As Tim Balk of The New York Times reported on Tuesday
Hillary Clinton suggested in a new interview that the
Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 boiled down to a “terrible miscalculation” —
President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s decision to run for re-election.
At an event in Manhattan on Monday, Mrs. Clinton told The
New Yorker’s editor, David Remnick, that Mr. Biden had made a “terrible mistake
for himself, his legacy and for the country” in trying to run again at age 81.
If Mr. Biden had decided to “pass the torch” and the
Democratic Party had held a competitive presidential primary, Mrs. Clinton told
Mr. Remnick, “whoever emerged from that contest — whether it was the vice
president, or a governor, or a senator or anybody else — would have beaten
Donald Trump.”
Chris Cillizza acknowledges that there has been a bit of a rivalry between Biden and Clinton but believes that the latter was correct to note that the President should have bowed out considerably earlier than he did. However, he argues also (at 7:20)
Now, would someone who emerged in an open primary process had Biden dropped out in the summer of 2023- would that person have definitely beaten Donald Trump in November of 2024?
No, I think there was sigificant unhappines with the state of the econnomy, with Democrats, with Joe Biden in particular, with how he had led the economy, how much he understood about the economy. So I don't think it would have- it's not just an easy fix, that they just nominate somebody else in an open primary process and that person beats Donald Trump. But the way that it played out by Biden staying too long, he should never have run for a second term, staying on for too long, the debate, the three weeks of is he going to stay on, is he going to get out- and eventually he gets out and Kamala Harris steps in without any primary or anyone voting on anything, that clearly doomed them, right?
Wrong.
Cillizza adds "I'm not sure the Democrats would have won anyway but the way that played out doomed them.
"
Of course we don't know if the new candidate, assuming it was not the Vice President, would have won. And Cillizza, admittedly, reflects conventional wisdom, as does The Times' Balk, who wrote "Mr. Biden ultimately left the race in late July 2024, immediately putting his weight behind Ms. Harris, his vice president, but leaving her just three months to build her own campaign before Election Day."
Do you see what they're doing? In the case of Cillizza- a straight shooter- it is unintentional, and perhaps also in case of The Times.
It's in the title of Harris' memoir about the general election campaign. Whether it was the decision of the ex-candidate, the publicher or someone else, the title of the book was 107 Days, in part as an argument that the Vice President faced an uphill battle to win the election.
But she did not. Almost to the moment that Biden dropped out, the nomination of Harris was a fait accompli. In a review of her book, Vanity Fair explained that on that day
By 10 p.m. at the Naval Observatory, jigsaw pieces were
still strewn across the kitchen table. But the puzzle of Harris’s nomination
had been solved. She’d called more than 100 people. Not a single potential
rival had challenged her. By Monday, Harris had the backing of a majority of
Democrats in Congress. Within 48 hours she had the support of most delegates
who would be at the convention. A senior adviser summed up Harris’s two-day
marathon as a political tour de force: “A lot of people were like, ‘We need a
process.’ Well, there is a process: getting the delegates to commit. We just
needed to do it and we did it.”
Aside from incumbents, most candidates for a presidential nomination- especially in the Democratic Party- have to run a gauntlet before securing sufficient delegates. Not so, Kamala Harris, behind whom most prominent Democrats, including virtually any possible challenger, quickly lined up. The national convention was highly successful, Harris won her debate with Trump going away, the Party was united behind the nominee, enthusiasm was impressive, and victory seemed likely. However
One hundred seven days later, as history will recount, Team
Harris hit rock bottom. Yet it didn’t seem so as Election Day dawned. Though
Harris was behind in the battleground states, her spokespeople were oddly
upbeat. Appearing on MSNBC back on October 27, campaign chair Jen O’Malley
Dillon had declared, “We are very confident we’re going to win this thing.” On
Friday, November 1, senior adviser David Plouffe posted on X that
late-breaking undecided voters were going for Harris by more than 10 points.
A campaign has a gravitational pull, and chief of staff
Voles was feeling it. “You get sucked into the momentum,” she said. “Like you
believe it. I’ve been on winning ones and losing ones, and this felt more like
[Bill] Clinton’s [in 1992] than [Michael] Dukakis’s [in 1988].” Voles wasn’t
talking poll numbers or analytics, but intangibles. “The rallies were so big
and so enthusiastic. People were lining the streets.” But Harris’s pollsters
didn’t share the kumbaya cohesion.
Although Biden should have withdrawn from the race earlier, his failure to do so did not doom his replacement on the ticket- far from it. Harris had a great opportunity to win, especially given that the GOP had less timefor opposition research about her than it would have if it had been clear for months that she would be the nominee. It was not the brief nature of the campaign nor the quality of her campaign; it was her.
After she lost to Donald Trump in 2016, Hillary Clinton could have opted to seek a rematch. However, she realized that she might not win the 2020 nomination and if she did, couldn't be certain that she'd win the general election. She understood the limits to her popularity and electability.
Individuals in or around Joe Biden in 2023 and the first half of 2024 refused to warn the President that he was old and appeared too feeble to mount a successful campaign for re-election. Now Harris, she of the "107 days," is reportedly eyeing a run for the 2028 presidential nomination. Self-awarness is not her strength. The Democratic Party cannot afford another loss. For the good of the Party, someone needs to read Kamala Harris the riot act.
In November of 2013, conservative Mark Steyn of the conservative National Review wrote contemptuously
Still, as historian Michael Beschloss pronouned the day after his election, he's "probably the smartest guy ever to become president." Naturally, Obama shares this assessment. As he assured us five years ago, "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors."
In March, 2016 house conservative Niall Ferguson wrote in The Atlantic
It is a criticism I have heard from more than one person who has worked with President Obama that he regards himself as the smartest person in the room- any room. Jeffrey Goldberg's fascinating article reveals that this is a considerable understatement. The president seems to think he is the smartest person in the world, perhaps ever.
It always was a go-to criticism of Barack Obama by Republicans that the President believed he was "the smartest guy in the room." It was a more diplomatic way of slamming a black man than to accuse him of being "arrogant," which appeared to be their real, unspoken criticism of him. From the right-wing Free Beacon(which, perhaps ironically, initially funded what became known as the Steele dossier):
Another incident critics cite is when Obama was still a
Senator from Illinois and traveled to Iraq in 2007. General David Petraeus,
then commanding U.S. forces for the war effort, gave Obama his assessment of
the fight against al Qaeda and how to prosecute it. Obama disagreed with the
general's analysis, arguing that Petraeus had it wrong.
the nerve to question a general? I think the word the Free Beacon was searching for was arrogant.
Funny thing is that Obama may have been the smartest guy in the room, though certainly not overly imbued with fearlessness. Last week, we learned
Former Vice President Kamala Harris was "very
annoyed" with former President Barack Obama as she sought his endorsement
to take former President Joe Biden's spot on the 2024 Democratic ticket, a new
book claims.
"As the hours rolled by, and it became clear that she
was well on her way to seizing the nomination by storm, Obama's opposition to
her grew more confounding," authors Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes
reported. "Harris was ‘very annoyed’ with him, according to a confidant.
They had plenty of donors and political allies in common. The rest of the party
threw in with her. Where was Obama?"
The book, published earlier this month, is titled
"Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House" and details
how Harris secured the support of key Democrats after Biden dropped out of the
race. The authors revealed that Obama did not want Harris to run in Biden's
place, because he felt she couldn't beat Trump.
In the discussion with MSNBC, Allen stated "President Obama absolutely did not think that Joe Biden should continue, according to our sources close to President Obama."
The former President was correct on both counts. The incumbent President should not have run for re-election. It had been obvious for many months that Biden had lost something off his fastball and that voters would not forgive him as they would forgive opponent Donald Trump, who either physically or mentally (let alone ethically) not right.
And Obama was right that Harris couldn't beat Trump. The then- Vice President wisely ran a campaign emphasizing her strengths and de-emphasizing her weaknesses. Nevertheless, she still didn't win because, ultimately, she was Kamala Harris.
Yet, if Barack Obama had been cast in The Wizard of Oz (fictionally set in the birthplace of his mother), he easily could have played the cowardly lion, albeit without the self-awareness. True to character:
However, Obama spoke with Harris over the next couple of
days, according to the book, and he found he was in a position where "his
actions against Biden and Harris could diminish him in the eyes of Democratic
elites."
Well, that wasn't very bold.
Still Obama, who as Senator dared to question the corrupt David Petraeus, was encouraging a challenge to a candidate who herself thought the nomination was her divine right His counsel- similar to that of James Carville- should have been embraced.
Instead, the Party fell in line with James Clyburn, who quickly endorsed Harris after Biden's exit in order to stave off any momentum for an open primary. The four-year old Win With Black Women leveraged its influence.
The prescience and wisdom the courage. In an interview last week at Hamilton College in New York State, the former President stated
Imagine if I had pulled Fox News’ credentials from the White
House press corps. You’re laughing, but this is what’s happening. Imagine if I
had said to law firms that were representing parties that were upset with
policies my administration had initiated, that you will not be allowed into
government buildings.
We will punish you economically for dissenting from the
Affordable Care Act or the Iran deal. We will ferret out students who protest
against my policies. It’s unimaginable that the same parties that are silent
now would have tolerated behavior like that from me, or a whole bunch of my
predecessors.
I say this not on a partisan basis.
Of course, he didn't say it on a partisan basis. The name "Trump" never crossed his lips. He completely avoided the words "Trump" or "Donald Trump" or "President Trump." It was very Obama-esque.
It's a feat worth admiring. So, too, is Barack Obama's sense that betting on Kamala Harris was a lousy gamble. It's unfortunate that he wasn't bold enough to let more than a few people know at the time.
A co-host on The View, Sara Haines, told (at 4:24 of the
video below) viewers "And I know a ton of people that are not re-writing
this, who may have voted for Donald Trump, that are lifelong Republicans, who
still say January 6 was a disgrace."
I hate to be the one to burst her bubble but they are
blowing smoke up her posterior. Although a few well-educated, affluent
Republicans- who are very likely most of Haines' GOP friends- believe
the insurrection of 1/6/21 was a bad thing, most of them are blowing smoke up
her posterior.
But for sheer overall wrongness, no one on the set could top
Alyssa Farah Griffin, who a moment earlier (at 2:41) had commented
Most Americans were not comfortable with January 6. They
thought it was bad, they thught it was awful. But for four years they said
"guys, we are hurting. The cost of living is too high. We are concerned
about the border. Yes, democracy matters. But if you can't pay your bills, it's
hard to care about something as nebulous as democracy...
Yes, there are people who believe that democracy matters.
They are called Democrats, and most Independents agree. The ninth question of a
Washington Post-University of Maryland poll conducted December 14-18 of 2023
asked
Which comes closer to your point of view: the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 was an attack on democracy that should never be forgotten, or too much is being made of the storming of the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 and it is time to move on?
The choices were Never be forgotten, Time to move on," and No opinion/skipped.
Fivety-five percent of repsondents opted for "never be forgotten," forty-three percent for "time to move on," and two percent were the remainder.
Then there are Republicans. Do the math, as Griffin and Haines did not. It is certain that a majority of Republicans, likely an overwhelming majority, went for "time to move on." And that does not include the Republicans (and a few Independents) who would have been reluctant to suggest to pollsters- whom many don't trust- that they oppose democracy.
Certainly, people did care about the border and the cost of living. However, not only is there relatively little a President can do about prices, the economy generally was better in the past election system than it was four years earlier, when Donald Trump was President, and better than it was when Ronald Reagan won easy re-election with "Morning in America." Voters did hold Democrats more than Republicans to blame for the chaotic border. However, the situation improved markedly in the last several months before the election and would have quieted further had a bill crafted on a bipartisan basispassed Congress. That was the bill to which Donald Trump responded by saying roughly "no, not on Biden's watch will we allow this to improve."
Many voters do care more about the price of eggs and gas than they do about democracy. But that's just the point. Most Republicans were fine with the attempted coup, and among the small minority which thought it was "awful," democracy (or representative democracy or democratic republic) is not a value held dear.
If that wasn't naive enough, Griffin then remarked
I aay this with due respect for Joe Biden. I didn't disagree with a word he said in that op-ed. But people are saying we have concerns about your age. He waited until August and then gave Kamala Harris this runway (shows two fingers close together) to run for President. All the warning signs ere there. They had the choice to stop Donald Trump from being inaugurated, and here we are.
I don't know whether Griffin was referring to stopping Trump's inauguration, as she literally stated, or to defeating Trump at the polls, which would at least make a little sense. Three months before the election, the AP noted
Just as soon as Biden abruptly ended his candidacy, Harris
and her team worked rapidly to secure backing from the 1,976 party delegates
needed to clinch the nomination in a formal roll call vote. She reached that
marker at warp speed, with an Associated Press survey of delegates nationwide
showing she locked down the necessary commitments a mere 32 hours after Biden’s
announcement.
Harris’ nomination became official after a five-day round of
online balloting by Democratic National Convention delegates ended Monday
night, with the party saying in a statement released just before midnight that
99% of delegates casting ballots had done so for Harris. The party had long
contemplated the early virtual roll call to ensure Biden would appear on the
ballot in every state. It said it would next formally certify the vote before
holding a celebratory roll call at the party’s convention later this month in
Chicago.
It was quick, clean, and decisive. There was little bickering and much party unity, and an enthusiastic reception for the nominee at the national convention, which was a rousing success. Kamala Harris had become the nominee with little opposition, thus not having to run the gauntlet of a primary process in which any flaws would be revealed and she would have had to answer for either her earlier positions on issues or be drawn further left. Either would have been a liability in the general election campaign, and she worked feverishly and successfully to galvanize anti-Trump Republicans.
Kamala Harris was easily made the party's nominee. She then ran the campaign as she saw fit, one which probably would maximize her chance of being elected, stressing that so many Republicans were in her corner and that she would govern not as a partisan Democrat and in a fashion far less chaotic than would her opponent.
It was not enough. It was insufficient because though running a good campaign, she was a very bad candidate. It was insufficient also because, whatever Griffin's friends wanted her to hear, the vast majority of Republicans (and some Independents) were satisfied with an attempted coup. It would be nice to think otherwise, that there is sweeping, bipartisan support for democracy but, as Griffin herself would put it, "and here we are."
Not all bigotry is racism. And not all racial bigotry is racism.
This should be obvious to everyone but isn't. It's not at all clear even to prominent and respected cable news hosts. As in the video below, CNN's Jake Tapper states
Donald Trump is actually traveling with some of these folks- conspiracy peddlers. We should note a veritable legion of doom of bigots and liars, perhaps no one as depraved as this woman, Laura Loomer. Here she is getting off of Trump's plane before yesterday's debate. Just on Sunday she posted an insanely racist message that if Harris, whose mom was an Indian immigrant, was elected "the White House will smell like curry and White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center" On the twenty-third anniversary of 9/11, we should also note Loomer posted last year that 9/11 was an "inside job." Trump continues to bring this person along on his travels with him. Why? I don't know.
Tapper: Trump is traveling with a veritable legion of doom of bigots and liars. Perhaps none so depraved as this woman, Laura Loomer. Just on Sunday, she posted an insanely racist message that if Harris, whose mom was an Indian immigrant, wins, the White House will 'smell like… pic.twitter.com/J6938cwfmF
It is indeed confounding, especially when Trump probably could be using Kellyanne Conway, the smooth and effective liar and architect of "alternative facts" and the "Bowling Green Massacre." There is no accounting for why Looper would spin a story about speeches transmitted from a call center., other than Loomer possibly associating Indians with call centers, while to most of us those places seem more internationally diverse. And a Harris White House probably will not, unfortunately, smell like curry.
Nonetheless, none of this qualifies as racism. Contending that someone's home or place of business will smell of her homeland cuisine is not racist. Nor is it racist to exaggerate the degree of dominance of one group in a call center racist. If Tapper really wants to grapple with racism, he should try this:
They let- I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world.
There is nothing in there about smelly food or about people with foreign accents in call centers. Nothing about values, culture, or polytheistic religious beliefs. It pertains exclusively to blood- to race. It is discounting factors other than the inherited characteristic of race, which to Trump consigns a group of people, whatever their other characteristics, to inevitable inferiority.
That is racism, something which Jake Tapper apparently does not understand. Fortunately, there is something similar which both Laura Looper and her boss, Donald Trump, also do not understand. At the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago in late July, the former President remarked of his Democratic opponent "She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn black, and now she wants to be known as black. So I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?"
When Kamala Harris skipped out on her responsibility presiding over the Senate when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress, she didn't do so because she has identified as Indian. She is a member of the historically racially segregated sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha, whose members she considers "family." and was speaking in Indianapolis at the racially segregated, ethically dubious, Zeta Phi Beta sorority.
Harris was raised as a black woman, undoubtedly was thought of by peers as black, and has identified primarily as black. "I know Donald Trump's type," boasted the Vice President in late July.
The Democratic nominee knows her opponent's type, a claim Donald Trump can't credibly make. Neither can Jake Tapper boast- accurately- that he knows racism when he sees it.
Scott Jennings on tomorrow's debate: "I would advise him to answer all questions going back to one core issue 'If you want change I'm the change, If you want change on the economy I'm the change. If you want change on the border I'm the change' and this is how he wins."
Jennings believed before Tuesday's presidential debate in Philadelphia, and probably still does afterward, that Donald Trump's best approach would be to emphasize that he is the change agent. As a goal that probably is accurate. However the ex-President had a myriad of tactics at his disposal.
Consider a question from co-moderator Linsey Davis, who asked
Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you
said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government
buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You
supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I
know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of
your policy positions changed?
Harris first stated "so my values have not changed. and I'm going to discuss every one."
Predictably, she did not do so, instead proclaiming her support of fracking, then smoothlessly pivoting to her background as "a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother," and then talking about home ownership, sexual assault, Medicare, "and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down."
The last four items, which comprised approximately two-thirds of Harris' response, had nothing to do with the question asked. Even on that, however, the Vice-President chose, wisely, not to explain why her opinion had shifted.
As Jennings noted post-debate on CNN, you can't blame the referee (as Republicans immediately did) when you miss your jump shots. But as Jennings missed, Trump was given given a lane to drive the ball to the hoop and passed up the opportunity in order to shoot 18-foot jump shots, which missed wildly. Or as baseball fans would have it, whiffing on a hanging curve.
Trump's response to Harris' remarks about her shifting views illustrated the primary dynamic of the debate, an insistence that he never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Handed the ball on Harris' radically reversed ideology, the ex-President instead went on defense, first pleading
Well, first of all, I wasn't given $400 million. I wish I
was. My father was a Brooklyn builder. Brooklyn, Queens. And a great father and
I learned a lot from him. But I was given a fraction of that, a tiny fraction,
and I built it into many, many billions of dollars. Many, many billions. And
when people see it, they are even surprised. So, we don't have to talk about
that.
Except that he had just done so, without his opponent having brought it up at the time, and when you're explaining, you're losing. Then Trump got back on track- briefly- by stating
Fracking? She's been against it for 12 years. Uh, defund the
police. She's been against that forever. She gave all that stuff up, very
wrongly, very horribly. And everybody's laughing at it, okay? They're all
laughing at it. She gave up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different
policies. Like, she was big on defund the police.
This landed with a thud. Trump could have gone with a refrain:
Also, Medicare for All, legislation, which Harris once co-sponsored and now opposes. Never mind that on a few of these issues, Harris has less changed her mind than determined to keep quiet about it, and it's the responsibility of her opponent to identify those positions she will no longer defend.
If Trump wanted to avoid citing a litany of stances on which his foe at least has equivocated, he could have emphasized two, with numbers 5 and 6 likely to have the greatest impact.
A third option would have been for him to list those issues and add one- or emphasize this with one of the others..
.
Trump is going to Trump, one might say. Given a candidate offering acriticism-rich environment, he decided to ramble about election interference, dogs in Ohio, Harris' Marxist father, Fani Willis, and anything else popping up in his mind. It is Kamala Harris' great good luck to have an opponent who can't, or won't, focus on any of his opponent's vulnerabilities.
Although a charter member of the (non-existent) Double Haters for Harris club, I cannot ignore a habit of the Democratic presidential nominee.
This should have been an easy one, even for a bad press secretary. Noting the southern accent Harris briefly assumed at a rally with unions in Detroit, Peter Doocy asked Jean-Pierre "since when does the vice president have what sounds like a southern accent?" The press secretary responded "I have no idea what you're talking about."
Evidently, she either was lying or is simply unaware. Doocy noted that the vice president had briefly sported a southern accent in Pittsburgh, and she has done so in Atlanta.
Jean-Pierre maintained
Do you hear the question that you’re… Do you think Americans seriously think that this is an important question? You know what they care about? They care about the economy. They care about lowering costs. They care about healthcare. That’s what Americans care about. That’s what they want to hear....
They care about, your colleague just asked me about democracy, basically we talked about, went back and forth about democracy and freedom. That’s what they care about.
Having entertained- not answered, but entertained- the question, Jean-Pierre commented "I'm not even going to entertain some question about the.... Hearing it sounds so ridiculous" and a moment later characterized it as "just insane."
Alas, not so ridiculous or insane:
The ignorant or deceptive response from Karine Jean-Pierre could have been easily avoided. The official position held by Jean-Pierre is White House Press Secretary, whose "primary responsibility" (according to Wikipedia) is "to act as spokesperson for the executive branch of the United States federal government, especially with regard to the president, senior aides and executives, as well as government policies."
Jean-Pierre is not the campaign chairman. She might have legitimately sidestepped the rather snippy but legitimate query by noting that she is not a spokesperson for the campaign and that the question would be more appropriately posed to the nominee herself. "My role in this position is not to speak for her, or anyone's campaign, and you may wish to direct the question to the candidate herself" should not have been difficult to figure out.
The good news is that American voters are not averse to voting for an inauthentic politician for President: actor Reagan over Carter and Mondale; WJ Clinton over Dole; Bush over Gore and Kerry; Obama over McCain; and the ultimate in inauthenticity- Donald J. Trump- over HR Clinton. And better news: a President Trump would replace Karine Jean-Pierre (presumably with a Republican) and a President Harris probably would want her own woman or man in the position. Let's hope for the latter outcome, notwithstanding the diversity of bad accents we might be subjected to.
Congratulations to Tim Walz. The Democrat's vice-presidential nominee sat through a friendly, cozy chat between presidential nominee Kamala Harris and alleged journalist Dana Bash of CNN without bursting out laughing. He couldn't have been more professional while having to sit through a reunion between two women who could have been BFF's, were there still such a thing as a BFF.
Bash set the cordial tone immediately with "Madam Vice President, Governor Walz, thank you so much for sitting down with me and bringing the bus. Bus tour is well underway here in Georgia. You have less time to make your case to voters than any candidate in modern American history."
She has had plenty of time to make the case. Wisely, she chose to emphasize rallies in front of audiences of sycophants, which gives the impression of a thriving campaign, which increases poll numbers, which in turn increases campaign donations, which can be used for additional rallies.
On Thursday, Harris (with Walz) was given the better part of an hour to film a campaign video while delicately questioned by a supporter- uh, er, journalist- clearly out of her depth.
Bash's second question was the question every serious presidential candidate knows he or she will receive, "so what would you do day one?"
Memo to the vacuous journalist: no President does anything on day one, aside from recovering from a justified hangover (except Donald Trump, who promises to be a dictator then, but who will take at least a few weeks to get that done). Worse, Bash then asks Walz, "what about you," who then politely refuses to tell the interviewer "nothing. I would be vice president, thus won't do anything substantive without authorization from the President."
Bash later did ask the Minnesotan a substantive question, "you said that you carried weapons in war but you have never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?"
Walz then spent approximately 160 words not answering the question, though he did remind us of how proud he is of his service and suggesting criticism is "an attack on my children for showing love for me,or it's an attack on my dog." (Attack on his dog? Is anyone in the two campaigns not weird?)
The vice presidency being a remarkably undemanding job, Walz should consider a part-time gig as a comedian, remarking "and my wife the English teacher told me my grammar's not always correct." One hopes this was a subtle joke, given that "grammar is not always correct" is the grammatically correct phraseology.
More significantly (but not much), the governor did not admit nor deny that he "mispoke" or, as normal people (which excludes Walz, Vance, and Trump) would put it, "lie." Another memo to the journalist: be willing to hold a candidate's feet to the fire or ignore the subject altogether. Walz has lied, as presidential nominee Trump does repeatedly. He also served the country for 24 years. Better to move on.
And so, unfortunately, she did because she proceeded to ask the Vice President "Because we haven't had a chance to- to talk, I'm just curious, staying on President Biden, when he called you and said he was pulling outta the race, what was that like? And did he offer to endorse you right away or did you ask for it?"
Joe Biden, the President of the USA, the guy who selected (nominated, technically) Kamala Harris for Vice President four years ago, did not endorse Harris immediately. He waited until his second statement when obviously- if he had any respect for her- he would have done so immediately. And Harris will- as she should- either note that the details of conversations she had with the President must remain confidential or simply lie. Nothing can be gained by this line of questioning, though it did give Harris the opportunity for one of her favorite things, noting that she is "proud."
Asked about the border and her having been "tasked with addressing the root causes of migration in southern counties," Harris vigorously defended the work of the Administration, condescendingly noting "and let me tell you something. The Border Patrol endorsed the bill."
Harris presumably was referring to the National Border Patrol Council, which under then-President Brandon Judd endorsed the legislation as preferable to the status quo. However, when speaking at an even for Arizona GOP senatorial candidate Kari Lake earlier this month, former President Judd explained (beginning at 2:29)
I then met with (Homeland Security Secretary) Mayorkas after she (Vice-President Harris) was appointed to address the root causes of migration and I met with them and I gave them point-by-point what they could do- not like alight switch, not like remain in Mexico. I stayed within their parameters. Their parameters were going to take a period of time but it could have been done and even with staying within their parameters.
Harris refused to implement any of the policies, programs or operations that were given to them that would have addressed this issue. That is extremely frustrating, especially now that she is going to try to redefine herself and now that she is going to try to rewrite history and say that she was never the border czar when in fact she was charged with- and again, address the root cause of migration. She failed to do that, she had the policies, she could have implemented the polies that fit within her parameters and she refused refused to do it.
That is consistent with Bash's follow-up question, in which Harris was asked "Just one other question about something that you said in 2019 when you first ran. There was a debate. You raised your hand when asked whether or not the border should be decriminalized. Do you still believe that?" Harris craftily responded
I believe there should be consequnce. We have laws that have to be enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there will be consequence. And let's be clear.....
Of course, "let's be clear." It worked for Barack Obama, thus may work for Harris. More significantly, "there will be consequence."
Whatever the "consequence"- which could be anything from a slap on the wrist to, well, a slap on the wrist- is, the Vice President didn't say. This represents no change from Harris'' 2019 assertion (by raised hand) that the border, in Bash's terminology, "should be decriminalized." She thought at the time it should not and, given that she has indicated policies she has reversed, suggests that she still believes crossing the border illegally should be a mere civil offense.
Harris' response to the question was wily and may have been strategically wise. But Bash needed to understand that "consequence" could be anything from a fine which usually would not be paid to a real talking-to. It does not suggest that the Veep supports classifying illegal border crossings as a criminal offense. She should have researched the July, 2019 debate at which Harris raised her hand when asked, with the other candidates, to "raise your hand if it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross without documentation?"
If she had, she would have (presumably) discovered that Senator Harris at the same time on the same subject also bragged that the federal government's policy
was to allow deportation of people who by ICE's own definition were non-criminals. So as attorney general, and the chief law officer of the state of California, I issued a directive to the sheriffs of my state that they did not have to comply with detainers, and instead should make decisions based on the best interests of the public safety of their community.
This was a legitimate response to a detainer- but a very bad one. It was the self-described (and accurate) "chief law officer of the state of California" telling ICE, and sometimes a judge, to go pound sand. Now, that same former chief law enforcement officer touts her prosecutorial experience as an argument to be elected President of the United States of America. It would have behooved her questioner to ask Harris whether, as head of the federal government, she would take the same position and possibly direct the nation's Attorney General to refuse to honor immigration detainers.
Of course, Bash failed to do so, as he failed in closely questioning the Vice President on any issue. She evidently believed it her role to touch upon virtually every issue she could in a relatively brief interview, notwithstanding the importance of the public hearing clear and definitive responses from the candidate.
There was another motive in conducting the interview this way, however. At the conclusion of the show, Dana Bash noted that presidential nominee Trump and vice presidential nominee Vance have been invited for an interview on CNN. Judging by her unwillingness to probe sufficiently a candidate's view on any one subject, the Republicans would be foolish not to pounce on the offer- as long as they're confident that Dana Bash would receive the assignment.
In the interests of joy and of being unburdened by what has been, it's a day to be ambivalent about our Democratic nominee for President. A very pro-Israel tweeter is largely wrong:
The Vice-President did not kneecap President Biden. After the latter's disastrous debate against Donald Trump, it became clear to an increasing number of voters, then of pundits and prominent Democrats, that the incumbent would be a sure loser in November. (And in the unlikely event of victory, he probably could not serve another four years.)
These powerful Democrats included former President Obama, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, National Democratic Redistricting Committee chairman and former Attorney General Eric Holder, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And no one crosses Nancy Pelosi and lives to tell about it.
At a critical time, in the moments following that epic June 27 debate, the Vice President had been queried about the President's performance of that evening and defended him defiantly and eloquently, remarking "He got into a groove where it counted. Our president showed that he will win the election." It was something that she had no choice but to do because she couldn't be seen undercutting the President. Nonetheless, she was as positive as possible without getting laughed out of the room.
Vice-President Harris was given two- two- primary tasks, one by President Biden and the other by the Constitution. In the first, she to take major strides in helping secure the southern border, a task nearly impossible without cooperation by the United States Congress, and very difficult with. She made little progress, as should have been expected.
The vice-president is constitutionally empowered to cast the deciding vote in the United States Senate in case of a tie. She set a record by doing so 32 times and was very effective performing that task.
Nevertheless, the tweeter is essentially correct that Ms. Harris refuses to be interviewed for the new position. Tonight, CNN will broadcast a taped interview with the Democratic presidential nominee. Infamously, however, she agreed to appear only with her Emotional Support Governor and running mate Tim Walz. (In the interests of full disclosure, credit must be given to this person, something I've never wanted to do.)
Coincidentally, this puts Harris into a role in which she has excelled. As vice-president, she is de facto required to cast the deciding vote in the Senate as her male supervisor, President Biden, wishes. And now she has bowed to the justified demands of the press that she be interviewed, and will do so only in the presence of another man. I am woman, hear me roar!Such progress!
Yet, if the sentiment was good enough for the late Bill Withers, it should be- and apparently is- good enough for Tim Walz and Kamala Harris.
With only 140 or so shopping days to go before Christmas, there is something Lawrence O'Donnell could be given as a holiday gift. That would be a dictionary (or would be, if there was no online dictionary). Incensed that the media telecast Donald Trump's entire liefest, then ignored Kamala Harris' rally afterward, O'Donnell remarked (at 3:07 of the video posted by this journalist)
It's 2016 all over again. The same mistakes are being made3 all over again. I've never seen an industry slower at learning from their own stupid mistakes than the American news business and you cannot expect them in the next 89 days to figure out what they haven't been able to figure out in nine years- how to cover a Trump for President campaign...
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
There is no telling whose those "intelligence officials" were because a few days before Trump became President, an Intelligence Community Assessment acknowledged
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goas were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary (Hillary) Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
The irony is startling, given that on nine occasions in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, Trump stated a variation of, as he said in Michigan, "if Hillary is elected, she will be under protracted criminal investigation followed by the trial of a sitting president."
These statements were rarely questioned by the media, which Lawrence O'Donnell correctly points out failed in 2016. "All over again" does not, however, adequately characterize a media which paved the way for a Trump victory then and is fawning over his opponent eight years later.
O'Donnell continued
Donald Trump gets credit from the people he lied to today for lying to them. They appreciate it. Reporters understandably and incorrectly believe that the most important thing a candidate can do is to answer their questions. But they don't know what an answer actually is. Words spoken after their question marks are not necessarily answers and are never answers when they come from Donald Trump.
Trump isn't getting credit from individuals in the media for lying to them. He's getting credit- understandably and correctly- for appearing before them and answering questions, which his opponent, Kamala Harris, is noticeably avoiding doing.
It's no small thing to answer questions, even if most of the answers are dishonest, which is typical for Trump (which makes the dishonesty no more acceptable). And notwithstanding O'Donnell's claim that "they don't know what an answer is," Merriam-Webster defines "answer" as "something spoken or written in reply to a question."
The news show host added
There are rumblings in the news media now that Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate not doing what Donald Trump did today- stand up in front of reporters and take their questions and some of their timid minds in the news media can't wait to give credit to Donald Trump for standing up and lying in response to every question they ask. A lie is not an answer. Donald Trump never answers reporters' questions. Never.
Again: A lie, if in response to a question, is an answer. Donald Trump is very generous with his answers, viewing each as an opportunity to twist a tale. If he periodically told the truth, Donald Trump would not be Donald Trump and never would have been elected President. Lying is an art which many successful politicians including Presidents such as Reagan and Clinton, successfully practiced but never perfected. (Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden were not good at it; a pattern, perhaps?)
Still wrong, O'Donnell followed with
Anyone in the news world who tells you Donald Trump has answered reporters' questions and Kamala Harris hasn't is lying to you and they're too stupid to know that they're lying to you because they don't know what an answer is.
Lying and stupid, a twofer. By contrast, as Collins Dictionary notes, "a lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is untrue." Therefore, if someone is "too stupid to know they're lying to you," he or she is not lying. The individual is not fully aware the statement is untrue.
The only rationalization for claiming that Kamala Harris hasn't "answered reporters' questions" is that Kamala Harris has been asked very few questions by the media. That is not by accident, in part because the vice president has proven to be very bad at that. And in the alternative, broadcast media will show adoring and rapturous crowds at packed rallies. Harris remembers that Hillary Clinton answered reporters' questions and never became President Hillary Clinton, That is not coincidental and the current nominee does not want history to repeat.
The problem with covering Donald Trump's campaign is not that it is covered. It is insufficient fact-checking. When the former President- or his opponent, when she does- hold a news conference, it should be broadcast. In general, candidates should answer, honestly, questions which the news media poses, or wishes to pose, to them.
Lawrence O'Donnell does not agree. He also doesn't know the meaning of simple English. What do they teach at Harvard, anyway?
Actually, not weird. Momentarily adopting the accent of one's audience is not uncommon. And as it turns out, it's not uncommon for our (soon to be) Democratic nominee for President. In November of 2021, Vice President Harris was
mocked online for appearing to mimic the accent of her
host country during a charm offensive aimed at shoring up relations with
America’s oldest ally.
Harris affected what many described as a French accent while
on a visit to a COVID-19 lab at the Pasteur Institute in Paris on Tuesday, Fox
News reported.
“One of the things people in politics and government should
really take from the approach of scientists — scientists operate with a
hypothesis. I love that,” the veep said
“A hypothesis. It’s well-thought-out, it’s well-planned,
they start out with a hypothesis and then they test it out knowing invariably,
you’re trying something for the first time, there will be glitches, there will
be mistakes,” she continued.
“Then everyone gets together, no one gets beat up about it,
you analyze it — what went wrong, re-evaluate, update the hypothesis and start
again,” Harris added before mocking how pols always stick to “The Plan.”
At that point, she seemed to switch to a French accent while
using the phase.
“In government, we campaign with ‘The Plan,’” she said.
“Uppercase T, uppercase P, ‘The Plan’! And then the environment is such we’re
expected to defend ‘The Plan’ even when the first time we roll it out there may
be some glitches and it’s time to re-evaluate and then do it again.”
Kamala Harris realizes that being inauthentic does not lose elections. Appearing to be inauthentic does- but that has no relationship, except possibly an inverse one (the latter a complicated argument for a later date). And pandering is usually actually effective.
In 1991, after President George Herbert Walker Bush raised income taxes, I asked a friend who was a big fan of the President whether he was let down when the guy who had pledged "Read my lips, no new taxes" reneged on his promise. He assured me he was not disappointed because he believed that candidate Bush made that vow because he was determined to appeal to individuals such as himself.
Pander works, as does inauthenticity. So my advice to Ms. Harris would be not to worry about being sincere. Continue to be someone other than yourself, even the "chameleon" which a chameleon labels you. It is her most likely path to the presidency.
