Can my fellow DU fambly help me understand?

[Glamrock]

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this. But this is an actual true to god question. Okay, here goes.


Why Kamala Harris? I'm not seeing it. I'm sorry. I'm just not. Before you start lobbing accusations of misogyny at an ally let me make myself clear.

She's not even a one term Senator at this point. She's been a member of the federal gov't for less than two years. She has no committee memberships on anything relating to foreign policy. According to KamalaHarris.Org, her one legislative accomplishment is getting a law passed gauranteeing free tampons and pads for inmates. And while that is awesome, and I fully support it, that seems like that's about it.

She's been one hell of a questioner on the Judiciary committee, to be sure. Hell, she damn near brought Jeff Sessions to tears. But so did Franken.

She's had a very impressive career as a DA and AG. No doubt about it. But, we've never had a successful run for President based on the accomplishments of either of those offices.

Furthermore, she doesn't seem to be a particularly inspiring speaker, ala Obama or Kennedy. I don't get it. The only real argument I see is "we need a female",and "we need a minority".

Truth be told, I admire thee shit of this woman. She is definately strong, she's definately fierce, and she definately works for my own personal agenda. And I love her for it. Bit a presidential run at this point?

There are plenty of you who I respect the shit out of who are on the Harris bandwagon. Because of that, I'm researching and trying to understand. Please help me out here. That's all I'm asking. I hope it's not just because "we need a female and/or minority".

P.S. please please please do not answer this post with "what does so and, so bring to the table?" That's another discussion entirely. I'm really trying to understand the push for Harris. Those questions, while entirely legitimate, ain't gonna get me there.

Those that know me know this is a sincere question. I give a damn about the future of our party. Those who don't? I guess you'll have to either take me at my word, or flame away. Regardless, please try to sell me on her. That's all I'm asking.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. I like her very much. While there's something to be said for holding out

for someone with more federal government experience, remember that Obama didn't have very much either. I'm just waiting to see who formally declares before rejecting anybody out of hand.

[Glamrock]

2. I'm not saying I reject her Ocelot.

If she wins tbe primary, she got my support. That's a given. As far as Obama, he was so inspirational. Like once in a generation inspirational. So I get that aspect. I haven't seen her speak like that, and I've looked.

[True Dough]

27. I thought Obama was "once in a generation inspirational" too

until I heard Beto speak a few times. Then I thought, "Wow! Lightning has struck twice!"

[Glamrock]

28. Yep,

And if I heard Harris speak like that, I'd totally be onboard.

[safeinOhio]

3. Who ever is the nominee, I'll support.

I'll bet who ever it is will step up with more experience than than Donnie Rotten.

[Glamrock]

5. Me too man, me to.

I'm just honestly trying to understand the Harris phenomenon here on DU and in the media.

[snowybirdie]

4. Way too early

to focus on one candidate or another. I'm waiting to see who looks like the best bet to win! And we all need to back that candidate. Enough with party purity! Look where that got us.

[Glamrock]

6. As am I.

Every post regarding any presidential nominee is followed by numerous replies of "I'm for Harris". I'm seriously, legitimately asking why. Sell me on her man. With this many people supporting her, surely someone can give me an answer on why I should.

[oberliner]

7. Smart, progressive, outspoken, bold, respected

The list goes on and on.

[Glamrock]

13. Then please, let the list go on.

Because, barring respected, you just described me, and I'm damn sure not qualified to be the president.

No offense, but so was Kucinich. And Kerry. And plenty of others. What makes her strategically the best candidate? I guess that's what I'm asking. Because those same qualities are going to be held by most of the Democratic field.

[oberliner]

32. Experience as California Attorney General, Lifetime Political Activist, Good Campaigner

Confronted Trump in Congress, Aggressively Questioned Cabinet nominees, Accomplished Author, Successful Fundraiser, Great Public Speaker, Some time in Congress - but not a long-time Beltway Insider, Good at Messaging, Savvy with Social Media.

[Glamrock]

37. But will these things sway independents?

[oberliner]

43. I think she would be a strong candidate

I think she would energize turnout among Democrats, and I think she would appeal to independents.

[politicaljunkie41910]

57. People forget that California would easily be the population of 6 states if it were broken up.

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2018, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)

We don't seem to get any respect as long as we have only two Senators like everyone else including places like Alaska and Iowa. It is a highly competitive state for people running for public office. It's GDP exceeds that of many nations. A few years ago, it was on the ballot to break up the state into 5 separate states in which we would've been better represented in Washington with 10 Senators rather than just 2. The initiative didn't pass then, because people didn't have enough time to study the matter and see how it would impact us as a state, so people were afraid to vote for change without knowing what that change would bring. But I think it might be time to reconsider putting it on the ballot again so we can get the respect and the representation in Wash D.C. we rightfully deserve. It makes no sense that North and South Dakota both with the population of 150,000 or less would have 2 Senators each, twice as many as the entire state of California.

[oberliner]

67. Exactly

She appealed to a large and diverse population by winning there statewide.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

90. Can a state do that and have it accepted by the Federal government?

If so, CA should do it.

[politicaljunkie41910]

92. As I said it was on the ballot several years ago, but was defeated because people didn't have enough

time to digest what the ramifications of going from one state to 5 states. Also people were skeptical of the motives of those who introduced the bill. Dividing the state into 5 separate states requires plenty of time educating the populace and clearing up any questions or concerns people have, (what do they stand to gain; what do they have to lose, etc) and identifying the people behind the proposal and just what is their motive. The good part of it is that the entire state is livable and it's not like there are any parts of the state that are a dump or anything. People would pretty much remain where they were, and they would just redraw the various states boundaries, but we would have more representation in Congress to deal with our own interests rather than sending all our money to Washington and let them decide what's best for our state, which would then be 5 states.

I don't recall the question ever coming up that the federal government had the power to stop us should we have voted for it. After all, the state is very wealthy, sends lots of money to the federal government much of which gets distributed to other states; states which btw have a fraction of the population.

[politicaljunkie41910]

62. California has many of the nation's top universities and it is probably the most competitive

state, talent wise with Silicone Valley, the Bay Area, Southern Cal etc., so for her to be one of our only two Senators is a damn good accomplishment. This is a very competitive state, which I stated in a previous post below, so what she's accomplished as a woman and as a member of a minority, that didn't come easy, so I give her props for what she has accomplished, because as someone who has lived here all my life, I know it didn't come easy.

[Mosby]

21. Can a progressive spend their professional live as a prosecutor?

She backed the california 3 strikes law. Her republican opponent for ag actually ran to her left on the issue. Four years earlier she refused to support reforms to the three strikes law.

She supports putting parents in jail for their kids truancy.

“We are putting parents on notice,” she said in her inaugural speech as attorney general. “If you fail in your responsibility to your kids, we are going to work to make sure you face the full force and consequences of the law.”

That doesn't sound very progressive to me.

She supported for years the incarceration of Daniel Larsen even though he was innocent. Even after a judge exonerated him she filed appeals to keep him locked up.

She didnt join other ags to remove pot from the government list of dangerous drugs.

She tried to dismiss a claim by california prisoners over the use of solitary confinement, stating "there is no ‘solitary confinement’ in California prisons”, even though there is and the suit resulted in a landmark decision.

I could go on.

[oberliner]

34. Yes

She is an experienced prosecutor and a committed progressive which makes her such an effective potential candidate.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

38. Good to know, thank you!

[TexasBushwhacker]

46. She also gave Mnuchin a pass

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5980d18ee4b09d231a518205

[First Speaker]

8. She has about the same credentials that Obama had after the 2006 election...

...and no, I'm neither comparing them nor not comparing them. Just stating an empirical fact. If she has the Right Stuff, and the fire in her belly, I say--go for it. After Trump, let's face it, there's no such thing as an "unqualified" candidate. The race would certainly be fun with her in it...

[Glamrock]

11. True true

But nowhere near as inspiring. That's what he brought to the table.

[DURHAM D]

15. Uhh. No one was paying attention to Obama until he gave

a speech at the Democratic National Convention in prime time.

[Glamrock]

20. True true yet again.

But I've watched numerous vids of her speeches because so many people here I respect support her. I'm not seeing the same inspirational qualities that would let a voting population disregard experience.

[spin]

9. She is reasonably young, female, Indian American and black and has some charisma. ...

Harris is also well educated and was elected California's Attorney General in 2010 and reelected in 2014. Of course her political background includes her experience as a U.S, Senator.

Of course there are a plethora of well qualified Democrats who will be competing in the primaries to become the candidate for the Democratic Party in 2020.

[Glamrock]

26. Ok

She's a well educated minority female..... And? Why is she presidential material. What does she have that makes her a good presidential frontrunner?

[spin]

31. In today's world being well qualified and good presidential material ...

does not mean you will win. Hillary is an example of that.

Obama wasn’t exceptionally qualified but he definitely could fire up voters to support him.

Trump had no qualifications to be president with the exception of his experience at running a business. Surprisingly he won.

There are probably thousands of people in our nation that have the experience and qualifications to be president and would be absolutely great at the job. Unfortunately they would not be able to get enough votes to get the chance,

[Glamrock]

35. Exactly.

I'm not seeing how she fires people up. Her speaking ability (not a slam people. But not what you can call universally inspiring),her resume. Not what I'm seeing that can win.

[spin]

44. I haven't watched her speak often enough to form an opinion on her ...

skill or charisma.

If she runs I will get the chance to firm a better opinion during the primary debates.

I would like to see a candidate with a lot of leadership experience such as having been a governor and I would also hope he/she has some experience dealing with international relations.

Unfortunately all too often you have to take what you get.

[Glamrock]

56. There is too much at stake this time around

To take what we get.

[spin]

66. Good point. (n/t)

[OregonBlue]

54. so far I agree with you.

She seems smart and tough and qualified but she doesn't inspire me. If she got the nod of course Id support her but so far I'm not listening to her and going WOW.

[cloudbase]

10. I'm not thrilled about her

support for civil forfeiture. She was an AG, so that's somewhat understandable, but she won't get my support.

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Coupla questions . . . . .

. . . . do you mean support in the primaries or ever?

Since your objection seems to be her stint as an AG, who *would* you support?

[cloudbase]

70. My objection is solely to her support of civil forfeiture.

Her having served as AG has nothing to do with that.

Time will tell as to who gets my support. The field isn't even close to being set.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. You missed one of my questions:

". . . . do you mean support in the primaries or ever?"

[erronis]

12. Agree - a bit of time in the pits of politics would be helpful. Executive level experience is good

altho we've all seen those that had tons as executives that did a shitty job. And many that were just smart and understanding that excelled.

[Glamrock]

16. That's not what I'm saying at all, man.

I'm not saying she needs x, y, or z.

What I am asking is why does she have such a strong following. It seems like it keeps coming down to she's a strong minority female. I don't disagree. But I sincerely hope that's not what we are hanging our hats on. The future of this democracy hangs in the balance.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

14. I haven't paid enough attention to her, but...

... I hope we'll get a nominee without much "history" in the right-wing hate media.

I think Obama benefited from not being in their cross-hairs very much, at least prior to his Presidential candidate announcement.

Many voters will stick with their first impressions and overlook right-wing "controversies" like Jeremiah Wright if they've basically already made up their minds.

I also want the candidate to be very bright and qualified, of course.

[Glamrock]

17. Can't disagree with any of that....

[NotASurfer]

18. Also as a point of contrast

Republicans keep nominating The White Guy Who Seems Next In Line as a general rule (and the exceptions to that have been Dubya, not the brightest bulb on the string, and Donnie Two Scoops, who makes Dubya seem literate, compassionate, and statesmanlike by comparison)

That is not the primary worldview we bring to the party, our candidates reflect that - almost reflexively we want the opposite in some way of The White Guy Who Seems Next In Line

[Glamrock]

29. Okay. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

But what does she bring that's going to sway the independants we need and help down ticket races? We have got to be extremely strategic in this next election. It's winner take all.

[NotASurfer]

69. That's just an observation as to "why"

No opinion intended on whether she's a good or bad idea and I cheerfully admit we might nominate our own version of The Old White Guy Who Seems Next In Line

Still early in the vetting process, to a degree what's going on now is a process of evaluating whether a candidate has the capacity to rise to the level of the job of President, like Obama did so well. Not all of them will fit the image in everyone's mind or have the greatest capacity in everyone's judgement.

We know who's articulate. We know who's an effective critic of the Administration. I'm still giving potential candidates time to make a case that they have good ideas with a reasonable chance of carrying them through, ability to relate to a broad spectrum including moderates, and the capacity to inspire. I don't think anybody has made the leap yet, but a lot of 'em have enthusiastic support. Might be an early indication of an ability to inspire, might just be appreciation for standing tall against this particularly corrupt and partisan administration, can't say

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Review the background and history of Barack Obama

That will answer at least part of your question.

[Glamrock]

24. Nah man.

It won't. As I stated, Obama had once in a generation, inspirational speaking abilities. That is what allowed the voting population to overlook his lack of experience. That alone. If she had that quality, I'd be all in. Which is why I'm partial to Beto. That notwithstanding, this isn't about who I'm currently for. It's about why do so many here I respect back her? No one has been able to give me an answer so far. Holding out hope here....

[TexasBushwhacker]

50. I agree with you about Obama

After his speech at the 2004 DNC, and the public response to it, how could he NOT run in 2008? Deservedly or not, Beto is having his Obama moment right now. I don't know if he can win the nomination and I don't know if he can beat Trump. Until we get to the bottom of the Russian involvement in 2016 and prevent it from happening again, I don't know if anyone can beat Trump. But IMHO Beto has to take advantage of the popularity and publicity he has right now, just like Obama did, where it's running on his own or as the VP for a more experienced candidate. I just don't think he can sit this one out.

[Glamrock]

53. Agreed. 100%

We've got to be as strategic as possible. And we have to, have to pick the most inspiring candidates we can find. Two black folks I'm good with that if they fit the bill. Two white dudes. Yes, if they fit the bill. Etc.,etc, etc,. This BS of we don't need X or we need Y is beginning to legitimately freak me right the fuck out. We need the two most inspiring candidates we can find. Period. And so far, no one who supports her has been able to convince me DU frontrunner Harris is that person.

[lunatica]

23. Obama was a first time Senator before he ran

No one knew who he was until he gave a great speech at the Democratic Convention. Next election he became President.

[Glamrock]

25. Do you back her Luna?

And if so why? That's the question. I sincerely hope it's not the expectation that she'll be as inspirational as Obama at some point in the future.

P.S. I didn't like that last sentence. Sounds accusary. Not how I meant it. You and I have spoken in the past. You know I didn't mean it the way it sounds. Sometimes, unlike Trump, I don't have the best words. But you know me well enough to understand my point yeah?

[lunatica]

73. I didn't mean to sound accusatory at all!

I apologize that it sounded that way. I thought your questions and points were sincere and I just wanted to show you that being a new Senator doesn’t disqualify someone from running for President.

I lived in California when Kamala Harris was the Attorney General and she did a terrific job. She went after scum like sex traffickers and she was determined and relentless. There’s much more which you can research to see that there is no hint of scandal or illegitimacy in her record. I think she would be an excellent candidate for President. But I also think quite a few of the others are too. It’s going to be a really tough decision.

I don’t know if she could be as inspiring as President Obama, but We haven’t seen her give a national speech yet. If she runs we’ll get to hear her speak for the purpose of inspiring us and either she will or she won’t succeed. We’ll see.

Right now all we can go on for all the potential candidates is what we have seen of them.

[Glamrock]

75. Oh gosh!

No what you said was fine mama. I thought I came across as a dick!

Thing is Beto is such an inspirational speaker.
Bernie too. I know some here don't like him but he inspires a lot of young voters that's non debatable.
Joe has the experience and everyone loves him.

Kamala is smart, like the rest of the pack will be.
She's tough, like the rest of the pack will be.
She's a minority female, which is what sets her apart from the pack.

I'm so not ruling her out. I'm just trying to understand why she's so popular here. For the life of me, it seems as if it's minority female and she made Jeff Sessions cry. If that is the case, and I could be wrong, that doesn't seem to be a winning strategy.

[lunatica]

77. It seems like you're discounting many of the responses here.

Surely some of them have moved you haven’t they?

[Glamrock]

78. Not really.

Almost all the responses have been three categories.

1)She's smart and tough. (But so is the rest of the field.)

2) Waiting to see who else is running. But I like her, she's smart and tough.

3) She has a good track record in CA. (Which gives me more respect for her for sure)

I'm not discounting the responses. I'm just not seeing any that explain such widespread appeal for a junior senator. That's all.

[lunatica]

84. I guess I'm confused about what you're looking for

Along with most of the other possible candidates she’s just as good. And many are inspired by her. Like the rest of us you’ll have to decide what you expect when you want inspiration.

My preferences are fulfilled by just about everyone who is considering running. I want someone who goes way beyond inspiring us into actually moving this country into a future that benefits everyone. Their record is the thing that inspires the most.

[Glamrock]

86. Check out MaryMagdaline's post way down thread.

I guess that's kinda what I'm looking for. Something concrete and discerable beyond the same qualities the whole field will ultimately have. If that makes sense.

And thanks for being patient with me Luna. I appreciate the honest dialogue.

[rurallib]

30. I recall a story that when she was AG the state of California wanted the code

for the electronic voting machines. The voting machine company(ies) said NO! It was proprietary code.
Somehow it fell to her desk to resolve. She told them, no code, no voting machines in California. There was a standoff that the voting machine companies eventually capitulated to.

Now I begin to wonder about the incident. My memory may be playing a trick on me. I recall making a blog post about it, but now can't find it on google.

So when I read about that my immediate response was 'someone with some guts!' She is not my top pick right now. I think she needs a bit of seasoning. But she seems to have the guts to make tough decisions and the brains to have given careful consideration before she does.

Right now (with a long ways to go) I am giving Amy Klobuchar very serious consideration. Extremely smart, diplomatic and decisive. I like Jay Inslee's creds also, especially on climate change.

But Harris based on her stand on the voting machines that really caught my attention.

Corey Booker really got my attention with his response to Cornyn's "threat" in the Kavanaugh hearings when he looked at Cornyn and said "Bring it on!"

[StatGirl]

60. Could that have been Debra Bowen?

She was CA secretary of state in the mid-2000s. I don't know that the attorney general would get involved in certifying voting machines.

[rurallib]

68. I am fairly sure it was Harris. I had never heard of her before that

Living in Iowa I do not follow California politics at all.

All I can think is that as AG she brought suit to force the manufacturers to give up the software.

Sure sticks in my mind. I was so struck that someone would finally stand up to those election thieves.

The first I have ever heard of Debra Bowen's name is tonight.

I sent an email to a couple of friends telling them to keep an eye on Harris - I thought she had the stuff to go very far.

[lunatica]

74. She has co-sponsored a bill with Bernie Sanders to require paper ballots

https://gizmodo.com/the-only-election-security-bill-that-matters-picks-up-t-1828698233

Maybe this is related to what you’re saying.

Thanks for bringing it up because it made me go searching for it.

[msongs]

33. asked that once here. her attributes at that time were generic and nothing special.

by attributes I mean those ppl listed in their responses about her. has any thing changed to be more noteworthy?

[Glamrock]

45. I'm really starting yo get freaked out here msongs.

At this point, most responses are either, what did Obama have or a variance of she's strong she's female she's black. If that's how we're picking our nominy, we sre screwed.

[roody]

36. She failed to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and

one West bank for foreclosure violations in 2013. If you research the story, you will be very disappointed with her.

[regnaD kciN]

39. Frankly, one of the messes the Democratic Party has managed to get into over the past decades...

...has been pretty much bypassing one entire generation of officeholders, not seeking out potential leaders and preparing them for that role.

As a result, in our current predicament, in trying to find leadership/presidential candidates, we seem caught between two generations: the Olds (HRC, Sanders, Biden, Warren) who probably are past their time to be truly effective, and the Younger Generation (Harris, Booker, O'Rourke, etc.) who, although promising, really don't have much of a track record either in terms of electoral or legislative accomplishment. There's a big gap in the middle where, ideally, a 2020 candidate would have already emerged.

Obviously, we have to do with the slate we have, not the slate we wish we had (thank you, Ronald Dumsfeld), and I'll certainly back whoever gets the nomination, but I do wish we weren't caught between those two options.

[pnwmom]

42. At 54, Kamala Harris is in the middle. So is Amy Klobochar, 58. n/t

[Glamrock]

49. First of all

Ronald Dumsfeld!
Fucking brilliant play on words, bradda (or sista, as the case may be)

Second, you are absolutely right. Absolutely right. Which is why so many on our side were against Pelosi. While I fully support her as speaker, the argument can certainly be made that party leadership failed in grooming the next generation. Period. Granted, they were swimming against the tide since 2010. That notwithstanding, it was a failure of leadership to put the party in the position it is with regard to future leadership.

[pnwmom]

40. I think she'd be great in debates against DT. She'd mop the floor with him. n/t

[Mosby]

64. HRC kicked Trumps ass in the debates

And still lost WI MI and PA.

[pnwmom]

65. She won by 2.9 million votes

and only lost the three critical states by less than 80K votes. (And got only 70K fewer votes than Obama in 2012.)

This was despite voter suppression that affected millions of votes; James Comey's announcements about investigating her; and Russian interference.

Both the voter suppression and the Russian interference would have occurred regardless of what Democrat ran against Trump -- and each, by itself, was enough to flip the election.

Also, Jill Stein drew enough votes to flip the election, and she would have run against any Democrat we put up.

[Awsi Dooger]

72. Voters who decided based on the debates favored Trump

That may seem difficult to believe but I wasn't surprised. The national exit poll asked that question and Trump came out well ahead.

Trump was mangled in every debate but he always knew enough to emphasize job loss in Ohio. Time and again. Voters throughout that region were lapping it up. The GOP analyst on CNN correctly pointed it out every time in the debate aftermath. Everyone else was raving about Hillary but that analyst was saying Hillary may have won points but Trump won votes.

I had to agree with him. Somehow Hillary never understood the anger in those states. Trump unabashedly lied about everything and the sucker white vote in those states believed he would bring back every closed plant and every lost job.

Anyway, I would not be confident with Kamala Harris. I see anger and overreaction in her personality. I would worry she would turn off the same swing female segment who refused to support Hillary. It may not be popular but a charismatic white male is easily our best chance to knock off an incumbent.

[elleng]

41. Among the most important matters you raise, imo:

'she doesn't seem to be a particularly inspiring speaker,' HIGHLY important for my support.

Thanks, Glam.

[Glamrock]

47. Listen Ellen,

I'm just asking questions. Like you, I'm sure. But I'm not hearing any strategic points being made. And I'm starting to sweat fucking profusely. It seems like, at this point, the argument is, she's a strong, black, female. Holy shit, man! With the current American electorate? That's horrible strategy!

I'm kinda freaking out at this point. She's such a favorite here and no one seems to be able to give me a concrete reason. Our Democracy is hanging in the fucking balance. Even if Trump is removed, we are going to need someone to inspire the nation and heal old wounds.

[elleng]

48. With you 100%.

P.S. I recall recognizing my candidate wouldn't get to step one, after hearing Senator Obama's 2004 Dem Convention address. It's THAT important.

[Glamrock]

52. It is! It totally is!

Weve got to have a candidate that inspires more than ourbase! Period!

[guillaumeb]

51. Being inspirational is a good thing, but not the only or first concern.

Her ability in cross examination, and her ability to know what to ask, reveals her intelligence.


And perhaps we need a more agressive candidate in dealing with the GOP.


Trump is aggressive, as his performance in the GOP primaries showed, but his venality and sheer stupidity will be his undoing.

And so much depends on crafting a clear, concise message regarding what the Democratic platform is. And part of that is recognizing that much of the corporate media prefers soundbites to substance.

[Iggo]

55. She's a winner.

She's a rising star, wins everything she runs for, has been vetted from here to eternity, seems to be a very serious person (as opposed to the clowns the other side is putting up in recent years), speaks well, and is generally seen as being a true badass.

PLUS she's a woman.

PLUS she's a minority.

Disclaimer: I voted for Bernie Sanders once. I voted for Hillary Clinton once. I've voted for Kamala Harris six times and I ain't tired of it yet...lol.

[Autumn]

58. I really like her and you are right about her legislative accomplishments but to me

the lack of those aren't that important, what matters is a politicians history. We have a lot of good people gearing up for the run. There are only 2 considering it that I think should stay where they are. I can't sell you on her because I'm not fully sold on her.
I could really get behind Franken

[Glamrock]

76. I could have gotten behind Franken too.

[Kaleva]

59. Early specualation about who is running and who isn't is just entertainment at this time.

Support or talk up potential candidates that you like and don't worry about Kamala Harris.

[Ilsa]

61. She's smart and savvy. How about VP to

get her that foreign policy, etc, experience?

[Glamrock]

63. Not against it at all.

But I am definately questioning wether she could be a successful candidate for the presidency.

[MaryMagdaline]

79. I think people are looking for a strong debater and tough personality to face Trump

She has those qualities for sure. I see her as VP-type (go for the jugular). I don’t see her as inspirational. Effective and experienced enough? Yes. She can get help with foreign policy. I don’t see her having an emotional connection with the public, like Obama or Clinton-1 or bushies on the repug side. She would do well in a parliamentary system like Britain.

In sum: not my first pick but definitely qualified. If she doesn’t win, she sure as hell will make the primary winner a lot stronger during debates.

[Glamrock]

80. That's a damn good point.

Maybe someone else said something similar above. But you put into words I understand. Perhaps I'm just thick.

Okay. I can see that being a huge sell point. Thanks Mary!

[MaryMagdaline]

81. Thanks, Glamrock!

I like this post for respectful analysis of our candidates.

[Glamrock]

83. Thank you.

I hope everyone sees it that way. I am in no way, shape, or form trying to attack her or denigrate her. Nor am I trying to make a case for others.

Unfortunately, I haven't got very many replies from the self professed Harris backers. It's mostly been undecideds like me.

[bigtree]

82. we're going to be confronted with a whole host of candidates with more aspiration

...than actual accomplishments.

In Sen. Harris' case, there are myriad bills and amendments which have gone nowhere, but that is the fate of most initiatives from ALL Democrats in the Senate, not just Harris.

We rightly look for experience, but we also give much credit for what these candidates aspire to. In Sen. Harris' case, there are numerous efforts by the legislator to effect the changes she believes in. Those efforts are not hard to find, and I'm not going to try and summarize those on this thread.

What we will need is someone who can convince Americans that they are on our side, that they care about us, and have the intelligence, stature, ability to communicate, and the ability to bring people together to advance our progressive agenda.

My view is that the candidates, themselves, are going to need to convince folks like you of their worth. I'm going to let them take the lead on that effort, and not try and substitute my own noise for that probable campaign.

Sen. Harris will be someone I'm looking closely at, because she has many of the attributes which are personally appealing to my own politics. I very much like the idea of a woman president, so that may have something to do with my priority of choice.

Something that I think is often overlooked here, is that most of us aren't part of some campaign. We see these folks through the spectrum of our own challenging lives, and naturally make judgments based on more than strict qualifications, but rather, how these pols make us feel.

I feel very comfortable supporting Sen. Harris, at this point, in my fantasy election. If and when she gets up to speed to run, I'll equip myself with whatever her campaign has to offer, and whatever she conveys, and try and carry it forward.

[Glamrock]

85. Very thoughtful post. Mucho appreciado.

And, might I add, your noise is what I'm asking for.

[bigtree]

87. heh

...ballotpedia might flesh out her legislative efforts a bit for you.

https://ballotpedia.org/Kamala_Harris

...the senator is also a prolific tweeter, highlighting many of her policy initiatives and views on the site.

Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris)

...her website:

KamalaHarris.org

[Glamrock]

88. Grassy ass.

I've watched her speak on YouTube and I've been to your third link. Thanks for the other two!

[tonedevil]

89. I believe you are sincere...

the freaking out just seems silly. Between now and the summer of 2019 there are going to be umpteen Democratic politicians dipping their toes into the running-for-president stream. I'm not jumping on anybody's train right yet, but I'm not going to wash out someone who has been an effective, if not always how I want, leader here in Cali so early in the game. I'm not going to try to sell you on her, but I think you are wound up for no reason.

[Glamrock]

91. I've finally gotten some good answers

On this thread and others. They make sense and are solid as opposed to listing the same qualities the rest of the field will have.

Say what you will, but my freaking out is legitimate. At first it seemed like we were focused on an inexperienced junior senator for the sake of having a female candidate. That's why the freakout. I'm finally starting to get some positive feedback that's making me doubt that's the case.

And, for the record, I'm not against her either. I was just trying to understand why she has so much support. Hence the thread.

But I appreciate you trying to calm my ass down!