot and not fit to be President
My issue is what makes her more of an idiot than any other candidate in the past decade? I don't care for her but why is she uniquely called out for her intelligence when the playing field includes Trump and Biden? Like for sure most people think she's more intelligent than those two right?
No, the problem with Harris is this ... and people like you who keep trying to gaslight white people into believing they are racist because they dont want another idiot elected. You're a very low IQ poster. If it wasn't for your consistent bad takes, I would think of you as a troll.
I'm not a fan of Biden nor Trump. She's called out because she makes a lot of gaffes and Biden and Trump are really old. She's also really unlikable. People that have worked with here can't stand her
I just don't understand how she's more "dumb" then the standard playing field of presidential candidates. We've elected guys like Bush Jr, JFK and Ronald Reagan as president. You don't think she's more intelligent than them? It's a low bar I don't like her because my political ideology doesn't like prosecutors who enforce petty drug crimes and she was part of their machine that did that. I just don't understand how she's "dumb" compared to your standard credential candidate. I think there definitely is racism and sexism at play
I can only speak for myself but she's not intelligent. She's book smart but is not good on public and an inadequate speaker. Biden and Teump are both worthless too, we've unfortunately not done a good job of electing officials
Well, because she is boring, low IQ, has no interesting policy ideas, very few accomplishments, and appears to have been elevated in politics because of DEI and box-checking instead of by merit. Listen to her speak -- come on. Trump had hugely successful careers in BOTH real estate and TV before launching a political career -- also hugely successful. You might hate him, but you can't say he's dumb. He's a figure that will be remembered for centuries.
She has an electability issue, not an intelligence issue. She contributed to that with her poor debate performance while running for President 4 years ago, and over time she hasn't shined much (but a VP doesn't shine, so that's all silly to me). Another part of that IS the unfair treatment against her by media and society. One example, which remains fresh in my head, is the media's negative bombardment of her for wearing wired headphones (for legit security concern). WIRED headphone - lol, nothing else to write about?
Trump picked Pence to win and he won. Biden did similarly. Historically, presidential candidates often choose their running mates to balance the ticket and improve their chances of winning the election. The VP pick may happen to also be the strongest or most electable individual in isolation, but that's not the typical criteria. The typical criteria is about complementing the presidential candidate's strengths and shoring up perceived weaknesses. The goal is to create a balanced ticket that can appeal to the widest possible range of voters. Sometimes the pick is wrong, as seen with Palin. (the WSJ EB knows this well)
