Kamala Harris’ office rife with dissent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!

It's a double standard to talk constantly about identity politics, to the exclusion of substantial national issues like the economy, national security, public health, etc, and then get pissed when the public joins in on the discussion.

It is equally a double standard to eschew it while simultaneously and historically benefiting from it and calling it something else.

By your logic, white people can't participate in democracy at all. These are being offered up as policy issues demanding government intervention, and they are being prioritized over other political issues such as the economy and security. Yes, once these issues enter the political fray, they are up for grabs for all of us to decide where they fit in the priority scheme and how they should be approached. You can't ask everyone to "take a seat" as identity politicians love to say, in a democratic nation. It's our civic duty to engage. And right now 55% of the public disagrees with how the administration is prioritizing, and vastly disapproves of how Kamala in particular is prioritizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!

It's a double standard to talk constantly about identity politics, to the exclusion of substantial national issues like the economy, national security, public health, etc, and then get pissed when the public joins in on the discussion.

It is equally a double standard to eschew it while simultaneously and historically benefiting from it and calling it something else.

By your logic, white people can't participate in democracy at all. These are being offered up as policy issues demanding government intervention, and they are being prioritized over other political issues such as the economy and security. Yes, once these issues enter the political fray, they are up for grabs for all of us to decide where they fit in the priority scheme and how they should be approached. You can't ask everyone to "take a seat" as identity politicians love to say, in a democratic nation. It's our civic duty to engage. And right now 55% of the public disagrees with how the administration is prioritizing, and vastly disapproves of how Kamala in particular is prioritizing.

PP: are you white?

[Anonymous]

Wow she really underwhelmed during the Stephanipoulos interview which should have been a homerun. She needs some media coaching because she’s just awful at answering even basic questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

You can play the same game for Kamala in a identity politics neutral way as well:

Kamala was picked: 1.) because she is one of the most progressive voting senators and Biden the "moderate" needed to shore up support across the party (2.) because she is young and Biden needed an energetic-seeming running mate to counteract claims that he is old and frail and 3.) because she came at the recommendation of Obama to whom Biden owed much of his political fortunes.

Identity politics is the explanation of first impulse for Kamala whereas the neutral ones are the explanation for Biden. Ask yourself why? Why is the explanatory power of id pol for perceived deficiencies so natural and reflexive in the one instance and not the other? Yes, part of it is statements Joe made and his political calculus. But then again those statements and assumptions don't even need to be spoken in the context of picking someone like Joe because it is already back into the cake and normalized. He has always been the default.

I don't think either of them are particularly gifted politicians, but that "impulse" and the weighting of identity politics is what Kamala defenders are pointing to.

Bruh. Joe said he picked her because she is a black woman and her own WH page is all about how she's intersectional multiracial blasian bicultural daughter of immigrants. That's how she presents herself, with her demographic identity front and center. You can't reduce yourself to stereotypes and then be stunned when people feel like they don't know you. Maybe she should cut back on the tropes and let us see what she's got.

She’s got nothing. That’s why she has to hide behind the identity politics.

THIS ENTIRE THREAD SMACKS OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY AND JEFF NEEDS TO DELETE IT RIGHT NOW!

It's a double standard to talk constantly about identity politics, to the exclusion of substantial national issues like the economy, national security, public health, etc, and then get pissed when the public joins in on the discussion.

It is equally a double standard to eschew it while simultaneously and historically benefiting from it and calling it something else.

By your logic, white people can't participate in democracy at all. These are being offered up as policy issues demanding government intervention, and they are being prioritized over other political issues such as the economy and security. Yes, once these issues enter the political fray, they are up for grabs for all of us to decide where they fit in the priority scheme and how they should be approached. You can't ask everyone to "take a seat" as identity politicians love to say, in a democratic nation. It's our civic duty to engage. And right now 55% of the public disagrees with how the administration is prioritizing, and vastly disapproves of how Kamala in particular is prioritizing.

PP: are you white?

Yes

[Anonymous]

PP is right. Ppl don't care that much about identity politics... until the economy tanks or there is a national security threat.

e.g. inflation in the 1970s neutered momentum from the 1960s civil rights movement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP is right. Ppl don't care that much about identity politics... until the economy tanks or there is a national security threat.

e.g. inflation in the 1970s neutered momentum from the 1960s civil rights movement

DP. Nah. Silent majority voting for Nixon did that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow she really underwhelmed during the Stephanipoulos interview which should have been a homerun. She needs some media coaching because she’s just awful at answering even basic questions.

She is. But I refuse to believe that it’s because she’s just stupid. I don’t think she is.

[Anonymous]

My God, this interview:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-shes-underused-insists-things/story?id=81234331

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the end game here? I'm intrigued. Why run a hit piece on Kamala now? Are they trying to get her to resign to get someone more popular in place for a 2024 run?

This is run of the mill stuff.

Agreed. Politico is a political gossip outlet. Its a high-end people magazine (that does some great work occassionally). This is fairly standard. Its quite easy to find a staffer whos frustrated and willing to talk a little trash.

On the other hand, Harris is the next in line and the likely nominee in 2024 or 2028. This isn't a good sign.

Her office atmosphere sounds like Fenty’s

Ultimately she is out of her depth . She is an opportunist DA from a major US city

She was much more effective ( better personality fit and of better use for reform ) from a bully pulpit on the Senate Judiciary committee or oversight committee . She likes to prosecute .

People with a nature like that are typically loners and they don’t make great team leaders

The party is trying to shed her is my guess

[Anonymous]

We need strong allies like Jen Psacki truth tellin’ about Kamala.

Snide trailer whites step aside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am/was a big supporter but this plus the cratering of her campaign indicates she is NOT a good manager. Executive leadership skills are pretty crucial for a president.

I would not say she is 'fine'.

Also I don’t think AA would be too upset if Biden dumped her - they can see she doesn’t really risk anything for them when push comes to shove

For example, she went to Howard where students are camping out rather than live in dorms because of mold and illness - sick building syndrome . Financial mismanagement is alleged . Kamala Harris lives less than 3 miles from Howard and has been asked to comment on the student’s grievances

Her response: “ no comment “ through her spokesperson

She doesn’t even have the integrity to answer the students plea for her help by directly responding to them

They can see she is fake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need strong allies like Jen Psacki truth tellin’ about Kamala.

Snide trailer whites step aside.

What is "trailer whites" and why isn't Psaki considered one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are screwed in 2024. If they
Harris the incur the wrath of the AA community and women. If they run her, she gets demolished in white working class areas. And Joe is way too old for a second term.

Not really. Hilarystans and older CBC insiders will complain and stir up trouble but actual voters won't care.

Harris was more about Democratic insiders and big $$$ than AA or the women voters. But those insiders and their backers still are gatekeepers who don't like to admit mistakes.

Agreed . Harris was their antidote to what they really feared - Susan Rice

Hence the smear campaign of Rice in NYT

Big mistake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are screwed in 2024. If they
Harris the incur the wrath of the AA community and women. If they run her, she gets demolished in white working class areas. And Joe is way too old for a second term.

Not really. Hilarystans and older CBC insiders will complain and stir up trouble but actual voters won't care.

Harris was more about Democratic insiders and big $$$ than AA or the women voters. But those insiders and their backers still are gatekeepers who don't like to admit mistakes.

Agreed . Harris was their antidote to what they really feared - Susan Rice

Hence the smear campaign of Rice in NYT

Big mistake

Why do you think they feared Rice? She’s roughly 1,000% more competent and qualified than Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Joe would have won with Michigan gov. Gretchen Whitmer. And Gretch would have been grinning ear to ear in Washington, not constantly trying to be the star of the show and kick Joe into a retirement home like conniving Kamala.

I think Joe's camp dumps Kamala for Stacey Abrams. Stacey is genuinely sharp and charming, Kamala is genuinely a documented idiot who makes my skin crawl.

Stacy Abrams - now there’s a good idea