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.