Kamala Harris and Joe Biden: joined at the hip
Yesterday I touched on Harris’ statement during her appearance on The View, in which a softball question question from Sunny Hostin led to a response that has heads scratching everywhere. But the more I think about it, the stranger it becomes.
The left-leaning distaff panel asked the 2024 Democratic nominee if she would have done anything “differently” than Biden, 81.
“There is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of — and I’ve been a part of — of the decisions that have had impact,” responded Harris, 59.
So not only did Harris say there was nothing – absolutely nothing – she would change in a presidency that was fraught with obvious problems that even the left can see, but she was specifically owning the administration’s decisions and saying she was closely involved with them. In this, she echoed Biden’s recent comments, remarks that were often interpreted as trying to sabotage Harris’ campaign.
And this was not just a one-off for Harris. She pretty much repeated part of it in an interview with Howard Stern (a NeverTrumper, by the way):
She doubled down on her support for Biden hours later in an interview with SiriusXM’s Howard Stern.
The president is “still doing a great job,” the veep told the shock jock. “He’s not done. He’s not done.”
Granted, Harris has a tough job. The task is to differentiate herself from the errors of Biden while remaining loyal enough that she’s not perceived as attacking him. But she took on this task willingly when she agreed to be his substitute as nominee. Some sort of ambition drives her – to be the first woman president? To have power? To have perks? To do what they ask her to do? All of the above? Some of the above?
It was always obvious that she would have to figure out a way to thread this needle. She has done a poor job of it. But I wonder whether her advisors have helped: is there a message they’ve told her to say and that she’s failed to deliver? Couldn’t she choose one or two disagreements? I wouldn’t think it so hard to say something like this: “I think Biden did a great job, and I was part of some great decisions of which I’m proud. But – as with any administration – of course there are things that, with the benefit of hindsight, I’d change. For example, in the withdrawal from Afghanistan …” and then she could choose something about that fiasco.
And yet she said nothing of the sort. Why?
I refuse to believe Kamala Harris is stupid. You don’t go to law school and pass the bar and not be able to argue a position, even a difficult position. Something else is going on. I may write more about this in a future post, but at the moment here’s what comes to mind for possibilities:
(1) She has some sort of core conflict about her entire career as VP and as presidential candidate. Whether it’s some sort of impostor syndrome in which she doesn’t feel adequate to the task, or whether it’s some other thing, I don’t know.
(2) I have a gut feeling that she’s not a great liar. You may laugh at that idea – after all, she’s a politician, and she often lies through her teeth. But there is something so “off” about her affect that I can at least imagine that lying so much makes her uncomfortable, or has come to make her uncomfortable.
(3) Plus, perhaps she really does feel some sort of loyalty to the man who is responsible for her rise to this position. He chose her as VP when she really wasn’t doing well politically, having dropped out of the primaries quite early after Tulsi Gabbard savaged her in the debates. Joe has been, in a very real way, her sponsor, and she really has worked closely with him for three and a half years. She – and/or Pelosi, Obama, and the rest – shafted him, and she wants to throw him a bone.
(4) She doesn’t want to alienate the voters who like Biden and feel he was dealt with wrongly.
(5) She really isn’t that smart and can’t keep her story straight (I don’t think this is it, but I’m putting it in here as a possibility).
(6) She knows the fix is in and she will win no matter what she says.
That’s not meant to be an exhaustive list.
And meanwhile:
And just like that, Kamala's entire bullshit campaign about being a "change agent" collapses. You can't call yourself a change agent when you not only agree with every single disaster Joe Biden is responsible for, but you brag about being involved in all those decisions! https://t.co/MWlXO4Ab4K
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 8, 2024
NOTE: See also this about what’s been going on with Joe lately.
Kremlinology, right? Wasn’t that the term back in the day, trying to figure out the utterly invisible machinations inside the dark corridors of soviet power? Gets to be very silly in no time at all.
I don’t think the point has ever been how bad Biden was/is, and now how bad Harris is – that has pretty much been a given since 2020.
Point was/is – that the Republicans couldn’t come up with anything but excuses for Trump’s 2020 loss, and then in 2024 they selected Trump again as their presidential candidate.
Trump was just that bad—that the DEMs could field someone like Biden (clearly brain-dead in 2020), and now Harris against him. Trump was a terrible leader in the eyes of many more than just the DEMs, and that is why he couldn’t beat Biden. It’s probably also why he and Harris remain so close.
Please spare me the Cult of Personality comments…
My completely non-professional, purely gut level assessment of Kamala Harris’s intelligence level is that she’s likely above average by perhaps a standard deviation given that she at minimum passed the California Bar and was an attorney who almost certainly trialed real cases. I’d guess her IQ in 115-120 range perhaps? So solidly above average but far from exceptional.
I suspect her troubles in interviews is a matter that is less related to her intelligence and more to her own anxieties, general uncomfortableness, and unpreparedness. By all accounts she’s never been a particularly strong, off the cuff public speaker. And of course being asked real questions that require her to lie to answer (or not answer) to maintain whatver BS narrative she’s going with probably does nothing to help her awkwardness and anxiety. She’s mixes arrogance and entitlement with awkwardness and prevarication, which makes her a very difficult person to watch or listen to in an interview… for me anyway. I get no enjoyment out of watching cringe inducing responses by someone who is simultaneously somehow arrogant and vulnerable. Or someone who blatantly (and often times very poorly) lies and then is rarely challenged about the lie by the friendly interviewer. Or someone who feels she’s entitled to executive power, but has a record that suggests she can barely execute despite having likely fulfilled the Peter Principle in politics and through some confluence of crazy events now is on the cusp of the pinnacle of power.
Just two thoughts.
I find it incredible that anyone would believe that the policies she will promote will be any different than that of Joke Bidet and, before that, of Obama.
As far as her stating that she was a part of the decision making process while the VP; sorry, there is no way in hell that she had any part in any decisions made by Joke Bidet over the last four years (other than perhaps sitting in the room – silently and invisibly when a decision was reached).
IMHO, she is clearly lying about this.
Frankly, those in Biden’s administration know better than anyone that Kamala has no clue about anything at all and asking her opinion on anything would just produce an incomprehensible world salad or just a useless remark stating the obvious (e.g,, Ukraine is a country in Europe………) .
Also, Biden and his advisors more than likely had no interest in what Kamala thinks about any particular issue because they – and everybody else – knows the ONLY reason she was chosen as the VP is because she is black and female.
She was not chosen to be VP because of her intellect or knowledge (such as there is) or acumen.
For all intents and purposes, she is merely playing the role of a VP – she is a
actor – in every sense of the word, and of this, I believe, she is totally cognizant.
She may not be Forrest Gump dumb, but I don’t think she’s very intelligent either. I’ve never taken the Bar exam so I don’t know what’s required there, but I would imagine it involves a lot of rote memorization of caselaw and such. You don’t have to be “intelligent” to be able to memorize and regurgitate facts.
I’ve had very limited experience with practitioners of the legal profession, but my limited experience has led me to be…um…less than impressed, in general.
In her defense as a lawyer, she seems to be very, very good at making mouth noises that have little bearing on or relationship with the topic being discussed (which, in my experience, seems to be a large part of a lawyers job); she’s just not as good at disguising it as other politicians seem to be.
With that said, even if she had to make arguments and speak publicly to pass law school, that was a long time ago and doesn’t mean she was particularly good at it. Anyone know her class standing when she graduated from law school? It’s like that old saying about Med school: You know what they call the person who graduated at the very bottom of their class in Medical School? Doctor.
But I digress.
From what I’ve seen no one can seem to find a single case that she was lead attorney on in all her years as a prosecutor and DA. I’d imagine there’s a reason for that.
As far as her staffers keeping her out of trouble and on track goes…if she’s as arrogant and demanding as she’s made out to be in the reports I’ve seen, I doubt she listens to her staff very much. They can try to give her instruction on what to say, but if she won’t take it…
Not to mention the fact that they’re all leftists. Their politics are their religion. They simply cannot comprehend the mentality of we rubes on the right. Why we don’t just reflexively support the “bipoc” woman because of her skin tone and chromosome makeup. Plus she’s not Trump…what else do we need to know to convince us? As far as they’re concerned, there simply isn’t a more compelling argument than that and I don’t think they’re bothering to even try.
And I think Option #6 is the biggest reason her “campaign” is mostly window dressing. They openly and clearly cheated their way into the white house four years ago with no repercussions whatsoever…heck, most of the Republican establishment supported them. Why should it be any different this year?.
Tough question. Kamala has been hideous over the past week. If she loses the election, this week will be the reason why.
Here’s another theory. Recall that she was dating the mayor while she was an assistant district attorney. She was also serving on a number of high-paying public boards courtesy of her mayor-boyfriend. Maybe she just isn’t that bright/talented and was shielded from having to try that many cases or that many difficult cases because she was favored by the mayor?
Anyone who is a competent trial attorney has the skill set to at least give competent answers in these kinds of interviews. Simplest explanation – she isn’t a competent trial attorney.
Another potential simple answer – she doesn’t bother to read her briefing materials. (Where have we heard that one before?)
I refuse to believe Kamala Harris is stupid. You don’t go to law school and pass the bar and not be able to argue a position, even a difficult position.
_______
No. I have known stupid lawyers. It really isn’t as hard as you think to get ahead in that, or other fields. Especially if you have people behind you. And she clearly has, all her life.
Recognizing talent is among the most difficult things in life. So far as I know, no one has broken the code.
Though a few people are genuinely good at it that doesn’t seem to correlate with skill at the job in question. I’ve seen too many dullards get ahead. Impressing people just isn’t a talent that takes intelligence.
Channeling my inner Occam…
…yer ALL giving her WAY too much credit.
(Yep. Even the ones who aren’t exactly, um, complementary.)
That’s because yer all basically decent people….
(Oh and BTW, the answer is… #6.)
If the infamous “fix” is in – then why on earth is she not in the basement instead of out giving interviews?
Optics, dear boy, OPTICS.
Were she being managed by some shadowy cabal, they’d be smarter. One would think.
She strikes me as a cardboard cutout person with no depth at all, but with unlimited entitlement expectations. She enjoys the life and the prestige of being important but has no principles or plans beyond that. She adopts the policies of those who give her the importance she craves.
I have known many people who passed the bar exam, many who passed the CPA exam, and quite a few who passed both. Most of those thought the CPA exam was more rigorous and difficult than passing the bar.
I have known some brilliant attorneys and CPAs, the common thread however is their focus and work ethic. It takes a certain passion and a great deal of application to the craft to become good at legal and accounting specialties.
That noted, I have observed most attorneys and CPAs are of middling capability, and some are downright dumb. The middling ones are often lacking in the intense focus and drive of the excellent ones, and the rest can be downright sloppy and unprepared.
I was discussing Kamala Harris with a prosecutor friend, he assesses her as being on the lower range of the middling types, with poor concentration on preparation. That explains a lot.
@ Barry Meislin
“OPTICS”? Optics can be taken w/o her opening her mouth. Having her doing interviews looking wild-eyed, confused, speaking in word salads, and giving ridiculous answers is not optics – it’s a disaster…
The only “fix” (ref (6)) I am seeing is that many Republicans are already preparing to be sore losers once again…
From stories last few years she disdainful in preparation, wants no part learning about a subject she has no idea about then blames her staff for her stupidity. She has gone through staff more than any other upper government position.
And who knows why, almost like Sundowner continually running out the same lies over and over again. There is no plan other than hide their Marxism until she is over the finish line.
@Karmi @2:58 : Why is she out giving interviews?
1. She’s hauling in more money than she could make in a lifetime, and
2. She gets to rub shoulders with the beautiful people.
F
Most excellent point!
Kamala was once a whore, literally, and still has the mindset of a whore: lie, fabricate, steal, do and say anything to get ahead.
Not even one vote in a primary, and she might be our POTUS because she is brown (not a black) and a female.
I’ll go with #5. And raise you a #7… she’s intellectually lazy. How could she not be prepared for that question, and not know that her answer was a gift to the Trump campaign?
A café friend has followed politics closely since he was in 8th grade. He has worked as a political consultant and in the city government of Malibu.
He says that Harris’s pattern is to ignore her staff’s briefings then blame them and fire them when her political appearances blow up. Her staff turnover is over 90%.
This isn’t new.
Sailorcurt, how difficult the bar exam is depends on what state you’re in. It’s very hard in some states and relatively easy in others, depending on how badly the already-established lawyers in each state want to protect their turf by limiting new entrants. However, in most states there’s a good bit more to the bar than rote memorization and regurgitation. You do have to be able to think on your feet and then write about what you’re thinking fairly cohesively, under time pressure. (I’ve taken and passed it three times, in three different states. Never mind why, it’s a long sad story.) That doesn’t mean that you have to be brilliant, just middling smart and self-disciplined enough to study. But you can’t — in most states — be downright dumb.
It’s true that lately they’ve been dumbing down the Bar in quite a few states with the new UBE (Uniform Bar Exam? Universal? Not sure). The new test is closer to what you describe, but that’s too recent to benefit Harris.
The California Bar Exam, however, is renowned for being very tough. It’s not at all unusual for very bright people to fail it once or twice before getting through. My uncle, a Berkeley and Stanford grad, was downright brilliant and it took him two tries. I believe it also took Harris two tries, but she did get through. If not for that, I’d guess that she IS pretty dumb. There’s something about the slow, flat, affect-free way she speaks that sounds very stupid to me, or at least lazy. Plus, you would have to be VERY smart to put together those word salads intentionally!
However, Neo’s insights are interesting. Maybe that flat affect and the jumbled speech are signs of some psychological disguise, some self-concealment. Maybe she doesn’t know what to say or how to emote persuasively because she doesn’t know who she’s supposed to be pretending to be — or doesn’t like it.
She’s still the least impressive presidential candidate I’ve ever seen.
Some really great points and comments being made…
Anyway, I’ll go w/ (3) – w/ the exception that she is not a “bone” thrower.
Seems she really appreciates when the ‘Right‘ (?) man helps her…
Harris and her abilities are a genuine curiosity. One possibility is that she didn’t actually past the bar exam. That is, legitimately.
Remember the Varsity Blues scandal. Recall that professional test takers stood in for students that were supposed to be taking the college entrance exams. Mark Riddell was one such person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_Blues_scandal#Cheating_on_college_entrance_exams
On the other hand, she has been involved in actual court cases. But perhaps being installed at a higher level in the legal system, she’s always had underlings doing a tremendous amount of the work. Maybe.
I caught this bit of video on FoxNews some days ago. Stephen Miller was discussing Harris’ abilities on Jesse Watters’ show in very scathing terms. Judge Miller’s honesty and acumen however you wish.
Start at 6:30 time, or 5:55 for a little more context:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z_gJ_0Az0I
(2) I have a gut feeling that she’s not a great liar. You may laugh at that idea –
No, not at all. Generally speaking, it’s a very interesting topic.
I think that she thinks that she is a fairly good bullshitter, and she isn’t. She also probably thinks that being successful in that arena is essential for a politician. A politician’s support staff should be able to get their pol well prepped without extraordinary skills on the pol’s part, is another thought she may have. I would love, love, love to hear behind doors dialog between Harris and her media handlers.
But I wonder whether her advisors have helped: is there a message they’ve told her to say and that she’s failed to deliver?
Her handlers couldn’t possibly be this bad. Of course, she’s ignored or countermanded her advisors. Or fired them.
(3) Possibly there is some real affection or loyalty here, however… My take would be to say that a bargain was struck. Joe & possibly Jill told her to never ever do or say anything to damage Joe’s legacy, or else they’d cut her off at the knees.
Honestly, she doesn’t impress me at all, for someone alleged to be moderately intelligent. Cunning, maybe. A good sense of who she ought to suck up to, or off… She cannot think on her feet, she is definitely lazy and disinclined to prepare for stuff — and then blames everyone else when she comes out looking like a fool. The way that she churns through staff is a red flag, no matter how you slice it.
I think the fix is in – she is convinced the election is in the bag, so all she need do is coast on the admiration of the establishment press.
My daughter and I are both military veterans – she is more into various mil-vet social media than I am, but she says there is a sense among the active mil sites that there is something coming down the pike. Units on alert and prepping for a deployment … somewhere. Either the Mideast, maybe the Pacific … or maybe domestic.
In case of unhappiness with the election results, you see,
Eeyore:
I agree with Mrs Whatsit. The Bar exam in California was still very hard when Harris took it. And rote memorization would not get you very far.
Sgt. Mom says, “there is a sense among the active mil [military] sites that there is something coming down the pike. Units on alert and prepping for a deployment….”
Listen up, people!
That is one of the explanations (an impending deployment) posited by some commentators for the reluctance to send active military into Appalachia after Helene.
I think TommyJay (6:08 pm) makes a good point, but I am highlighting it here because it appeared only at the very end of his comment:
“My take would be to say that a bargain was struck. Joe & possibly Jill told her to never ever do or say anything to damage Joe’s legacy, or else they’d cut her off at the knees.”
The only amendment to that I might suggest, might be to replace “Joe & possibly Jill” with “Jill & possibly Joe”.
Otherwise, I’ll go with option (6): “She knows the fix is in and she will win no matter what she says.” Because no matter what she says, she’s got enough people covering for her enough of the time. She’s had that all/most of her life (as has been pointed out here).
As Sgt. Mom (6:13 pm) points out in this latter regard, “she is convinced the election is in the bag, so all she need do is coast on the admiration of the establishment press” — as well as that of the education and entertainment industries.
I sincerely hope I am wrong.
Biden went up the hill to retrieve a pale of emoluments. Joe fell down, and broke his crown, and Kamala took a knee for her progress.
Just “Follow the science”(TM)…revisited…
“Did Bill Nye Really Just Say That About Hurricane Milton?”—
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/10/09/bill-nye-the-science-guy-just-peddled-pure-bunk-about-hurricane-milton-n2645939?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
If you look into the reality of Harris she has NEVER been an actual performer. Her political wins were via money and patronage, not ability. As a DA she didn’t trial cases herself. She was chosen by Biden because of her fundraising (go back and look) and that she wasn’t an actual threat to him.
At no point in her professional career has she ever actually demonstrated any ability to do the jobs she has been appointed into.
M J R, Yeah…Jill in the fore.
Although I don’t think Kamala is very bright, I don’t think lack of intelligence is the main cause of her being so bad at interviews. Being a good public speaker and being able to think on your feet are skills that don’t necessarily correlate with intelligence. Kamala is sadly lacking in both of these skills and under normal circumstances these deficiencies would have stopped her political career.
But these are not normal circumstances. She has had a position handed to her for which she is in no way qualified because of a set of unusual circumstances. She was chosen as VP because of her sex and race and she was promoted to nominee because of Biden’s senility.
I think she loves the perks and prestige of her position but also realizes that she is out of her depth and this is a cause of great fear and anxiety for her. I do believe she has some type of imposter syndrome. At the same time I think she feels entitled to her position and lashes out at those who question her, which makes working for her very difficult.
I don’t believe that she thinks the fix is in. She doesn’t like giving cringe inducing interviews that cause her so much anxiety. She is doing these interviews because she is being told that she is losing this race and she needs to do something to shake things up. I expect a staff shake-up is the next step in re-re-reintroducing the “real Kamala” to the American people. I expect it will be about as effective as the previous attempts to make her something that she is not and never will be.
neo on October 9, 2024 at 6:13 pm said:
Eeyore:
I agree with Mrs Whatsit. The Bar exam in California was still very hard when Harris took it. And rote memorization would not get you very far.
________
I’ve known stupid NY lawyers, including back when the NY bar was notoriously hard. The trouble is your view amounts to equating credentials with intelligence. I don’t buy that. High correlation, sure. But identity? No. It is always possible for some to slip through the cracks. They simple are two different things, and it takes absolute faith in the system to believe Kamala is smart.
She probably whored her way through law school and the bar. Everything else in cali is corrupt. No reason to believe otherwise really.
Bumped from yesterday.
Lazy, arrogant, and entitled.
Daniel Greenfield explored Kamala’s character on his Sultan Knish blog.
https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2024/09/kamala-demands-life-of-luxury.html
” I do believe she has some type of imposter syndrome.”
Bingo ! I think that is it plus she has been assured the fix is in. Biden is showing signs of resentment about his removal and that is a complicating factor. The “fix” was always dependent on Joe keeping the bargain. He may feel they violated the deal. Or Dr Jill is angry at her demotion from leading Cabinet meetings. Interesting times, indeed.
Eeyore:
I suppose it depends on how you define intelligence and stupidity. I don’t equate intelligence with wisdom, for example. But I can assure you that no one who passes the bar exam is unintelligent .
Nor have I ever met a stupid lawyer. Lazy? Crooked? Mean? Sure. Less intelligent versus more intelligent? Yes. But not stupid.
Just guessing here, but I doubt that passing the bar exam anywhere makes one a good trial lawyer. Also suspect that many people who can’t pass the bar exam would make better trial lawyers, e.g., some of those ‘Silver Tongue‘ scoundrels, than most who can pass the exam.
Just did a quick search, i.e., that is nothing definitive—just a quick search, ‘how many lawyers in america‘, and the first link says:
Jeez…would’ve guessed that the Democratic party had that many.
Another quick search, i.e., that is nothing definitive—just a quick search, ‘how many trial lawyers in america‘, and the first link says:
I’ve seen some dud lawyers in my time…
The trouble is your view amounts to equating credentials with intelligence.
Eeyore:
Not to disagree with you in particular, but I’ve run into a lot of people, often bright, who equate intelligence to agreement with their ideas of how an intelligent person should think and behave.
I see intelligence as the general “g” factor, a raw factor of one’s cognitive functioning across the board.
__________________________________
The g factor is a construct developed in psychometric investigations of cognitive abilities and human intelligence. It is a variable that summarizes positive correlations among different cognitive tasks, reflecting the fact that an individual’s performance on one type of cognitive task tends to be comparable to that person’s performance on other kinds of cognitive tasks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)
__________________________________
I’ve seen a lot of people who struck me as stupid on the basis of their opinions and behavior, but they could still function, to my surprise, at an above-average level.
I find it difficult to believe that someone could get through law school and pass the CA Bar in 1990, even on the second try, while being stupid, or even average intelligence.
Re: The fix is in
That’s not how the Democrats were acting when they couped Biden.
They enjoyed a great sugar high when Harris emerged triumphant at the DNC then suckered Trump in the debate.
But now they are panicking. Check the RCP polling numbers.
https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls
Harris is only leading by 2 points nationally, but she is behind in 5 out of 7 battleground states. The momentum is on Trump’s side. And we know that the polls always underestimate Trump’s suppport.
So Harris is now doing more interviews, as pathetic as they may be, and asking for another debate. Voters are realizing she’s an empty pants suit.
Sure, there will be fraud, as there has always been Dem fraud, but it’s Trump’s election to lose.
How do you know she “passed” the bar? The rot is deep. I have encountered PhDs that I wondered how they tied their own shoes.
How do you know she “passed” the bar?
Chases Eagles:
How do you know the bar could be cheated that easily? Harris wasn’t anyone in particular. She went to a black college, then attended an unimpressive law school. She failed the bar the first time.
Who cared enough to juice her through the second time? Why?
I appreciate a good conspiracy, but I need some evidence.
I have encountered PhDs that I wondered how they tied their own shoes.
I’ve met people who assumed I was stupid based on how I looked and behaved.
via Karmi: “According to this survey, approximately 6,784 trial lawyers are working in the United States.”
I am surprised that number is so low, especially if 1000 of them are already working for Morgan and Morgan. 🙂 Arithmetically that is only 135 per state. I suspect the distribution is pretty lopsided: maybe 300 to 800 in NY, IL, FL, and CA, with 7 or 8 in ID or WY?? Perhaps the best lawyers manage to avoid going to trial at all. Does that mean they are not technically trial lawyers?
@ Huxley:
“I have encountered PhDs that I wondered how they tied their own shoes.”
Even with a PhD, I know there are many times when I have thought, said, or done some really stupid things. And with age and arthritis in my fingers, I am having issues with tying my shoes, too! 🙂 But I am pretty sure I am not unique among “intelligent” people concerning episodes of stupidity.
“I’ve met people who assumed I was stupid based on how I looked and behaved.” While in grad school I had occasion to meet a long haired “hippy” working as a social worker, who was also married with a child. That is where I learned to look past the long hair and accept him as one of the normal group of flawed humans that we all sometimes are.
Chases Eagles:
Shoe-tying takes coordination and attention, not intelligence. There’s the stereotype of the absent-minded professor, head up in the clouds. Perhaps even somewhere on the spectrum.
Intelligence can be fairly narrow. And it also does not necessarily include common sense.
Shelia Jackson Lee passed the bar too. Yale , UV law. Thought the moon is made of gas and asked about the flag left on mars. Credentials mean nothing in the Age of Aquarius.
The corporation I worked for decided there were too many white male managers. So they implemented a rigorous selection process. Still selected too many white men. One of the women that made through told me they were secretly coaching the women.
I won’t take a stab at Kamala-ology, but am somewhat gobsmacked that after almost four years of the senile part-timer Biden, the Dems offer a hyena-like candidate who speaks as poorly as Biden.
I get that many people don’t like Trump’s personality, but his presidential track record stands head and shoulders above that of Biden/Harris.
I’ve read elsewhere that Kamala failed the CA bar twice. Her lack of ability to speak on her feet makes me wonder if she didn’t get some sort of help on that third round to finally pass. I used to proctor a professional exam and there’s always inventive, creative cheating going on.
Her campaign’s marketing spin would indicate that the overall strategy is to portray her as the change candidate. We’ve seen Walz screw this up by taking it too far e.g. when he recently said, “We can’t take four more years of this.” He’s probably been getting the same playbook help that Kamala has and is screwing it up in his own way. In any case he seems to understand the need to distance the campaign from the existing administration. Why doesn’t she?
There have been several indications that she just doesn’t understand the necessary campaign strategy to beat Trump. For example, when she first clinched the nomination she gave a speech in which she reaffirmed some extreme leftist leanings. Within a few days her campaign was putting out more moderate spin on a range of issues.
I’m not a politician but it was obvious to me that she had to get to the middle. That she gave that first speech so far to the left was a strong indication that she is politically ‘tone’ deaf.
There are likely some very capable consultants (recommended by Obama??) that are providing summary positions on a wide range of issues that follow this need to get to the middle.
So the question becomes why is she screwing up these simple questions/situations? Likely answer is she’s lazy and not very bright politically. Her answers such as they are diverge from the public campaign positions as revealed via her teleprompter.
Whatever her loyalty to Biden he seems to be deliberately sabotaging her campaign. Twice now he’s publicly emphasized how close they are when her teleprompter speech was saying something very different.
I suspect Biden wants her to lose to prove that the party (Obama/Pelosi/???) should have stuck with him. It’s a simple if she wins, Biden loses face, but if she loses, Biden is proven right.
Biden isn’t the only Democrat who would like her to lose. You can put Newsom on that list along with several governors who would prefer to have a ’28 election with a Republican incumbent.
Neo, agree on the ‘imposter syndrome’ theory.
Agree with Gregory Harper on all counts.
In addition, whatever her intelligence level was then, it’s been 30 plus years since she passed the bar. Since then she has by all accounts become a ‘more than social’ drinker and probably a drug taker as well. That’ll do some damage to the cognitive abilities.* Especially if you get promoted because you check some boxes and not on continually refining and demonstrating skill and competence.
*For some reason this seems to hit women harder than men. No idea why. Just something I’ve observed over time.
@ R2L
Yeah, that 6,784 number seemed low to me also. Many people think of Perry Mason types when they think of lawyers (used to anyway), but a majority of lawyers are obviously not great in the court room—whilst trying to convince jurors, judge, etc. of their clients innocence.
Is a prosecutor considered a trial lawyer? Is the public defender considered a trial lawyer? Apparently all judges (or none?) don’t even need law degrees.
Richard Cravero and/or his gang hired some hotshot Philadelphia (if I recall correctly) trial lawyer for their trial/s in Miami.
I’ve had some kind of law clerks (?) handle some of my divorces—basically just gave me the docs I needed to get the divorce. Have purchased property w/o the help of lawyers—using Title Companies.
Personally, I don’t believe RWM (right-wing media) when they claim Harris never handled criminal cases herself-—in court. Seems she was a prosecutor for years, and also seems I have read where she did handled her own cases. Info in an election year is not to be trusted, IMHO.
Most of my dogs have been very smart. How smart are humans when compared to Universe/Universal Intellect? How many here have ever been interviewed on live TV? How many here have had a reporter stick a mike in their face and ask them some questions.
She’s doing these interviews because the DEMs are desperate – desperation is not an indication of a “fix” being in. Terrible decision by her ‘n her new (probably) handlers.
She has two likely intelligent parents, so she’s probably intelligent in the narrow IQ sense (above average), enough to pass the bar on her second or third try. But early on she absorbed the lesson that she doesn’t need to actually work hard and think deeply in order to move up the ranks, and that is ingrained in her psyche.
There are a lot of similarities to Obama, except that he is able to at least appear to speak well. The ability to speak articulately on one’s feet seems separate from intelligence, probably partly innate but can be learned to some extent. She never had to make the effort and coasted by on her looks and willingness to prostitute herself to get ahead. Now she is in way over her head and floundering.
She sure comes across as stupid. To me, she also comes across as someone who has gotten by on her looks and connections for her whole life. For a certain type of woman, acting stupid is part of the game, so who knows.
I find it sickening to watch such a poor candidate being held up as an example of female empowerment. There are so many accomplished women who have struggled to be taken seriously, and here we have a simpering, giggling, hapless fool being presented as a female role model.
But maybe there is a silver lining. Obama was was also intellectually lazy, and yet because of his style and The Voice (as JJ puts it) he pulled off the persona very well. A lot of people still admire him, apparently. The Biden presidency managed to bring back the worst Obama policies while covering things over with the notion that good ol’ Joe was doing his best. Biden just barely managed to keep up the pretense that all was well in Washington. But Harris can’t do it. She does not have the skills.
I think the powers that be just assumed there was no end to the pretense they could get away with. But I think there is an end to it, people are not as stupid as the DC crowd thinks we are. In the big picture, I think what we are seeing is reality breaking through the pretense. I find that hopeful.
No matter how poorly Kamala “Cackling” Harris performs while being interviewed, it will not affect one iota the decision of millions of voters to cast their vote for the Cackler.
Demokrat voters would vote for a cadaver (a real one) if it was chosen by the democrat party elites (in the manner that Hillary and Kamala were chosen).
The media would go all out claiming the cadaver was in fact not a cadaver and just “misinformation” promulagated by the evil dumbpublicans. They would show a document, signed by 50 world class experts in medicine and from within the intelligence community that the cadaver was in fact a living, breathing person.
Videos and pictures would be produced by the media (given to them by their demonkrat party handlers) proving the candidate was alive.
And just about all demonkrat voters would believe what they are told and cast their vote for the cadaver.
Must admit, a cadaver will be incapable of saying something stupid, unlike the Cackler.
What I hear in her responses is an indifference to policy and a relentless focus on identity. She betrays no discomfort in reverting constantly, and with a little surprised laugh, to the idea that what’s important about herself is “who she is,” not the nitpicky details of what she might have the power to do and what its true effects would be. Hence the “I was raised in a middle class family,” and “The most important thing is, I’m not Biden, and I’m not Trump.” Her audience generally likes it, rewarding her with a relieved laugh.
She knows there are a lot of voters for whom that’s the whole ball of wax. She’s not the evil Trump, she’s not the senile Biden. They probably don’t know or care what effect she might have on policy, or they don’t have very clear ideas about what policies might produce what effects and why. Or maybe they think they have a pretty good idea what her core principles are and they’re OK with them, without her having to admit to them publicly.
Third possibility, there’s a vague assurance that she’ll go along with the powers that run her, who will pursue a program broadly popular with her supporters. Her personal qualities in that sense don’t matter nearly as much as the need to avoid Trump and Biden, and besides she’s female and black, yay for progress.
I’ll throw out my take on the ‘bad liar’ proposition which is what I think sinks her most of the time. I also think a lot of comments have touched on various aspects of it as well.
I think her word salads come from never having to develop a rich vocabulary of moderate sounding stock phrases, for most of the reasons people have given (advanced by patronage, only ever campaigned in a very liberal state, etc). She gives the impression of somebody speaking in a language they know reasonably well but they still have to think in their native tongue and then translate into what they want to say. I think this is also why she drops back to the identity answers because the words are more familiar and she’s less likely to screw up. I think there is a clip of her from several years ago going around talking about gun control proposals and her presentation was entirely different from the usual halting and timid speaking but she was likely not having to filter her comments in order to make them acceptable.
I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party’s call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the ruler of the Queen’s navee!
Senators once had to weigh what their party wanted against what their constituents wanted. They had to recognize that the party ideology wasn’t necessarily what was best for their state or for the country. That’s gone now, and Senators are more likely to be mindless rubber stamps for the party agenda.
Harris’s seat will probably go to Adam Schiff. Both are opportunists. Neither is a deep or unorthodox thinker — or much of a thinker at all. I don’t know if Harris has an inferiority complex. I think it’s more that she doesn’t know what she wants to do. She has to be told, as Biden was — and when she is told, she doesn’t pay attention, so nothing sinks in. Kamala’s “values” are keeping the party base happy. There’s not much more to her convictions or ideas or policies than that.
Harris failed the bar exam on her first try and passed it on her second try. If statistics are any indication, the test she passed was actually harder than the one she failed. I don’t know about all this “whoring” stuff. Willie Brown gave her jobs when she was his girlfriend and that was shameless, but has any evidence been provided of any other instances of such behavior?
In the spirit of Hanlon’s Razor:
______________________________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
______________________________________
I offer huxley’s Razor:
______________________________________
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by laziness.
______________________________________
Noticing the common term between the Razors, does that mean:
______________________________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by laziness.
______________________________________
Workable.
We have all heard the speculation recently that Biden is throwing Harris under the bus by reiterating her (probably perfunctory) involvement in the policy decisions of the administration, in order to frustrate any attempt she might make to distance herself from him.
Is it possible that her motivation in not distancing herself is in effect exactly the same?! From her perspective, Biden probably never “positioned” her for success… is she now positioning him to take the fall for her failure?! Is this her reflexive duck-and-cover action in the face of a loss she sees looming – just the latest instance of a nearly compulsive tendency to throw the blame for her failings on others?
I find it perfectly believable that Harris was smart enough to pass the bar thirty years ago, but too lazy, undisciplined, and (possibly) day-drunk to be able to pass it now. I think she’s probably had little in the way of intellectual challenges once she got on the first rung of the cursus honorum.
Arnold Schwarzenegger probably isn’t winning Mr. Universe or Mr. Olympia, this year, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t win in the 60s and 70s.
Multiple Personality Disorder?
This woman mopped the floor with Trump in the debate—looking confident ‘n in control the whole time.
Then in interviews she seems like a different woman. Has she been sitting down in these interviews that she fails in? Don’t believe I have seen any interviews and am going on what MSM & RWM are saying.
Wendy Laubach:
She is definitely appealing in that way to those voters. However, those are voters she already has in the bag. She now needs to broaden beyond that base, and I don’t see why these interviews would accomplish that.
She now needs to broaden beyond that base, and I don’t see why these interviews would accomplish that.
neo:
The most charitable interpretation I can apply is that perhaps Harris is working up to more challenging formats.
But she seems to be a slow learner and there’s not much time left.
“She now needs to broaden beyond that base, and I don’t see why these interviews would accomplish that.”–This part can perhaps be best explained by denseness. Not so much on her own part–I take her to be a sock-puppet who’s good at finding people who will “position her for success” if she obediently goes through motions–but on her controllers’ part. If that seems self-defeating on their part, well, I don’t know, maybe people willing to run things via an opportunistic sock puppet aren’t necessarily good at reading the room.
Or maybe we’re overestimating the judgment of the voters who will actually decide this election, and the controllers are reading the room just fine. I remain horrified by how well the tactic is working on college friends and family members who are neither evil nor stupid, but who seem all in for this and completely self-satisfied about it. Again, because Trump is Satan and nothing else matters now. Did they ever really have any solid views on how governments and society can and should work, or are they lazily swimming in a fantasy of equity where their true value will be magically rewarded by society even if they can’t get the money and recognition they want by trading fairly for it with free peers?
WSJ editorial on this very topic:
https://archive.md/nrLUG
I know this is an old thread but I want to revise the comment above in which I argued that Harris can’t be TOO dumb, since she passed the California Bar. Here she is proving just how dumb she can, in fact be. During a live broadcast of what was supposed to be an unscripted interview, her handlers were apparently talking too much to her through her earpiece — so, to quiet them down, she put both hands over her mouth and said out loud, to the handlers, while another interviewee was speaking, “It’s a live broadcast.”
She must have cheated on the Bar.
https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1844070610353418493?s=61&t=X63XGBTO2OYDsTR5w3ZPAQ&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Yep, me and Mrs+Whatsit are going to beat this thread to death. In today’s Federalist – you have to admire the bluntness of the headline:
https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/11/kamala-harris-is-too-stupid-to-be-president/
“I refuse to believe Kamala Harris is stupid. You don’t go to law school and pass the bar and not be able to argue a position,”
A friend of mine went to law school and told me it was easy. Said I should go to law school too and become a lawyer. I declined and went to graduate school instead. Everyone is saying how hard the BAR exam is. I took the Engineer in Training test for professional engineers. That’s an all-day test. Is the BAR exam 8 hours?
Is the BAR exam 8 hours?
==
In New York back in the day it was a 16 hour test. Taken over two days, 8 hours each.
==
Harris is 60 and may be deteriorating with age. The rap on her, true or false, is that she refuses to read her briefing books.
Ray:
The Bar exam is much longer than 8 hours. As Art Deco says.
In California it still is a lengthy affair. Take a look.
Even back in my day, there were states in which the exam was easier than in other states. California was definitely not among those easier states.
What law school did your friend go to? I have no idea whether it was easy or hard; I’m sure there are bad law schools, just as there are bad whatever schools. But in general law school is hard – or certainly was. There is variation, of course, but the sheer amount of picayune work makes it hard. It’s also for the most part, IMHO, dull. And it’s not just rote memorization. To do well, you have to be able to think.
That’s what makes Harris’ present seeming cluelessness so surprising and appalling.
I looked at the cali bar info. It didn’t seem that hard if you actually went to law school. Just like engineering isn’t that hard if you actually study. The only thing I ever found hard in school was French class.
One of the essay questions on the July bar test could have been lifted from something involving a relative of mine.
Harris has expressed some views that imply faulty legal education (e.g. warrantless searching of gun owners homes, forced buy back by executive order).
Chases Eagles:
The question I was answering was about the length of the Bar exam test.
Law school is very very different from engineering school. Most of the things you learn in law school aren’t very relevant to the bar exam. The bar exams are specific to each state; law school is more general in what you learn, except for smaller more local schools which do a bit more of the local stuff. Legal education tends to emphasize reasoning rather than the nitty gritty of state or local laws, and the hypotheticals on bar exams test a person’s ability to apply precedent to the hypothetical which is usually an entirely new situation that has elements of the old but contains a twist. Unless you know the laws involved, you wouldn’t perceive that just from reading the question.
And I don’t think Harris’ views imply faulty legal education. They imply a desire to ignore the law in favor of power. A lot of lawyers – especially ones in political office – share that desire.
Neo,
I don’t know which law school he went to in Texas. I was amusing by why he went to law school. After graduation he went to work for the gas company. I asked him what an electrical engineer was doing working for the gas company and he said lots of instrumentation. Apparently running a gas pipeline requires a lot of instrumentation. But, every time they wanted to build a pipeline, they would be sued by everybody. He got POed at the enviromentalists obstruction and became an anti-environmentalist lawyer.
@ Ray > “He got POed at the enviromentalists obstruction and became an anti-environmentalist lawyer.”
Somebody ought to make a movie!
AesopFan: Somebody ought to make a movie!
Well, maybe the new Matlock TV series will have an episode on this area, even if the ongoing subdrama seems to involve her desire to unearth Big Pharma corruption that ended in the death of her daughter.
R2L- I hadn’t heard of the series, so thank you, but I am fed up with the TV moguls taking a former concept that worked (old people being smart detectives as in “Murder, She Wrote”), or slapping on a familiar name (“Matlock”), while at the same time maintaining that their show has no connection with the original (“That means you won’t find out that Matty is Ben Matlock’s daughter or anything”), which would at least have given them some rationale for appropriating the name.
https://www.tvguide.com/news/fall-tv-guide-2024/
Also, since this is airing on CBS, any bets that “her desire to unearth Big Pharma corruption” will actually bear fruit, or will she be “surprised” to discover that her daughter’s death was not connected to any suspect medications at all?