Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kathi Zimpleman's avatar

Thank you, Bob. I would get behind Kamala if she runs. I am a fan of hers. I like her style. I have a number of friends who think she is a little cold and hasn't done much. I address their concern for her demeanor as the result of being a woman of Asian/ African descent she had to be stronger than anyone around her just get noticed let alone respected. I told them I thought that is a strength of hers. It is evident in the video you shared. She was direct, intentional, and focused in her questioning of Bill Barr. And, she is not afraid to call out BS when it is coming her way. Those are qualities of a leader. As to what she has accomplished - she had a rocky start, but I think her actions as VP were more harshly viewed than the actions of any of the white men who preceded her. She gets the blame for the immigration problem, but that is the responsibility of Congress, not the administration whose only power in that area is using Executive Orders that republicans view as an overreach. She has taken on the Supreme Court's rulings in the Dobbs case in appearances to large crowds of young people across the country and last week the Court has given her an even bigger opportunity to make some powerful connections across the country. I think she is a smart, talented woman who would make a very good chief executive.

Expand full comment
Ralph Rosenberg's avatar

Not so fast on VP Harris. Move faster on changing national strategy and messagin. Before I point out some differences, I want to commend writers like Josiah who offer constructive criticism and comments.

VP Harris has yet to demonstrate growth in her leadership skills and expertise on issues ranging from immigration to Ukraine . She had 3 1/2 years as VP and previous experience as a Senator and AG. However, her strengths seem limited to articulating social issues. The Queen (“King”) wears no clothes. Her uneven appearances are evidence of not growing with the job.

As Bob wrote: "Switching will give us a candidate who can hammer away at Trump's corruption, bigotry, misogyny, racism, fascism, nepotism, ignorance, idiocy, and mental decline (which Biden lacks the capacity or willingness to do), a candidate better able to sound the alarm about the plight of reproductive rights and the danger of the current Supreme Court."

The Democrats won't succeed if they focus only on social issues; they need to address more immediate concerns. I have yet to read of Harris’s accomplishments or powerful speaking on economic issues, immigration, and international issues.

The Democrats won't succeed with Harris or anyone else if they keep the same team responsible for political missteps in debate preparation, poor messaging over 3+ years, and constant failure to predict and respond to Trump. Trump was prepared and focused on his messaging (despite its falsehoods) and his team was strategic. Look at how quickly national Republicans spoke in unison after the verdict (Reynolds issued her press statement 11 minutes after the verdict), contrasted with the silence of anti-MAGA voices. During the debate, it seemed the preparation team was playing checkers to Trump's chess.

Harris has yet to prove she can be the top of the ticke. For the good of the country (as is often said about Biden), Harris should be approached with two options: stay on the ticket as VP and improve her image in the coming weeks, or be replaced by another woman or person of color. Biden's replacement could also be another woman or POC, reducing the need for a specific VP candidate. If the goal of the “never Biden” side is to make a change to defeat Trump, that standard should apply to a Biden replacement. Harris falls short.

To only focus on whether Biden should say or go, it's easy to make a binary choice. However, progressives and Democrats have yet to demonstrate the ability to plan for the next steps, predict Republican actions, or plan for contingencies. Replacing Biden with Harris without a change in strategy and messaging would be a mistake.

With these criticisms in mind, I am also not confident that an open convention would be successful at coalescing people and unifying opposition to Trump. In the past days since the debate, here have been opportunities to unify around issues, messaging, and need to support down-ballot issues, or specifically respond to the Trump Court, or Project 2025. D’s did not have a contingency plan for a national response to the Trump court on immunity or the accelerating extreme views of Project 2025 (calling for a second revolution), I do not trust this same team of D and progressive leaders to organize a convention.

Changing national support team, including consultants should be in the works. I want national leaders and strategies which predict Republican actions and plan for contingencies, rather than only playing defense or being defensive. Replacing Biden with Harris without a change in strategy and messaging would be a mistake.

Expand full comment
35 more comments...

No posts