There is nothing real about Kamala Harris. That is why her campaign died when she got bodied by Tulsi, a third rate cadidate, during the debates.
1
The twittersphere is burning bright with the typical fist-pumping indignation at her fall: racism, sexism, classism (for not having Bloomberg's cash with which to carpet bomb the airwaves), held to a higher standard by the patriarchal media (that's you, NYT), when in fact she was initially welcomed with great polling numbers only to lose them due to her lack of focus and articulation, as well as a poorly run campaign. And of course Gabbard is Trump's secret squeeze, working for Putin by shooting down the valiant Kamala. The progressive Left is no better than the right wingers who advanced Pizzagate.
3
Why any voter, or candidate, would hang their hat on polls conducted a year before election is well...crazy talk. Lets face it the DNC is all about the money and catering to the supposedly aggrieved left wing of the party. When I hear people say that they would vote for their neighbor’s cat rather than trump I know the Dems are in trouble, largely because of their relentless focus on money and polls. Unfortunately I may end up voting for the cat.
3
Harris’s problem is the same as the other candidates, an inability to get a grip on the asylum issue. That issue made Trump president. It may get him re-elected, warts and all. Let me suggest a slogan for the president: “Sanctuary cities look the other way. Shouldn’t you?”
3
This kind of misses the trouble within her staff and the lack of a vision for certain key locations.
2
"Ms. Harris...declined to take a position" really says it all about her campaign.
4
Trump did the right thing during his campaign (though most assuredly for the wrong reason). He never hired or subsequently fired "the handlers" and the media consultants and marched to the tune of his own drum, no matter how off-beat, out-of-tune and cacaphonous it was and remains. Harris seemed to be her own person when she started out, but was constantly shifting course until she finally came about in the wind and capsized.
4
Those who have seen Ms. Harris in action for years could see this day coming. Donald Trump has proven, unfortunately, that a candidate who lacks depth and conviction can win a general election and take hold of a Republican party that apparently has no regard for those values, but Democrats are still looking for candidates who have taken the time to study the issues and develop deeply held convictions and values about where to take this country. Kamela Harris has done none of those things. Her whole life has been spent thinking about the next election. I'm glad to see her go.
3
A very sad day for America when an obviously talented candidate with progressive positions and passion for getting things done doesn't work these days.
2
Good analysis. I've had the impression from the time she first ran for AG that she was very ambitious and was being constantly groomed for higher office, and in the process was very careful in positions she took--or didn't take. Even the liberal Sacramento Bee criticized her unwillingness to take clear positions on controversial issues. Her failure now is about more than just not being ready for prime time.
4
Yes, we did know her. That's why nobody said they'd vote for her.
She didn't hide very well, and post-campaign efforts to clean it up and hide the ugly back under the rug just won't cut it.
7
What a double standard KH has to live up to. No white man would ever be treated this way! She was supposed to right all the wrongs of the criminal justice system (because she's a "woman of color.") And she's too hard on criminals. Give me a break. Bunch of hypocrites.
4
Too obsessed with her identity and everyone paying attention to it. This is common on college campuses. At a certain point it's just narcicism.
8
Overrated by the media from the beginning. Even this article, claiming she was "crowned the perfect Democrat". Beto was also grossly overrated by the media. Having a great rally on the day you announce, or great local support, is meaningless in the long term. It's a big country. On the other hand, I do think she has potential and she shouldn't be permanently written off. It would be nice to see candidates like this get more seasoning in other parts of the country & not just DC. For example, Obama had his Hawaii base but also built a very solid base in Illinois.
2
Not sure many of us want to know anymore. "I was that little girl" was a divisive individual and seemed unsure of her stances- going as the wind blows.
8
The appealing thought of a black (or biracial) woman making minced meat out of a president reviled as a racist and misogynist propelled her candidacy. Fortunately, this unhealthy impetus (and symbolism) did not prevail here. And we are in a better position now to reach out to the other half or more of the country that many liberals have used to elevate themselves (morally and intellectually... they're usually doing all right financially).
There are nearly as many independents and non-affiliated voters as there are democrats and republicans combined. And they are no fans of partisan politics; the non-voting half of our voting age public feel this way even more so. Most of this country is not as hateful toward Trump as are many of the Democrats who now propel their party. IMO, Bernie or Tulsi would be more inclusive, get us out of this vindictive, close-minded spiral and replace Trump in the process.
3
Sen. Kamala Harris was not an attractive candidate because she often waffled on issues, or refused to take positions altogether, especially early in her campaign.
"We should have that conversation" was her response when asked, at her CNN town hall in April 2019, about whether our most heinous criminal --like the Boston Marathon bomber -- should be allowed to vote.
"I support that we study that" was her reply when asked about the issue of financial reparations to descendants of American slaves.
A strategy of caution, to tendency to focus-group test every issue, might be tolerated in today's California, where the Republican Party is quite weak and the Democrat (usually well financed) wins no matter what. But it is typically not tolerated in national politics. National candidates are usually rewarded for strong stands. (Ronald Reagan, another Californian, is perhaps the best example).
In California politics, Harris was never held to task for her waffling on issues, or her refusals to take positions. Her intrinsic caution was never battle tested. For example, during her Senate campaign in California, she faced no consequences for her refusal to take a position on easing the state's controversial three-strikes law -- even though she was, at the time, the chief law enforcement officer in the state.
This wasn't a good foundation for a national campaign.
2
It is difficult to recall, even at this short remove, what Kamala Harris stood for. She was accurate in her withdrawal speech that she did not have the resources to wage a successful campaign, based as it was on nothing. This could be attempted by Hillary Clinton in 2016, who by that point had marshaled resources and elite support sufficient to win through brute force, although ultimately against all odds thwarted. Even this was barely enough to get past her issues-based insurgent opponent Bernie Sanders in the primary without the help of superdelegates, then as now there for the sake of the enduring fallacy that a popular candidate like Sanders surely can not win.
1
With all due respect, this opinion did not convey why Ms. Harris' campaign collasped. In my opinion, Ms. Harris was neither a strong candidate or was she electable. 20 candidates running for President of the U.S., really? That process needs to be redefined altogether, because it's disgraceful to the American people, at this point.
2
As was brought up in another recent NYTimes article, the glaring character flaw is her blind ambition--she seems to only be interested in her next job! She says whatever she thinks will sway her listeners and reflects zilch on the inherent conflicts of her different positions. Her campaign and ideas were confusing to any thinking person, aside from the clear goal that she wanted to be President. This was fully exposed and will follow her for years to come.
5
KH when she entered the race wanted to follow the Obama model. Obama entered POTUS race when he became first term senator and he didn't have a whole lot of negatives as a senator (voting for various issues, for or against). It was a perfect entry, unfortunately, whoever gave her advise on printing those T-shirts early and SELLING them on website made a poor judgement besides her taking that cheap shot at Biden doomed her. It was a momentary euphoria that her numbers climbed and then tanked.
3
The notion that shes being criticized as ambitious because she's female is silly. Caesar suffered some really unkind treatment in the Senate. And, notwithstanding Marc Antony's funeral oration, he was an exceedingly ambitious man.
I know, that was then and this is now. And nakedly ambitious suits are effusively praised in all the media now, while women are wholly disrespected. Not.
1
The democratic donors are starting to wake up to the fact that the current crop of democratic candidates have no hope of defeating Trump. Harris is among the first to see the money dry up and decide it is time to cut bait and go home.
Obviously, the democratic party has lost its direction. The Obama/Hillary era ended with Trump but leadership and the liberal money crowd have not recognized it yet. The Party needs to look for an older moderate democratic who appeals to Trump's conservative working class base and can run as an DC outside. Otherwise, we will have Trump for four more years.
1
A thought - Kamala ran as a Black candidate - but she was raised by an Inidan single mother. Perhaps her closest analog in national politics is South Carolina's Nikki Haley, not Barack Obama.
1
A tumbleweed that rolls in whichever direction the political winds blow. Yes, you got to see the real Kamala Harris.
4
Kamala Harris lacked a message. The power of Warren's two-cents tax is it's brandable.
1
Just imagine that ideas, conviction, and character actually matter more than the superficialities of whatever identity categories a candidate checks off. When will we learn?
4
Seriously. All these think-pieces and ruminations are just trying to justify their own existence. People were excited for the *potential* of a woman of color taking the mantle, but once it became clear Harris is unqualified, people moved on immediately.
Identity politics claims an outsize influence in this cultural moment, but people still won't sacrifice skill for gender or skin color. Not with this much at stake.
Harris's calculated political rise is an interesting and nuanced story, but her fall from the top is not: she fell because she doesn't deserve to be there.
3
'She was crowned the perfect Democrat for 2020. Here’s what doomed her campaign.'
Says it all right there. The 'perfect' anything. She has what on her resume ? She was a competent DA in SF, a competent AG for California. But let's be real here. She's been a senator for what, two years ? She's inexperienced. Too much, too soon. She's never taken the time to forge her own identity. To anoint her as the 'perfect' Democrat was a bit of an overreach and probably puffed up her confidence a little too much. Let her become a force in the senate, if she has it in her, then see if she has what it takes to make a presidential run in '24.
1
The most puzzling aspect of Ms. Harris's run for the Democratic presidential nomination is the patently inadequate singularity of the experience on which her entire public life was built. As a
standard, law-and-order prosecutor, she was little more than an incarceration advocate. With nothing else by way of vocational background to offer, she even doubled down on that narrow, troubling identity to make it her very slogan—“for the people,” and that she’ll “prosecute the case” against DJT. Doing so only served to remind Americans at every turn exactly who she is and how she got here. And then what? Did she really believe that a plan to defeat this noxious man is all that’s required to competently assume the presidency? Americans—and especially Democrats—have to stop lionizing prosecutors and elevating them to higher political office under the delusion that they wear the white hat and are responsible for making us “safe.” They do neither.
1
Her attack on Biden over his comments on forced busing did it for me. Anyone who lived through Boston's forced busing era as I did knows it was a disaster. To attack Biden on this issue was contemptible. Now Senator Harris can return to the senate and begin voting again, something she and several of the present Democratic candidates have done little of lately.
4
The woke folk think it's because she's a woman of color. She was too smart and accomplished for the crowd. Sadly the real reason for her failure was her total inability to communicate a message in a likeable coherent manner. Like Trump, she was her best on the attack, not so clear on the concept side. Her parallel failure to get a grip on her campaign reflected her lack of organizational skills. We haven't seen the last of her, down the road she'll get the nod.
2
I'm happy she's out. She is a fake progressive who threatened to put parents in jail for kids missing school. She also locked up thousands of minorities for marijuana offenses.
I don't care if the person is moving selling tons of marijuana, they should not be prosecuted for selling a plant.
2
I haven’t read all comments on this story, but many of the ones I have read share a single characteristic; they lay the blame for her failure on things that, while true, (not having the management skills to run a campaign, her finger-in-the-wind opinions, et al), they ignore the most obvious: her insistence on reparations.
3
As State A.G. Harris looked the other way as the heads of Edison and the Public Utilities Commission illegally colluded to stick the ratepayers- instead of the shareholders-with the cost of the San Onofre nuclear power plant shutdown.She should be asked why no criminal charges were brought against the perps who committed one of the biggest rip-offs in U.S. history.I guess that's how you become a U.S. senator.
1
The press is choosing our candidates. Harris got press for her line on Biden but never another story until her campaign started to implode. The "top 3" get endless press and they could be our weakest candidates, one is too old and ever more mentally challenged, one is too much a scold with little ability to actually change any minds, and one is too caught up in tax the rich when raising taxes is almost impossible in Washington.
I say good riddance to her. I'm from California and voted for her twice (Attorney General and Senator) but I didn't get a sense of her until she ran for President. I find her snarky, entitled and without substance. Ask yourself what she stood for. Her campaign was full of empty slogans which she delivered with the conviction of a forced confession. There was no there there.
When she took on Biden in the first debate, she did it as a prosecutor, not as a candidate trying to push a vision for the future. It was a "gotcha" moment that ultimately backfired. She came across as mean, not someone ready to heal the country.
Exit right Kamala. And please don't come back.
13
Does Kamala Harris know the real Kamala Harris? She couldn’t seem to figure out who she was or who she wanted to be.
5
Yes we did. She is a coporate sellout with no core values. Pure and simple.
5
She coulda been a contender if she had embraced her role as Cassius in a more authentic manner. According to this piece, she is just another wannabe, grasping for a breakout moment. Life imitates art in such a pathetic way. More Nora Desmond than the greatest Roman of them all.
2
Credit where credit is due... Tulsi Gabbard did the Democrats and this country a favor by burying the phony that is Kamala Harris. I don’t see Gabbard’s name once in this piece however... big surprise.... DNC better take note. People are sick and tired of the establishment, forced narratives of hollow virtue signaling and use of the “liberal” mainstream media as the PR team for your anointed politicians.
8
This was the dumbest Harris analysis I've seen. Her candidacy died because the campaign was a toxic civil war. her sister, her campaign manager, staff treatment, jealousies, trying to "shape" her message were all a disaster. They tried that with Al Gore, Jeb Bush, all the loser candidates. She seems like a smart and strong woman. They should have let her be Kamala and stayed with generalities that a majority of Democrats could support.
"Look at Bloomberg's ads. Perfect!'
1
I wanted to like her. She is very chic.
But her weird love of bussing and strange attack on Biden for it, seemed disingenuous to say the least.
There is way better stuff to get in Uncle Joe’s face about; Anita Hill, unforgivable student loans with undischargable debt, his coddling of credit card companies and his monologues on record playing black parents.
3
All I know about her positions is she wants to bring back forced bussing. That was a deal braker.
3
Smart. Thank you.
Our best presidents have been unifiers. I didn't follow Harris's campaign too closely but the one consistent message I got was that she was a divider. She was confrontational and controversial in a way that energized her base but got her enemies' backs up. Glad she's gone from the race.
50
Kick her when she's down?
This was a column about California, not Kamala Harris.
4
She is a highly intelligent, capable individual who will learn lessons from her recent efforts and return to the spotlight where she should be in the near future. Her public voice and thoughts are necessary. She will be more formidable as a result of her analysis of what occurred and why it occurred. We need to get past this all or nothing mentality and realize that true leaders of all levels have learning curves. What separates her from many others is her ability to think and learn - it’s what we should expect from all leaders, not “instantaneous perfection”. JFK learned and applied lessons from the Bay of Pigs episode when faced with the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is a steep learning curve, but its necessary. Senator Harris clearly has the ability to learn and move on. Time will tell. In the meantime, we all face fundamental issues regarding how we as a Nation wish to operate, which that require our attention and effort.
2
When did Biden, who doesn't seem to be able to put sentence together in a debate, become a sacred cow that a smart articulate candidate like Kamala Harris can't criticize? They keep harping on her bussing experience that she threw at Biden. She should have thrown more at him. How do mediocre men like Biden get to run for the Presidency while Brown women like Kamla Harris have to be super duper while taking dumb criticisms from people who spew out ignorance having never held any high positions in their lives. With the kind of sexism and racism Democratic readers and voters are spewing on people like Kamala Harris they deserve Biden who is going to get chewed by Trump. Biden is a nice idiot. He is running for the Presidency, not Principal of a Nursery School. So stop harping on Harris' criticism of Biden. Biden should have left the race long ago.
1
To me she lost it when she attacked Bidden during a debate in what appeared to many of us in a nasty tone.The attack
on the former Vice President gave her a short prominence but on reflection we don't need another pit bull in the White Hose.
3
However slickly packaged a candidate may be, there is always something that reveals who he or she is. With Biden, it's that he wrote the 1994 crime act, which maximizes penalties and snatches Pell Grants from felons, and, a decade later, he kept the Ds in line for the bankruptcy "reform" act that tethers students to their student loans for eternity. For me, with Harris, it was her callous disregard, 10 yrs ago, of warnings from her staff to make Brady disclosures, which necessitated appellate courts to overturn 1000 drug convictions.
1
I’m sure I’m not the only One who sees this incredible public servant as the attorney general for whoever next president is. She has the intelligence and a natural bullshit filter that needs to be in a position of power to cleanse and truly drain the swamp of the GOP supporting criminals post trump
Thank you Senator Harris for being part of the process we are better for it now we need you back at home base
31
That's why she was doomed. She was too intelligent, honest and forthright for the American people and the brainwashing political system.
5
The good news is that she's got four more years to polish her credentials, carve out a specific strategy and then follow it.
The not so good news is that she's got four more years to polish her credentials, carve out a specific strategy and then follow it.
Because we don't have four more years to wait.
How about starting her run for president the day after she was elected senator?
How about strongly implying that Joe Bide was a racist because he opposed a terrible forced busing plan 45 years ago?
How about joking about smoking pot to ingratiate herself to listeners of a black radio station, while thanks to her people were rotting in jail for smoking pot?
I will stop now.
5
@Erik She was running for President BEFORE she was elected Senator!
1
Her debate with Joe Biden where she brought Busing. This is how out of touch the Liberals are. Can Liberals think of more strategic issues than Busing. Please!
3
Her signature issues seemed to be forced busing in schools and smearing Tulsi Gabbard to defend endless war. And her campaign went down in flames. Gosh, what a surprise.
4
It was the prosecutorial arrogance that condemned Harris.
2
Good Grief.
Her campaign was always doomed because she is a Black woman. The people in flyover country aren't about to put any woman in the Oval Office. Let alone a Black one.
Ditto for Pete Buttigieg. The folks in flyover country don't even want to bake him a cake. They sure aren't ready for a First Fella.
The house is on fire people. We have to be ruthlessly practical about who gets the nod. It can't be someone the middle of the country won't vote for.
4
@EK Democratic primary voters have no problem with a black women. At the first debate she was at the center of the stage because of her high polling numbers. People saw she was an empty suit, and her poll numbers plummeted. Stop blaming race for everything.
4
You have just stated an obvious fact that millions in the Democratic base don’t or won’t understand.
1
her ability to fool the majority of californians was not enough to "persuade" the majority of American democrats. There's a lesson here somewhere for ambitious californians politicians who reach the top by cozying up to the elite. Yes, Gavin, this message is for you.
3
When Ms, Harris began her run, this writer predicted in the NYT Comments section that she would fail to gain traction. It was clear from the beginning she had no sense of who she was, she only knew what she wanted.
The result? She came off like Hillary Clinton; fake, disconnected from voters, untethered to ideas and ready to change her mind at the slightest provocation if she thought it might gather a few votes.
Her poorly run and badly organized campaign team was just an extension of her character. How could someone who didn't know what they wanted, know how to lead?
3
She lost me because of the stupid things she decided to trumpet and the good things she apologized for.
since when is being a law and order guy or gal a bad thing for a prosecutor? when did my party -- the democratic party -- become the go-to place for criminals -- to the extent that mayor deblasio has all but deeded the city to the criminal underclass and their families here and all over the world.
she should have said there nothing inconsistent with being both for compassion and liberal social policies and maintaining an orderly, civil society. some of us think you can't have one without the other.
but what did she choose to trumpet instead? Busing. as if to drive the last white people from the party. something like 25% of white men voted democrat in 2016. are we aiming for zero? and worse, she chose to announce her support for busing as a litmus test via a barely disguised premeditated attack on that most decent of men, joe biden, in a debate. that was disgusting. and it was downhill from there.
4
It's not just California.
There are a lot of people in this country who fear "uppity" women.
Mrs. Clinton suffered mightily from this.
1
@A. Stanton
"Uppity"? Harris never gave off that vibe. She was all too willing to please and be whatever is needed to get votes. The fact that we both see her in two different ways speaks to the failure of her campaign and ultimately how she presented herself.
I wonder how many of the writers of the negative comments would have enthusiastically supported her if she was the democrat candidate?
There never was anything "promising" about this downward tough cop's dream of becoming President.
2
"...fourth even in the Bay Area, where they knew her best."
And you can ask, "Did we ever know the real Kamala Harris?"
Apparently some of us did and we didn't care for what we knew.
She pirouetted her way through issues, "Tough on crime" before trashing Biden for being...wait for it, tough on crime.
It is not that there was no "there", there. There was a real "there" and it was not particularly savory.
And, finally, left on her own, without her boy friends to aid and abet, she ran a campaign that produced headlines for its incompetence.
But don't worry Kamala fans, she plans to stick around and further promote the Trump campaign with her attacks on Democratic candidates still in the race.
2
I think the idea that political canvassing is 'complicated calculus' is immediately shot down by the Forrest Gump appeal of Buttegieg. It's not complex. It's only PR. Mayor Pete is a simpleton with a simple message - hence his popularity. Harris, a far more formidable poltician, will stay active in the long term and use her considerable talents to fight for genuine change. I am so grateful for that.
What doomed her was her divisive, race-baiting comment to Biden where she played the victim / race card. Most people see through that for what it is - self-serving theatrics. She probably did nothing other than galvanize support for Biden - and probably Trump too. What a disappointment she turned out to be.
4
Kamala Harris pulled that little busing stunt on Biden to weaken him with black voters- all she did was show them that she was more ambitious than patriotic. Democrats know exactly who Joe Biden is- he will make good decisions and choose good people and up until that very moment, Harris was his top VP pick - and then she self immolated...
1
@Deirdre
I still think that she will be a good VP pick.
Beto was " crowned the perfect Democrat" by that obsequious magazine cover story and by divine inspiration as well. So what
1
Seems we DID know her: an unqualified candidate.
And who, exactly, “crowned” her? Someone who didn’t know her, and also magically thought America is ready to elect a smart black woman president.
This is what happens when journalists, pundits, and analysts go for a “story” instead of going for the facts.
2
"She was crowned the perfect Democrat for 2020." Who crowned her? Oh, yeah, the media. Go figure.
5
Excellent piece
Met her many times socially in the Newsom as mayor era and was always struck by her immediate bully in your face mixed with smugness with which how she began even a social conversation. Many friends observed her public screaming at a distraught befuddled shopkeeper at the tie counter at Nordstroms, "Do you know who I am?", sort of tells it all
8
It’s Democratic candidates like Harris that pressures Pelosi to launch impeachment proceedings against her better judgment.
1
Do we know any politicians?
Senator Harris is the only black woman in the Senate, is highly educated, feisty individual who has a long way to go.
Yes, she is ambitious , tell me which Presidential candidate is not ?
We should allow her to gather herself after deciding to drop out of presidential race.
1
She was not a very impressive DA and has done little as a Senator. As a presidential candidate she was unprepared and had very big ideas. A huge disappointment.
1
Her nonsense “mandatory federal bussing” attack on VP Joe Biden in the TV debate doomed her candidacy. It went downhill from there. And now, thankfully, it’s over.
4
Did not vote for her for Senator based on record as attorney general, and did not think she should start running for President a little over two years after becoming Senator.
I am considered a liberal/ moderate Democrat based on economics and most social issues, but won’t vote for someone just because of race or gender.
I suspect there is a lot of fodder out there for Republicans.
3
A lovely valediction for the departing Harris, written, it would seem, by her future campaign manager or at the very least with the aid of the latest AI speech-writing technology funded by two also-departing titans in their field - Page and Brin. And Kamala makes three. Sad day for the nation. T&Ps.
On another note- when Harris goes back to the senate her star will shine bright during the impeachment trial. This woman is going to take it out on republicans and her performance is going to be stellar - get focused Kamala
It’s redemption time!
49
@Deirdre
Indeed, the only thing she excels at is "taking it out" on people who disagree.
Some politician you've got there, CA. Keep her.
5
I suspect she faced the challenge that many moderate (on particular issues) Dems face - the party has left her behind and rendered her experience a liability rather than an asset. She seemingly cannot embrace her experience as a prosecutor in a party that’s all about criminal justice reform. It’s a shame - it’s the reason I had high hopes when she entered the race. But by not embracing who she’s been and how she got here, she just seemed phony and self-serving. That’s what you get when you start imposing purity tests on your candidates.
20
Earlier this year when the NYT ran a piece on Harris pointing out her terrible history on criminal justice I thought her chance of being a viable Democratic candidate was doomed; and so it came to pass. No real surprise.
1
Harris didn't have charisma or compassion. She was sharp but appeared heartless. She pandered to Blacks and women and appeared to blame all problems on whites and men. I don't expect women to be meek or quiet but like the Tin Man, she didn't have a heart. So people couldn't connect with her emotionally. The focus on issues misses the point: voters want to be able to connect to the humanity, emotion and passion of a candidate. She was lacking. Like Hillary. Too shrill, too righteous, too narrow in perspective and too sanctimonious.
7
@ Paul; you’ve got it exactly right, too sanctimonious, too shrill, ego driven, .....what makes her think after only 2 years in the senate she is ready to take on a bid for President? As a California liberal woman I was very put off by her non engaging expression of her confusing platform. Warren has and expresses passion that comes from her heart. I want honesty first.
3
Kamala Harris showed us nothing of her personal beliefs or plans other than her staggering ambition. Prosecutors make lousy candidates - they become the proverbial hammer in a world where problems are like nails. Next time, Kamala, work on creating real policies, believe in something or someone other than yourself, and remember that everyone is not a potential criminal.
1
Contrary to mainstream media’s wants and desires she was never a contender and at best a vice presidential candidate though her demeanor was that of a “Debbie downer”.
3
When President Buttigieg asks her to serve as his Attorney General, we’ll be lucky if she says yes – and steers this nation back to the rule rule of law.
1
She'll make as great attorney general for President Biden.
3
Please run w Joe as VP. What a wonderful ticket that would be! Our country needs YOU
Close your eyes. Can you hear Joe Biden’s voice? Bernie Sanders’? Elizabeth Warren’s? Yes, yes and yes. Not so Kamala Harris. The first three have outsize personality, instantly memorable faces, voices (as did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama). Kamala Harris did not leave nearly as strong an impression. Her problem wasn’t her positions—which were vague—it was branding.
2
I don't understand the headline: who crowned her the "perfect" Democrat?
She was under-prepared, her positions changed like a weather vane, and the shabby treatment of her campaign staff disqualified her from serving as the standard bearer of the party that is supposed to be the party of the worker.
4
If Harris was thought to be the perfect Democratic candidate, then she is actually the symbol of the cluelessness of leading Democratic politicians.
5
Young, black, female, articulate < being good at your job, standing for something. Thank you KH for unknowingly restoring a political ideal.
2
Obama was the first African-American president largely because he never ran as an African-American. He ran as an American who just happened to have been born black. I voted for him in part because I thought he would be a great role model for young African-Americans. I also liked what he had to say.
Hillary Clinton on the other hand could not stop talking about being a woman and this is why she lost the electoral vote in those crucial swing states.
Kamala Harris suffered from the same misconception...that she should be elected simply because of her racial and gender characteristics.....without developing a platform that had substance beyond her identity and the superficial fact that she was better looking than Donald Trump.
The problem with identity politics for minorities in this country is that a majority of people in this country are white. The rotten fruit of the tree of identity politics in this country is Donald Trump. Women and minorities need to run on issues that unite the country rather than divide it if they want to be the president.
The reason Andrew Yang is still in the race is because he runs on issues rather than his racial identity. Likewise, Bernie Sanders has never made a big deal that he happens to have been born Jewish.
5
It's all easy to "jump" into the race and have thousands of so- called spectators at your first rally,but extremely difficult to maintain momentum. Especially when the finale is 18 months away. So, that did it to Kamala Harris. She jumped into the race too soon without many accomplishments to show for and with lack of consistency in making her pitch. Blow hot,blow cold was her strategy in the debates and Town Halls. Her message,jokes and laughter seemed fake and people were not ready to buy any of it ,especially in such a crowded field. In an election where sadly money rules, that was another reason for her downfall. I am not sure why other lack luster candidates like Tulsi Gabbard and Cory Booker are still hanging on. Clear the field so people can assess the candidates without getting run over. Kamala Harris still stands a chance as AG or VP- jobs which do not require grandstanding but only qualifications befitting the role.And she is qualified for those.
3
I took a strong dislike to her when she attacked Biden for not supporting forced bussing.
6
It was her nasty attack on Joe Biden‘s character that doomed her candidacy.
5
I never liked Harris because she came across as pushy, rude, loud and disjointed, just like we have with our dear leader. After listening to and about trump for the last four years I really want to see a statesperson in the White House, without baggage so there will not be ongoing investigations for the next four years. Amy klobuchar is my pick however whomever the DEMs put up has my vote.
4
I don't know anyone in my sphere who thought Harris was the perfect Democrat; most of us had never heard of her. But I can tell you, she was no Obama with a couple of years in the Senate under her belt before she threw her had in the ring. The other junior senators need to heed this advise too: You are not Obama; he had a message, you do not. Get back to the Senate and do your job there.
5
The “one metropolis where politics is a sport?” There’s a small metropolis on the shores of Lake Michigan. I believe it’s called Chicago.
2
I think the column makes a great many valid points. For me she displayed no leadership skills. It felt her passion for running was anger cloaked in “justice”. That’s neither productive or inspirational. The people always know best...
3
On paper she seemed like an attractive candidate but every time I heard her talk, she had the canned responses of a politician.
That may have worked in the early 2000s but not anymore.
2
Kamala can still be of great use to the Democratic Party... she should immediately replace Chuck Schumer as Senate Minority Leader. Schumer is not a bold or compelling leader, and he has never been able to stand up to Mitch McConnell. He's not effective at unifying the Senate. Shaking things up, and bringing in new leadership is exactly what the Democrats should do to demonstrate they are serious about winning in November 2020. Kamala is smart, she's tough, she's articulate... she demonstrates the leadership skills lacking in Schumer. Schumer's "feelings" are not at stake here... if Democrats are honest about Schumer's leadership, they will recognize he needs to step down. Winning in November 2020 has to be our priority.
2
So, according to David Leonhardt's nearby column, it'a vision thing. And Kamala Harris really didn't have one. Well, maybe Bloomberg will have a vision that is attractive to a somewhat fickle Democratic base. One can live in hope.
2
I picked her 8 months ago but since then listening to her speak she is not the right candidate. She was impressive in questioning KAVANAUGH but given a broader field of challenge she fell way short.
2
As a Californian I have long ago heard the comment that she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. This failed campaign revealed that fact to all Americans. Should be an interesting Senate re-election campaign.
6
[[The penchant for zigzagging that marked her policy positions carried over to strategy, as she veered from positioning herself as the fallback candidate for the left, when conventional wisdom suggested the front-runners might falter, to fashioning herself as the option for moderates when that appeared a more likely lane. Her carefully crafted image crumbled under the scrutiny of a national campaign. The bright beacon of hope in a dismal time dissolved into sound bites and bumper sticker slogans. “Justice is on the ballot.” “Dude gotta go.”]]
Sounds a lot like Hillary. Sounds bites. Always pivoting. Bad slogans. How the Clinton campaign could design a logo with Rosa Parks in the back of a bus is beyond me.
6
Other than the fringe left, who among us would not be pleased with a President like Harris? A pragmatic intelligent democrat from California. The Cable media and the fringe left will now dominate the conversation even more. Before you vote in the primaries, please consider the origin of your latest beliefs.
1
I didn't think we needed a prosecutor president.
Personal distaste came in with her repeated account self dramatizing her integration experience. I wasn't impressed by the notion that it was 'about her'.
I think you are missing a few points.
For one, attacking the Vice President on his stance on school busing - she did not really think she was going to score with that, did she??? There are no points to be had against Joe Biden here.
And then her record as DA and AG. These kinds of performances, combined with the infinitely larger powers of the presidency, made me extremely uneasy.
So her issue is not that people did not know her well enough. Her issue is that in the Bay Area, they did. And when the rest of the country got to take a second and third look in the debates, I don't think they were impressed.
Careful throwing rocks at a Joe Biden when you sit in a much worse a glass house yourself. Some cute cheap shots in the first debate - and that was about it.
Something else she should have learned from Hilary Clinton. If you can't put together a well working campaign team - how exactly do you plan on running the US Administration???
7
I've been observing the political scene for over forty years now.
And, while I knew who Senator Harris was, there is only one thing that stood out.
Her incessant haranguing and practically yelling at Jeff Sessions, an older gentleman probably almost forty years her senior, while he was testifying in the Senate because he didn't answer her questions fast enough. It was rude, boorish, and unbecoming of her as a US Senator. To say nothing of the fact that that type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable in civilized society.
That's what I remember.
13
This is an Opinion Piece after all. Journalists seem to get carried away analyzing at times. They are often wrong, just as the rest of us.
We all form opinions. Most of us are only in the Comment section and not paid for our opinions.
Senator Harris' aggression (such as to Biden and Sessions) was viewed by some as highly qualifying, and to others, like myself, disqualifying.
I'm glad Senator Harris has dropped out of the race.
8
Perfect? That's debatable, especially in hindsight.
Quintessential? Yes.
Every person who aspires to be President is, charitably...unusual, often across many dimensions. Their shared stand-out feature feature is ambition, often highly myopic. They are ravenous and like ravens, they are attracted to the shiny objects in their field of visions that they believe will get them elected. And like ravens, their plans are ultra-short term and crude.
Ms. Harris, like so many others, gauged the merit of her positions based on the applause-o-meter. If you craft your message to your audience, get a standing-O, you are awash in ego gratification. You now become that message.
Works well when preaching to the choir, but the same message may evoke a resounding "meh" from larger audiences.
Ms. Harris failed, principally, because too few Democrats swooned at her feet. It's nothing personal. It's business.
1
I just find it fascinating how no article on Kamala Harris' departure from the race will mention Tulsi Gabbard's brutal takedown of her at that debate. The metrics were there to see, in search traffic afterward, in Gabbard's bump in donors and polling, and Harris' immediate drop in polling from which she never recovered.
Yes, she ran a meandering and inconsistent campaign. To ignore the proverbial elephant in the room, though, feels like a deliberate choice and makes me wonder why that deliberate choice is being made.
It amazes and disappoints that candidates are often perceived for a single characteristic, i.e., Harris' seemingly tough questioning of witnesses had a flair for the self-promoting drama. The presidency demands a much greater grasp of self-understanding, ability to empathize, desire for world humane causes, to name a few. Harris showed little of these qualities in my view, and exhibited way too much immaturity in her pubic appearances and the way she laughed many times inappropriately, clearly uncomfortable in her shoes. (I'm not questioning her intention.) Truth is, most political candidates have spent their time pursuing ambitions, dogmatic opinions, instead of understanding themselves and, therefore, others within the framework of a more panoramic world health view.
2
It was never crystal clear whether Ms. Harris was a progressive or moderate on most issues. She disliked Trump with a passion and was never shy about expressing her hatred. Her fighter image was one that she cultivated but beyond ferocity, it was less certain what Ms Harris would offer as President other than appealing to those Americans who loathe Trump and were looking for a knock down drag out fight. Anger is not a policy and it's particularly tricky for female candidates to pull off well (vs male candidates) without falling into those heinous sexist stereotypes. A black woman faces even more unreasonable scrutiny. Hopefully, Kamala Harris, like any first time Presidential candidate, has learned something from their experience and will return in a future race as a better candidate.
"..Candidates come and go..." but it did not take long for another multi billionaire to disrupt the democrats running.
Pundits and arm chair quarterbacks will speculate. In my view Harris made the following mistakes:
(1) Taking a "pit bull" approach to her Democratic opponents. Candidates that do this may win points and a temporary boost in the polls- but the tarnish their credibility in the mid to long term. In addition her attacks were blatantly intended to secure political advantage.
(2) Weak defense of attacks against her track record as Attorney General.
(3) The perception that she would easily shift her positions based on opinion polls. This also undermines credibility.
Her primary strengths were her conviction, passion and strong opposition against the autocrat Trump and her obvious intelligence.
Having run for office only once, for the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 1992, I can attest how important it is to have an exciting campaign promise that stirs the spirits of voters.
Harris was disorganized and did not have one primary mission that fired up the voters to support her.
Harsh as it sounds, her strident sharp manner of questioning people in senate committees was abrasive and off putting. This style is just as unattractive with male candidates and comes off as arrogant and superior.
8
Personally, I thought she would have torn Trump to pieces in a debate. She had all the traits of what makes him nervous - black, a woman, touch and smart.
It is a shame that money is the reason that quality candidates, both GOP and Dems, cannot run or can't continue to run.
1
I have never believed her performances. She has always lacked authenticity, and I'm surprised so many people were fooled for this long.
6
I hate to say it, but the peak of her campaign was the day she announced she was running. She had so much promise and seemed to bring something new and different to a crowded and evergrowing democratic field. She captured people's attention (which isn't easy), and they were willing to at least hear her out, but she never delivered. I blame Senator Harris for failing to surround herself with strong advisers and consultants, and perhaps her first (and most costly) mistake was having her sister Maya as her lead adviser and unchallenged chairwoman.
7
I submit that the reason she had to withdraw was that she could not answer a direct question about what she planned to do about anything.
12
Just because one is an articulate, intelligent, capable attack dog...doesn't mean that one can actually GOVERN. We Dems should be thinking about a candidate with some proven governing experience--for the good of the country, as well as defeating the incumbent.
3
I always thought she would make a great AG for the next president, she seems more suited to that role.
What seems to not have received enough attention in the analysis of Harris' campaign is that she is an unabashed opportunist. She claims to "be a child of immigrants." True, but they both have Ph.D.'s, so this is no "rags to riches" story. She implies Joe Biden is a racist via his stand against busing. True he was against busing as federal policy, but not against it at the state level. And, off the debate stage, she agrees he is no racist. She took a page from Trump's playbook: start with something that is true (immigrant background, busing opposition) and distort it to one's advantage.
6
I'm glad Harris will remain in the Senate. She is excellent.
Kamala Harris' candidacy was all fluff and no substance, wrapped in a mantle of arrogance and privilege. She tried to hide her sins as a prosecutor. She tried to be all things to all people. She acted as if she was the chosen one. She attacked fellow Democrats instead of discussing Trump and his disastrous administration. Harris was a disastrous candidate; good riddance.
8
If you are a Democrat, you must be able to demonstrate an authentic reason behind your candidacy other than simply ambition.
Kamala Harris couldn't do that, despite her general acumen and intellect.
And her early broadside against Joe Biden did not wear well, I think she might have done better to attempt a "slow build" as opposed to trying to make an early splash with a cheap shot like that.
2
I still say I would have invested in a substantial amount of popcorn to see her debate #CadetBoneSpurs nose to nose. In these very pages I suggested back then that they might have to bring in a mercy rule - she would have crushed him like the bug that he is. We'll never know now, but I have hopes she ends up on someone's ticket as a VP come November.
"Her candidacy appeared to have no real rationale and no clear constituency."
She wanted to be the candidate and thought she fit a winning image. My liberal friends in California needed her to explain a pretty difficult position of being tough on crime but aware of the injustice of our criminal system. She couldn't do that and that should have been her starting point. Her swipes at Biden and Buttigieg in front of cameras were flailing. Can she clarify some key policy positions in the future so that we know where she'll lead us if elected? Maybe. Time will tell.
2
Kamala Harris did not succeed for the same reasons that many other very good candidates have not succeeded, while candidates who are unqualified have remained in the race: Your method for pre-primarying candidates before we voters get our say is very flawed. Four debates, with rules that guaranteed a name-recognition on the internet contest, one that is easily bought, as you can see by all the billionaires that are succeeding while candidates with definite governing abilities and/or relevant skills fail.
No Governor Inslee, no Kamala Harris, a failing campaign by Corey Booker, but surprise success by a mayor of a college town and three billionaires, to say nothing of a mystery campaign by Tulsi Gabbard who spouts crazy internet conspiracy theories that have the same source as those of the President.
We the People are the losers, the Press and the Billionaires are the winners. Change this or the country is doomed.
1
The number one quality required to win a Presidential election is innate likeability. Kamala Harris did not have that.
Being a "tough" prosecutor is a double edged sword. If anything, Harris appeared to have a distinct mean streak running down her back.
After the Hillary disaster, I would hope that the Democratic Party is able to grasp the likeability principle. It's super simple - if your candidate is not likeable, you will almost certainly lose.
I would say, that of the whole bunch, Sanders is the most likeable Democratic Primary candidate. Why? Because unlike Harris, he never pretends to be something he is not. Everyone hates a phony politician.
What about Trump - isn't he a phony? No, he is a liar, which is quite a different thing, and is so common among American politicians, that it is pretty much ignored.
4
Adam Schiff was a prosecutor and although many people dislike his strange mannerisms and slick comments, he is a savior for now, for all who hate Trump.
Likability is very important. Obama was very likable. Romney and McCain not so Just take a step back further, Bush 43 was more likable than Al gore. If you remember the polling question on who you would rather have a beer with, Bush won hands down. Miss Harris was not very likable. And add to that what was her message? Early in her campaign her wrote answer was we should think about that. Whether it was reparations or free healthcare for illegals or Medicare for all, she never had the guts to take a stand on anything.
2
Harris's problem was that she comes from an executive branch background and was trying too hard to battle Warren and Sanders, who are campaigning on legislative policies, on their terms. She did well against those campaigning on the executive side (of which Biden and recently Buttigieg are the only real contenders), but it seems like just as she was making gains on Biden, Biden was losing ground to Warren. She made a poorly executed shift to try to become a policy candidate, but that isn't what she is. Her campaign should have been patient and waited out the typical policy-heavy early stage of the primaries. Buttigieg didn't try to shift to being a policy candidate and sure enough, he is on the rise.
Eventually, voters remember that it is kind of silly to vote for a current legislator who is campaigning on all of laws they will get passed . . . when they are no longer in the legislature.
1
While I am sorry to see her out of the race, she wasn't going to be the candidate. Problem: despite her Senate tenure, she's a prosecutor, and everything prosecutors see is a problem to be prosecuted. It's what she does well - and what she can do better in the Senate than in the White House. Now, Sen. Harris, please prosecute Trump!
1
To be honest, she scared me. "For the People" is what I saw on bumper stickers around here. "The people" can be a dangerous mob with no idea what they want. Witness the "Arab spring" just to name one. What the people need is a leader who believes in their position on issues, isn't afraid of the media or the trolls or anyone else when putting it forth, and can convince people of its value. "For the People" suggests she has no real opinions and is looking for an easy rallying cry, and that's one reason why her campaign has failed.
1
@alocksley
Akin to Hillary's campaign slogan: "Stronger together". How lame compared with Trump's "Build a Wall", "Muslim Ban", "the forgotten man", or the republican favorites "job killing regulations" and "tax cuts". Republicans are superior at distilling their message into short and concrete single word utterances that will trigger a visceral and emotional response. Democrats always dabble in lofty abstract and intellectual concepts that require complex sentence structure with multiple subordinate clauses.
1
As a candidate, Harris never managed to define herself as identifying with specific policy issues. I thought that she had an opening to do just that immigration, which she missed. For all the anti-Trump fervor, the Democratic candidates thus far are avoiding the main defining policy issue of the Trump administration, namely immigration. They do criticize his cruelty and excesses in the treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, but none have proposed anything like a coherent immigration program. (The most they do in this direction is to support the DREAM act.) Harris is from California and had a solid pro-immigration record as the AG. She could have built on that and proposed an in-depth pro immigration policy platform, including legal immigration reform, instituting a flexible seasonal agricultural visa program, some kind of a legalization program for long-term undocumented aliens who are already here, and an honest border security program. As the former California AG, she could have credibly connected gun controls and stopping illegal gun smuggling from the US into Mexico with addressing the root causes of the current migration crisis, that is out of control violence in Guatemala, Honduras and parts of Mexico. I also think that the Democrats ultimately will need a black presidential or vice-presidential candidate articulate an explicitly pro-immigration position and agenda. Harris could have done that and maybe still can, as a VP candidate.
1
She seemed, in temperament, disposition, and training, to be the candidate best-positioned to successfully take on Trump. She also gave the impression that she was a 'regular person', which could be very important re: the outcome of this election. It would have been interesting to see the two of them in a one-on-one debate, and it's a shame her candidacy did not advance beyond its initial-debate high-point. Every politician has issues in their past, and it's unfortunate that the search for a candidate with 'perfect wokedness', that the Democratic field seems to be applying as an underlying theme, may not bode well at all in the general election.
2
@LesR22
She would have lost Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, states we need at a minimum for 270 electoral votes, assuming we retain the ones we won in 2016.
Kamala Harris seems to have an identity problem, and that has become very apparent since she began running her presidential campaign. I think she ended her campaign because she was afraid that her senate seat would be, if not now, up for grabs, and she was anxious to save herself from being totally out of the loop.
3
Kamala Harris did not appeal to me from the beginning, largely because of the attitude she portrayed. I am trying--as a woman--to examine my own potential biases towards women that may contribute to my impressions. But to me, there was a certain flippancy to Senator Harris's way of presenting herself that made it very hard for me to warm to her, and I never saw her as having a central or consistent visionary message.
8
The REAL Kamala Harris? Do you mean the one candidate that you were fawning over because she's female, black, beautiful, accomplished, female, intelligent, articulate and female?
Or do you mean the one that lifted Bernie Sanders' platform and immediately adopted Medicare For All but explained it so poorly and with such imprecision that the press corps had to go back to Bernie to ask him to explain it for her?
Or, are you referring to the Kamala Harris that then proudly announced that her new, special version of Medicare For All would be boldly unfurled two years after she had completed her second four-year Presidential term of office?
While some are wondering if we ever really got to know her, others may yet be mulling how she managed to be a candidate this long without setting her pants on fire.
3
I was impressed by Harris and thought she had "the right stuff" for bigger things. But my friend, the former Public Defender of a large CA county, told me he would never support Harris, that she was a ruthless win-at-any-cost prosecutor and political opportunist who, rather than presenting a vision for America, merely seeks power. Let her prove herself in the Senate for a few years, and we shall see who emerges.
1
"perfect Democrat for '20"???
She merely offered in bits and pieces portions of the Bernie Sanders agenda, and people got wise to it. It's no time to fudge the issues. This will be the most important election in US history and no time to allow political scheming to play a part in it. The needs of the people in our country are overwhelming and only only a clear answer to the lack of health-care for so many, the tremendous increase in student debt, the disgraceful minimum wage of $7.50 and the unrestricted nature of bank regulation must be the answer to correct our ills, and Kmala Harris was not there with the answer.
1
I am glad to see the article and many of the comments talk about her as a candidate and how she ran her campaign, not race. Just what we need to do; qualify a candidate by ability and not by race and/or gender.
3
Thanks Kalama Harris for your courage. We need you in the Senate.
1
Although I was never really into Harris, had she become the nominee, I would definitely have voted for her as I will support whoever the nominee is.
However, I think too many people were adding too much to her bio that really wasn't her.
Although she was cheered for attacking Biden, it came off as convoluted.
She got her one big counterpunch, but at a later debate, she herself was counter punched and never seemed to recover.
I never believe it when a presidential candidate says what they will do on day one.
Much of what many do on Day One is ceremonial.
One hasn't even introduced themself to Congress, yet
And the presidency is not like a kingship.
I wish Ms. Harris well, but I really wasn't that into her.
1
Hopefully whoever wins the Democratic nomination, will choose Kamala Harris as their VP running mate.
2
Not enough people believed she would be a good president. You can twist this into a gender or race thing if you like, but that's .pretty much it.
5
Pandering to racial and identity politics are what doomed her campaign. In today's 24/7 news cycle, trying to be all things to the democratic base proves you can't really fake it to make it.
5
Who thinks California is a dystopian disaster?
1
@JH -- Other than those trying to rent an apt in SF, really nobody.
1
The media didn’t cover her because she’s smart and solid but didn’t add enough drama.
41
@Marilyn
The slimy attack on Biden got her oodles of coverage and produced more drama than the rest of the debates combined. It may have also doomed he campaign, but it was likely less an underlying cause and more a symptom of the transparent and unchecked ambition that would have turned many people off at some point.
4
@Alan Slimy? Biden has decades of gaffs. She played fair.
3
Why vote for someone who plainly stands for nothing but her own advancement??
8
Her cheap shot at Biden told me she was unnecessarily and misguidedly hungering for the righteousness mantle. She came away from that effort however, as someone willing to tarnish and cheapen civil rights issues as but another politicians tool.
4
"Dude's gotta go" accompanied by giggles, poll-tested one-liners and tailored attacks (Busing? Really?)
Ridiculous, almost racist comparisons to Barack Obama.
Trying to be the "cool candidate" and a prosecutorial manner better suited for episodes of "Law and Order" than actual political and legal professionalism.
This is why she never caught on with voters.
She was never qualified.
She might one day be, but running for President less than two years after getting elected to her first term in the Senate was gross arrogance.
In this age of Trump, where we have seen what the affects of incompetence and lack of experience can get us, voters are looking for candidates of substance, experience, and maturity.
3
Biden refused to say he would even consider Harris for the VP slot. Not a great omen for Harris.
2
Why should we care if we really know her? She, like so many other wannabes, have dropped out of the campaign.
3
As many have said below, her attacks on fellow Democrats doomed her. We have a dire threat to democracy in the White House in the form of Trump and his minions. There’s no room at this point in time for any Democrat attacking other Democrats. Attack any Republican you want and we’ll applaud. Tell us your plans and we’ll listen. What we won’t stand for is attacks on our family. I liked Kamala a great deal until she went after Biden and then Buttigieg. Hopefully she learns from these mistakes and regroups for future runs. She is too talented to be wasted. A little humility is a good thing.
97
@David Gifford so you expect candidates for a job to agree with all the other candidates for the same job? What is the point of having debates then? Just pick whichever looks nicest if you don’t care about their differences.
1
Do we ever know the real [insert any politicians name]...why ask the obvious when marketing, pr campaigns, crafted public positions, and shameless reversals in real time obfuscate each and every one of them?
1
She lost me when she played the race card with Biden. It was a stunning moment - I actually understood what It was that attracted Trump voters.
6
All of the Democratic candidates seem to suffer the same inability to communicate what they believe in. It is not that I think they are themselves confused. It appears none were prepared for the pushback of the entrenched Republican disinformation machine.
How is this possible? Haven’t they been paying attention? Did they really think that Trump is so unpardonable, so obviously corrupt, so compromised by foreign enemies that the machinery wouldn’t ramp up against them? If nothing else I hope Harris and her party learns not to underestimate the forces aligned against them.
44
@R Rhett
Warren says what she believes in in great detail, which is why they're all able to attack her and she's plummeting in the polls..
5
@R Rhett
"All of the Democratic candidates seem to suffer the same inability to communicate what they believe in"
You make the assumption that they themselves know. I don't think they do.
2
@R Rhett, while what you say about interference is true, the sad reality is that each candidate has had one or two excellent positions, but no one candidate embodies all the good ones. Nor do any of them yet inspire Democrats across the party spectrum, a statement I hope will become inoperative as we winnow the field and unite behind our standard bearer; but we need to get going on that, and Sen. Harris' departure moves us closer. Still, whoever's the nominee, "AD 2020" - Any Democrat in 2020. (State and local elections, too; our new Democratic president will need a Democratic-controlled House AND Senate.)
4
Out of desperation, Democrats crown anyone and tie their hopes to anything that comes across. Let's face it, since the tumultuous decade of the 1960s, Democrats have not been viable, as a political party.
2
Whether Kamala Harris was a good candidate or not, I wonder if America can ever get past their carefully (or not so carefully) hidden sexist attitudes long enough for us to have a woman president. Attributes considered positive in men are considered negative in women. Women have to bee good looking, but not too good looking. They have to be qualified but not too qualified or they will be intimidating. They can't be aggressive or they will be accused of being a witch.
Then there's this strange factor of likeability which only matters in female candidates. That issue alone is negatively affecting Elizabeth Warren's campaign. She is not considered "likeable enough" to be president. No one even mentions this mysterious quality in the male candidates but somehow women also have to be likeable to be hired.
1
@Kristin I believe Sen, Harris' track record as a prosecutor and her attack on Vice president Biden had more to do with her failure to move forward in many peoples viewpoints including my own. The record she left behind as a state AG is disturbing to say the least. Her support among black voters has been reported at 5% vs 23% for Mr.Biden.
1
@Kristin -- I agree with only the non-sexist part of your claim. Reagan, Clinton, GW, and Obama were all elected because they were attractive and likeable-- in Clinton and Obama we also got intelligence but that's not why they won. Walter Mondale, Dukakis, Bob Dole, Kerry, Gore, McCain, Romney, and Hillary all lost to more "likeable" candidates (yes, people love Trump).
Gender has nothing to do with it. Those who voted for or against Hillary because she's female essentially cancelled each other out.
1
This will be the first time in a long time that she has no campaign for higher office to distract her from actually doing her current job. I hope she can handle the boredom.
3
I was impressed by Harris's questioning prowess in the several hearings I saw. The balloon burst during the debate when she cruelly attacked Biden. She was mean-spirited and it was obvious she was playing to the crowd. Glad she's finished but I would not be surprised if she gets the Attorney General seat should a Democrat defeat Trump.
1
In the end, the two issues are Medicare for All, and get rid of the criminal in the White House. Wavering on health care will be death for all campaigns. Look at the polls. It's the first thing voters want for themselves, and their families. Health care companies are running $millions of dollars of ads to defeat universal, single payer health care. They don't care who dies (millions will,) just so they get their money.
2
Some are quick to make this about race/gender bias, but in a crowded field the attempts to get attention failed, the kinks in the glossy image, and the visualization of Ms. Harris being pummeled by Trump and all his misogynist cult followers and not being able to maintain is what this is about.
1
I've long been over the idea of promoting prosecutors to high office when in essence their only real job is to put as many warm bodies in jail and prison, guilty or not. If a candidates only qualification is they have filled up jails and prisons it should speak volumes to our future as a nation.
Harris also, as California Attorney General, declined to prosecute the cop who sprayed (unauthorized) military-grade pepper spray on peaceful protesters at UC Davis (in what a reasonable person would say was actually an assault, not a justifiable police action). The choice was left to our county D.A. who chose not to prosecute (when he should have).
Kamala Harris lost me when she dinged Biden and we learned later that her busing story wasn't quite what she said it was. That and the fact that she had the t-shirts ready to distribute almost before the debate ended. That was a stunt and I don't like political stunts. If she had just gone forward with an honest message and hadn't opportunistically raised her hand to do away with private insurance and then backtracked she might still be in the running. Every analysis of her campaign has neglected to add these missteps into their narrative.
5
Love all the comments attributing her campaign's failure to things she said or did. At least 51% of us should know that the biggest reason she could not gain the highest office is that she is female. Most men and many women will simply. not. vote. for a woman president.
2
Harris was a flawed candidate who had no consistent message. One cannot win an election without presenting a clear message of what she is for and she never did that. I would say that your point about female candidates should be about Elizabeth Warren. If Warren was a male the word “likability” would not be used as a reason to not vote for her.
1
After a bit of thought, I believe you are correct. Although I am not religious, some of the more "Fervently" religious people I know, both men and women, make comments that gives me the impression that "Male Dominated" is an overriding theme in their choice of worship. And completely accepted.
1
@mdieri -- But there are also many women who would vote for a female candidate simply because she's female. I always hope that those who vote for or against a candidate because of race or gender (Obama and Hillary are good examples) will cancel each other out. I have to admit my support for Harris had a lot to do with her being attractive and likeable. It can go both ways.
It's a relief. I was momentarily intrigued by her and her accomplishments until the debates. Then it became apparent that her range is limited to prosecutorial matters. The desperate-for-attention cheap shot and grand-standing during the first debate was a big turn off. Read the audience, Kamala. People, especially Dems, are sickened to exhaustion after 4 years of ConDon's divisiveness, crudeness, cruelty and incivility, lies and tunnel vision. We want someone to heal divisions, not create them; someone with a grand vision to face the enormous challenges. But she sniped. After that, she seemed come across increasingly as inauthentic and unprepared by veering from one thing to another.
5
Many of the commenters note that Kamala Harris would make an excellent U.S. Attorney General. Meaning, that many Democratic voters watching Kamala Harris campaign did not see her in the role of President, but instead as AG in the next Democratic administration.
I think that Harris' campaign gambit to run as a no nonsense law and order prosecutor, which is what she was and still is, against a completely corrupt incumbent President, was a good gamble on her part, it just isn't enough for a candidate to win the nomination. Democratic voters want solutions to healthcare, long term care, education, housing, etc. not just defeating a corrupt President, and social justice issues.
I really believe that the road to the WH for Dems will be won on affordability of basic needs issues, and this was not the centerpiece of Senator Harris' message.
Wake up Dems and learn from Sen. Harris' fall: Affordability of Basic Needs wins in 2020!
4
What next Democrat administration? Biden is the only one I would vote for, except now, knowing that his kid got a job under a foreign government, that didn't require any attendance or participation by ole Hunter. Buying some possible influence for the future? Not good.
The entire failure of Harris' campaign can be easily summarized by this one excerpt: "...Her candidacy appeared to have no real rationale and no clear constituency. The penchant for zigzagging that marked her policy positions carried over to strategy..." She had no plan, target, or substance. Ever. I'm surprised her candidacy lasted as long as it did. And I'm further baffled by the comments here suggesting she would have been a good President? Based on what exactly? I don't see the accomplishments to support that belief.
6
Senator Harris is impressive to be sure, but she failed to translate that quality into a meaningful message or compelling rationale for her candidacy.
Being smart and articulate, particularly in the Age of Trump is, by invidious comparison, a distinguishing characteristic to be sure, but it is only one measure to be taken of a candidate.
To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, Harris was all media but no message. As a result, she found herself wandering in the political and policy desert while other candidates more effectively staked out ground that better defined their candidacies and, ergo, has resonated more effectively with voters.
Harris is relatively young, and perhaps she will run again. This wasn't her time. But merely because her candidacy failed does not mean that she would again fail as a candidate should she choose to do so. Adversity has a way of shaping people and, in some cases, ennobling them.
In some cases, too, the country moves in a direction that ultimately leads it to a particular, if earlier failed candidate, as it did with Nixon and Reagan. That may yet inure to Senator Harris' benefit, but first, she must figure out who she is and what she offers the country.
2
Anyone seeking to understand what happened to Kamala Harris should talk to the staff at the California Department of Justice. By and large they considered her disengaged, lazy and not particularly smart. They considered her inordinately reticent to take on wealthy interests, such as the bank headed by current Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, or the vaping industry represented Harris's husband's law firm. The AG staff did not appreciate the disengaged Harris's sudden focus and intervention to stymie enforcement actions.
While it has long been understood (especially by the staff at the California AG's office) that "AG" stands for "aspiring governor," Harris was a standout in her focus on higher office to the exclusion of practically anything else. Even to the jaded staff in the California Attorney General's office.
Ambition without anything else to dress it up or give it legs is not a winning approach to politics.
12
After reading this commentary, I don't think that the author has given much thought to the importance that California holds in the USA. We are by far not only the most populated state but we are the 5th largest economy in the World. Sadly, we also have the largest homeless population and our educational system is in need of resurrection. We need our senators and representatives to know the realities of our state and work hard for us in the national seats of power. Ms. Harris hardly warmed her senator"s seat when she decided that she could take time off being our senatro and run for the presidency. Her experience as a national politician is so limited that she has hardly made a dent in Washington. She is no Obama and could never be. Hopefully, this bitter lesson may have her rethink why we elected her to the senate and she takes time to get to the business of representing California and bring to fruition the many solutions that are sorely lacking to fix our real and entrenched problems. Solving some of California's problems will also help the rest of the nation.
4
The failure of Harris’ campaign seems much more about her than about California.
This is an ambitious politician who really never stood for anything in particular. She herself couldn’t clearly articulate what her campaign was about, or what differentiated her policies or personal qualities from the other Democrats.
Presidential campaigns are full of candidates who look good on paper but turn out to lack the charisma, passion or staying power to advance. She’s one of them.
5
Kamala failed because she's a total blank. What did she ever propose that was novel? Her debt forgiveness plan with so many qualifications that it might apply to a few dozen people?
6
I suspect Kamala Harris is better than the person we saw. Her campaign was formulaic and ambitious to the point of tunnel vision. We saw no heart, only calculation. Perhaps she’ll be appointed US AG by the next Democratic President.
2
I don’t know who the “real” Kamala Harris might be, but the one she consistently presented here in California, and later on the campaign trail, was a highly self-interested person who feigned folksiness. My experience in life is that if a person acts a particular way over a long period of time, it’s pretty much the “real them.”
6
She seems a very competent and intelligent person with a sense of humor. What always struck me in the debates was she spoke in platitudes with no substance. Warren did the same with Medicare for all and no idea how to pay for it. In this time, with the dire nature of the upcoming election, I feel every candidate must not only know what they have fought for, but also what their plans are in great detail. Otherwise, it just becomes a lot of ideas with no backing.
2
In one of he Democratic Party Town Hall debates on one of the major networks, Tulsi Gabbard raised serious questions about her potential suitability for being President. Sen. Harris' response did not address any of those issues, rather, insulted Rep. Gabbard as someone low in the polls that doesn't merit a response. As a lifelong Democrat, she was the one I least favored, issues regarding her character. As for her toughness, it appears to be more of an act than substance.
11
My question is, do we really ever want to know the real Kamala Harris?
What we've seen so far is a flip-flopping, self-serving lawyer, more interested in her successful prosecution numbers than justice.
She was a pretty awful DA, an inconsequential senator and now a failed presidential candidate (running on what, we still don't really know).
I do not think the world will be worse off if she follows her current trajectory, enters the private sector to make her millions and is quickly and easily forgotten.
7
We need her in the Senate, continuing to ask tough questions. I was very moved at her Oakland rally; it gave me hope and belief. But no, she didn’t really emerge as a candidate with shaped, nuanced policies. Maybe that will change over time.
2
Ignoring the fact that Ms. Harris is NOT a billionaire who can afford to buy the election, the campaign of Kamala Harris has not been doomed more than Cory Booker's, Amy Klobuchar's (fill in the blank with the name of your favorite democratic candidate here!) WHAT I highly suspect has happened is that the Democratic Political Powers behind the curtain have opted to gamble that Joe Biden will be the Presidential Nominee and Ms. Harris will be his Vice Presidential Candidate. If the American Public can be reassured that Mr. Biden's health is not a serious factor to consider, a Biden / Harris ticket would be a powerful challenge for Mr. Trump to face in 2020.
2
It was obvious she had no real beliefs, and no idea how to run this campaign. This tells me she shouldn't be president. She's still a good Senator for "our" side.
5
I appreciate her as a critical voice in the Senate who can continue to work for the benefit of the country and California. Hopefully she will have a role in the coming impeachment proceedings in the Senate. As a Bay Area California liberal I support Biden because I would like the country to return to the policies that were exemplified by the Obama Biden administration. Remembering the hard fight in the House and Senate to hammer out the details of the Affordable Care Act I don’t think we can leap to Medicare for all with the likes of Mitch McConnell as the Senate majority leader. The Trump administration has seriously run us off the road I don’t think oversteering is the way to get back on course. Sanders and Warren likewise can do more to help the country from their seats in the Senate.
2
Seen from either "within" or "from afar" California is probably not an actual "Dystopian Disaster" nor an actual "Glittering Paradise". But politically, Ms Harris seems to have negotiated her way toward, and ensconced herself within, the middle-ground of both.
1
Kamala was good at asking questions, not so much in answering them. She came across at being very good at one thing but handling several issues at a time with multiple interests and personalities barking unraveled her. Obviously her staff felt the same. A campaign has to speak with one voice, have a solid platform and plenty of money. Kamala had only attitude.
8
I liked Kamala. Don't know why she wasn't more popular. Yes she had a bunch of missteps but on the whole she was one of the more positive aspects of the primaries. Certainly she contributed more than Tom Steyer. Hopefully she returns in 2028.
1
Well since the public never knows the real politician the only lesson here is proves that the Major Media can promote a candidate to the top who may fail and fall when reality fails to meet the Media's narrative .
5
I live two miles west of where Harris lived as a child, all the way next to the freeway, in the poorest part of town, where it's way worse, according to Harris. Thus Harris says that I live in an horrendous part of town, and my daughter should spend more than 90 minutes a day across town to go where Harris herself went to school. This is all more than strange: it's outright lying (because where Harris lived was not bad place, and schools not different). Yes my daughter goes to the poorest school, half of the children have very poor English, because they are immigrants, yet would it be worth spending so much of her day in a bus going to that other school? We need more teachers (for remedial English), not more buses.
Manipulating children with buses, or voters with fake liberalism, goes only that far. Indeed.
16
I was fully in her corner. Then NPR did a story that shined light on her failure to allow dna retest and evidence for an incarcerated felon. How she was pitching herself was not matching her rhetoric, so she became another shape shifter to me — sad to say.
After that I heard a lot of shakily presented anti trump stuff which I found pointless and dull.
People want to know they will be safe, will prosper and that the gov is there to help but not offer Hearty Handouts. She was not presenting such a vision.
5
It likely seemed to the casual observer that Senator Harris's campaign was running on a platform of getting Senator Harris elected.
She attacked Joe Biden out of turn and out of context over a decades-old political stance that was popular at the time and remains so today. This got her a lot of fame and notoriety (and some t-shirt sales) until the emotional reaction settled down and the facts came out. The daughter of two professors claiming she got a good education and chance to succeed because of busing is so laughable it belongs on SNL.
It was also obvious that her plan for health insurance was calculated to split the difference between Biden's and Sander's.
She ran a, to put it politely, highly calculated campaign. This is something most people, having endured both Clintons (and others) with their poll-driven politics paired with shaky morals, are now trained to recognize. To the credit of voters, I doubt such a campaign will work any longer. It is a common reaction for such hyper-calculating candidates to blame the voters for some form of bias or not being sophisticated enough, but in this case the candidate earned this result.
14
I think we did see the real Kamala Harris, and we didn’t like what we saw from her directly.
Sen. Harris did not seem genuine or comfortable in her own skin. She laughed tightly at her own jokes, seeming to hope everyone else shared her humor.
I was rooting for Sen. Harris, but she tried to play both sides of the fence on several issues and ultimately found herself alone at the top of it.
8
Well, her quest is not over. I think she is a very likely VP choice, especially if the candidate is a white male, most especially if Joe Biden wins. And from that point there is a clear path to the presidency.
4
I'm sad to see her name off the primary ballot but the quest for the Oval Office is not the only way to serve and to make a difference. Her Senate seat or potential roles as Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice, or other high office have and will hopefully continue to make America the shining beacon on the hill.
3
I'm not a fan of Bernie Sanders. But otherwise I agree with everything you say. Kampala Harris's departure is a real loss, and I hope she will run again and keep very active and articulate. Indeed, we need more people of such qualification and class.
1
I like Sen Harris. I still have no idea what policy issues she would've pursued.
2
It's far simpler. What doomed her campaign was the same thing that doomed Hillary's - a Democratic Party establishment that is completely out of touch with all but an affluent segment the electorate. This establishment, and its apparatchiks in the media, is simply talking to itself in public. They fall for their own cultural/identity nostrums and are then astonished when it turns out that the electorate has more concrete things on its mind.
19
The same pablum served by anybody whose candidate doesn’t succeed. Is Bernie the establishment? Because he was polling consistently multiples higher than Harris.
4
@Chip This seems especially pronounced when no article on the topic of Harris' departure from the race mentions perhaps the most significant event that contributed: Tulsi Gabbard's takedown of Harris in the debates. Tulsi Gabbard's persona non grata with the DNC after she bucked them to endorse Bernie back in 2016, and that seems increasingly pronounced in the wake of Harris' departure.
@Chip But you are okay with Biden?
Great potential, entered too soon, before she built more national expertise. She needed time to undo some of her "questionable" proprietorial actions.
1
As an aside, what a great analysis of the political reality in California.
6
kamala's spectacular fall can be traced, in part, to the fact that her campaign never coalesced around an idea or cause. looking back, i find it impossible to recall a single, sharply etched policy she articulated on any issue. her whole effort seems a sad, classic case of jump before you look.
5
Likability is a major factor for voters who are asked for support. Ms. Harris never mastered the fine art of connecting with people, earning their confidence and loyalty.
6
Candidates need to convey authenticity. They need to have a core conviction, an emotional component, that drives their platforms and communications. Harris never showed us (me) this.
15
Most of these comments wouldn't be out of place among the gendered (sexist) 2016 critiques of HRC. "Ambitious" in a man makes us think about prodigies who are hungry to do more and better. For a woman, it raises suspicion about motives. "Tough" in a man makes us think about resilience and strength. In a woman, it raises suspicion about being mean.
If you're a Democrat, take an implicit bias test before you watch the next debate or go to the polls. Senator Harris wasn't a perfect candidate, but she had clear policy positions (too liberal for some and too moderate for others) and many strengths. I will continue to follow her work in the Senate with great interest.
8
@LZ,
"Senator Harris wasn't a perfect candidate, but she had clear policy positions (too liberal for some and too moderate for others) and many strengths."
Still waiting to hear what those clear policy positions and strengths are. She flip-flopped her position on health care and her attack on Biden lacked integrity.
Being anti-Trump is not the same as having clear policies. Her non-response to Gabbard's criticisms of her record as CA AG suggested that her primary strengths are superficial ones: looks and voice.
1
Candidates come candidates go there are lots of different reasons in the end it does not matter last one standing no matter why wins the Prize. Kamala Harris played her part now she's gone like others before here and others to come except for one already in or yet to come ?
I am disappointed to see Ms. Harris drop out of the Democratic race. To me, her raw intelligence repeatedly comes through in her extemporaneous speaking. She has no need to rely on repetitive, canned talking points. One fine example was the way she caused AG Barr to trip all over himself in the Senate hearing following the release of the Mueller report.
I expect Senator Harris would provide some interesting and memorable input to a Trump impeachment trial, the likelihood of which seems all but certain.
This is just the latest chapter in Ms. Harris' political story. There is likely much more to come.
8
I was suspicious of Harris' early decision to locate her campaign headquarters in Baltimore. It seemed opportunistic to jump into one of the most visibly troubled cities in the country, a city to which she had no ties at all.
Following that announcement, she never appeared here in Baltimore and no one seemed to know exactly where her campaign offices were .
This may seem like a small matter but citizens here are touchy about being exploited.
14
Perhaps setting the tone with your first impression is true after all. By trying to stand out - perhaps it is the trick of the trade that prosecutors need to shock the jurors into believing the guilt of the defenders - Harris did a number on Biden. The rest is history.
Note: it doesn't help when Harris tried to bow out gracefully - perhaps with further political ambition and Parkhomenko using the excuse to tangle with Gabbard. The Dems seem to have a political death wish. They are not really holding a strong hand and they choose to eat their own young (and old). No wonder Bloomberg chose to jump in but it may be too late: another four years of Trump and America is done!
3
Ms. Harris is smart and ambitious. I suspect the goal of her 2020 run has been met - national name recognition. She never thought she would win, and kept her message vague while pushing growth of her name recognition.
Unfortunately, unless the GOP Republicans turn on Trump, Trump will survive and more likely than not win another term. Ms. Harris will then emerge as a leading candidate for 2024, the race when we will hear more specifics - a race she can win.
4
As a presidential candidate, my impression of her changed dramatically when she came for Joe on busing. It was a cold, calculated, cheap shot meant to topple the presumptive front runner with a sound bite. In this campaign, like it or not, Biden is THE symbol of the Obama presidency-- as a symbol he has a mythic power over people like me, who cringe every time he talks. Her attack was snarky and meant to draw blood. You can't do that to someone who--reality aside-- has Biden's symbolic power. All these months later, Biden's power is fading a bit, but it's still very, very strong. Anyone who attacks him will antagonize those still under the spell of Obama (I plead guilty to that).
15
@Micah Let's not forget the already printed T-shirts.
2
@Micah I was never under the spell of Obama- my support of Biden is because I believe he is the only candidate who has any real chance of winning.
1
Probably won’t have a candidate from Cal for a while. Movies, tech, fires and immigrants can all be threatening to the MAGA generation, so mid-American moderates will be viewed as more acceptable, and have a chance to replace the trend we’re in.
2
I loved her performance in the first debate and during the Mueller hearings, but when she was asked about her suppression of evidence as the SF DA and CA AG, she was never able to develop a credible answer.
5
Just as a matter of record, Dianne Feinstein did not trounce her liberal opponent last year: she won 54% to 46%. This is a dismal result for a universally known long-time incumbent against an underfunded and not particularly well known opponent.
10
Did she ever have a message? She had one debate performance that was essentially an attack on Joe Biden. She never developed a strategy for healthcare. I am uncertain how a person with her limited administrative experience is going to be able to make the move to the presidency. She is a standing example as to why we have had so few senators get elected to the presidency.
9
It is about time the field thinned. We still have way to many Candidates. But the good thing about all of the Candidates is they are not Trump
6
Now's the time for Kamala to reach out to Biden; she's everything he's not and she can keep him on a steady course free of gaffes. She can campaign for him in the west, while he focuses on the eastern and midwestern battleground states. All he has to do is pick her as his running mate, after some vetting, but he has to do it soon, it would be a bold move but that's what he needs to do, make a bold move.
5
That's a good idea.
@Antonio Biden was one of her boosters, and she backstabbed him on live TV. I doubt he's dumb enough to make the same mistake twice.
I really thought Harris was a shoe in to win the nomination. Full media support. The two biggest reasons she fizzle out were 1) she wasn’t authentic 2) she could run an organized campaign. She literally poll tested everything including how she should act, talk, policy, etc. While that may have worked in years past with fewer media sources & no internet, it doesn’t anymore. People can tell when someone isn’t sincere and acting, there’s no passion, drive, or vision in their empty words. We have hit an era where authenticity & passion will trump any quirks or character flaws.
5
@JOSEPH
I am reeling from the notion that " authenticity and passion will trump any quirks and character flaws ." Are you just being very tongue in cheek ? Because look at who is president !
Over-hyped by pundits and the media in general, someone who is AG for 6 years in media-saturated Cali and yet is relatively unknown and who polls fourth in her home metropolitan area, she is simply not likeable. Add that to an inability to articulate why she is running and to wear the patina of consistently standing for something and there you have it: the recipe for failure. Had she remained in the Senate for a full term or more before running, and had she used that time to establish a public identity, her chances may have been different. She failed where Obama, with a thinner resume, succeeded because he was eminently likeable and offered hope when things looked bleak, while her smile looked forced.
7
She read her own good press way too often.
7
But isn’t that more of a feature than a bug in a politician?
The main reason for Kamala Harris’ failure as a presidential candidate is the Democratic party’s inability to have the honest conversation about race, particularly when it comes to black crime. The only allowed topics of conversation involve the issues of racial justice such as sentencing and parole reform, police brutality, racial profiling, etc. The topic of the black crime itself is essentially taboo, and any discussion of what to do about reducing black crime is taboo as well. Harris rose to political prominence as a prosecutor, and being tough on violent crime was her main issue. She put a great many of criminals in prison, including a great many black criminals. That might have been forgivable in Obama’s Democratic Party, but not today. Kamala Harris, given her actual record, could not successfully recast herself as a racial justice crusader, and so she had to exit. Ironically, Corey Booker is having some of the similar difficulties. His main claim to fame as the mayor of Newark was his effort to reduce the crime levels there (which, given Newark’s demographics, means mainly black crime). So he is also having to apologize now for his past accomplishments. It remains to be seen if he hangs on for much longer than Kamala Harris in the Democratic presidential contest.
9
@Berto Collins: a single issue doomed Harris’ campaign? I don’t think it’s so simplistic.
Democrats need a moderate politician that appeals to a broad spectrum of American voters. It’s imperative to defeat Trump. Ms. Harris, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and others like them won’t stand a chance. Vice President Biden has that attribute and stands the best chance we have for defeating the President. I wish all others would drop out as well and support the front runner. The impeachment will succeed in the House, but unfortunately, not the Senate. Once that happens, Trump’s going to be empowered. I’m warning our Party not to be so divisive- we need to appeal to a wider voting base. Is there is candidate that can do that - yes - it’s Joe Biden. Ms. Harris graciously stepped down, it’s time for the others to do likewise.
3
There is a trust issue. I have met many like her in administrations of NYC high schools after Bloomberg took control: Intelligent, articulate, poised, coiffed, and ambitious. Those in the rank and file know better than to invest great amounts of trust in such administrators. I think back about McCain's response at a town hall meeting to a woman asserting Obama was an Arab. I think Harris in a similar situation would have paused looking for a way to turn it to her advantage rather than doing as McCain did.
7
When she announced I thought she was the perfect candidate - an unbeatable package of diversity, toughness and moderation. But in the debates she pandered to constituencies rather than speaking from personal beliefs.
Know thyself and to thine own self be true Kamala Harris. There may be a next time.
5
Unfortunately, Barack Obama made it look easy by getting elected POTUS after being in the Senate for only 3 years. That has perhaps made others think that they, too, can give it a shot. Senator Harris being one this time around. Senators Cruz and Rubio in 2016.
In the history of the US, only 16 Senators have become president. Only three have gone from the Senate directly to the highest office in the land. JFK and Obama being the two in the modern times. Harding from an earlier era.
Not many, however, has the rhetorical skills and personality of Obama or JFK. They will remain tough acts to follow.
19
We don’t know what JFK could have accomplished, it was a different feeling in America. Now we have a “fool” as President, a guy that shows what America really is, no depth, no honor, no anything. We have a huckster and playboy selling us fools gold and bottled water. Germany may have lost the war but now they are the best run country in the world, Russia, China, North Korea are second class dictatorships and America stumbles. We are a greedy, racist mess of a country, an embarrassment in my eyes. We have a medicine man as our president and fools as our citizens. Let’s get serious and run America like our founders wanted us to be, before it’s to late. Grow up Americans, let’s get back to the wishes of our founding fathers. Equality is tough, but it’s not to late to be the country our founders wanted.
I couldn’t figure out what Ms. Harris stood for. Aside from her “That little girl was me” line at one of the early debates, she neither did nor said anything memorable. And it appears that her campaign, co-led by her sister, was adrift and unfocused. So in the end, she was a candidate without a message and without an effective organization.
16
I wish Biden answered that comment expressing certainty that Harris would have succeeded in any school, that she also is not a supporter of forced busing, that the Senate worked when he had started and doesn’t work today, that he had to cross the aisle to move forward, and to ask the question why did liberal Berkeley take so long to try to integrate years after New York City did on an enormous scale. We Dems have to be careful of liberal NIMBYism which is so apparent to those who avoid liberal politicians.
4
Can we agree that the problem is the process. "Debates" where more than 2 people are invited are a problem. When you have upwards of 20 candidates, debates are ridiculous. Let's give up on debates altogether and let candidates find some other way to reach us.
12
Agree that it’s just a show. I would also like to do away with single party primaries and winner take all primaries and have uncommitted delegates working on a party platform.
2
As a committed supporter of the Senator's Presidential campaign, I am disappointed in her performance as a retail politician. Is it because she has become too dependent on a competent staff in posistions she has held up to now? I suspect that's a factor. But I hope we have not seen the last of her on the national stage!
2
@Colleen She needs to start by firing her sister.
"Her candidacy appeared to have no real rationale and no clear constituency."
Yup.
Kamala is entirely political, whose career and candidacy were enabled by the glitterati of the San Francisco Democratic machine.
She has no convictions.
17
Whatever her talents that advanced her within California, Senator Harris seems to me to be relatively slow on her feet and possess a fairly tin ear on political matters. I think people saw through the hubbub and didn’t like the pandering, the seeming Indecisiveness as her positions ebbed and flowed. She has obvious attractive qualities but seems to me, at least, as all fluff.
12
Harris seems to morph into the requirements of the moment. Smart and analytical, angling for the winning argument.
Her ethnic and cultural background was a plus, but could only carry her so far. The minute she waded into national politics, she seemed lost and unsure of her footing.
Tough, but not strong enough. Confident, but not self assured enough. It became more and more apparent in debates and on the campaign trail.
10
Sen. Harris attracts a lot of attention during Senate hearings with her whithering style of questioning. We're all familiar with the intimidating look she focuses the testifier as she bears down with her strategic questions. But have you ever noticed that those questions often lead nowhere? With both Brett Kavenaugh and Bill Barr, her interrogations were a high light. We all knew Harris knew something and was laying a trap for her prey. But was she? What ever comes of those questions? She's known as prosecutor, but I'm starting to think she only plays one on television.
19
I think that the use of the passive voice in the subheadline is really telling here. "[Harris] was crowed the perfect Democrat for 2020." By whom? Certainly not by voters.
I think that the flop that was Ms. Harris's campaign exemplifies the major paradox facing Democratic candidates whose inconsistency suggests that they feel their ambition more viscerally than their values. The media seem to feel uncomfortable interrogating this issue as well. Ms. Pawel admirably points out that Ms. Harris adopted some very right wing positions, but doesn't quite get around to identifying her most egregious choices, especially her decisions to prosecute the parents of truant students but to let the powerful off the hook, most notably Steve Mnuchin. As a direct result, a California-based banker who could have easily been prosecuted in that state for a range of massive financial crimes was free to pursue other professional opportunities, such as becoming our Secretary of the Treasury.
Of course, in this media environment, perhaps it does make make sense to emphasize optics, personal narrative and the ever nebulous concept of "electability" over the actual policy positions and demonstrable values of candidates. I'm just glad that this time, it didn't work out for this candidate. I only hope that other candidates who also seem to offer little in the way of actual core values, especially Buttigieg and Biden, will soon follow her out of the race.
9
@clint "[Harris] was crowed the perfect Democrat for 2020." By whom? Certainly not by voters.
The press, of course. Clueless talking heads always think they know what's going on.
Remember the Hillary-can't-lose polls in 2016?
3
After making fun of Biden in the first debate she faltered badly, never really making any points or saying anything memorable.
I hope she refocuses and does an outstanding job in the Senate, which would make her a viable candidate in the future since she had literally nothing she could hang her hat on in terms of accomplishments in the Senate thus far.
3
I was excited about her candidacy; as of late however, I didn't know anymore what she stood for.
7
Senator Harris always came across as scripted, like the prosecutor she constantly reminded us she was. I swear that there was not a single impromptu or authentic moment in her campaign.
And like a prosecutor, she kept telling us what she wanted us to think or believe, not what she actually thinks or believes.
Bottom line: being a candidate is not the same as being a trial attorney.
18
Sen. Harris, the minute you got elected, you started running for higher office. We voted for you to be a fierce advocate for our needs. It will take time to build seniority. As one of your constituents, I'd like you to get back to work - for us.
21
Interesting how male candidates are never chastised for their "ambition." Interesting too how the male candidate Biden seems to be perfectly acceptable to so many people even though he has always been an utterly flawed, problematic candidate. There is a reason why this is his third attempt to run for president, and it does not bode well for the election should he get the nomination. And it is interesting how Democrats this time around are also apparently willing to ignore or disparage highly competent candidates of "color."
8
@JEB
So sorry you were sleeping in 2008 and 2012. Nixon and Reagan were both talked about as being ambitious.
It is an insult to Ms Harris and everyone else to pin her failed candidacy on her chromosomes and skin color. She doesn't have the right stuff; 99.999% of us don't. Of those that do have the right stuff 99.9999% are smart enough to not want anything to do with politics or public office.
1
Of course male candidates are not chastised for their desire to achieve power. Duh.
I was turned off that she tried too hard to claim a shared identity with blacks while downplaying she was raised by a highly educated Indian mother (Hindu) and spent summers in India with her grandmother. And bussing notwithstanding, her parents were professors at Berkeley. Not exactly paycheck to paycheck laborers in the Deep South.
Considering the large Indian population here, it would have served her well to embrace that culture a bit more. She came off inauthentic.
40
She wasted valuable time in the debates with rhetoric that won't get anybody excited about voting for her in the primaries.
For example, she spent a great deal of time in one debate trying to strong-arm Warren into calling for Twitter to ban Trump. Is there any Democratic primary voter or Iowa caucus-goer who's going to say, "Kamala wants Trump off Twitter, so I'll vote/caucus for her!" No.
Talk about what you're going to do to improve people's lives, the country, the environment, whatever--just have a consistent message and stick with it. If you add up the total speaking time a candidate like Kamala gets in a debate, it's not much--maybe 10 minutes, total, spread across the whole time. You need to stay on message...but the problem is she might not have had a message.
Another time, she squandered one answer to bash Trump the entire time. How will her divisive rhetoric about Trump win over those voters who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump? Yep, there's a lot of them. And their votes will be needed to win this election.
7
For all her tough talk, it seemed to me that Harris was the kind who might cry in public. And then she did. Presidents don't cry. Maybe they should. But it's not about should.
5
Kamala Harris is ambitious, as noted by many readers of this article.
Ambition is rarely mentioned when speaking of male politicians, and when mentioned, only sometimes a fault. But a woman who wants more than she has is always criticized.
There are valid reasons for not liking Ms Harris as a candidate for President. But complaining of her ambition is only reinforcing the stereotypes all women fight daily.
Of course Senator Harris is ambitious. All candidates for President are ambitious.
15
@Chickpea
A list of male candidates who, at one time or another, were referred to as too ambitious and putting their ambition ahead of service
JFK
Lyndon Johnson
RFK
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton
George HW Bush
John Edwards
Barack Obama
John McCain
spot a trend?
I read a story about an inmate imprisoned by the incompetence, if not evil, of Ms. Harris' office. The man, who is black, was a parolee which meant there were restrictions on what he could do and/or own. Two policemen said they saw him throw a gun under a car when he saw them. His parole was cancelled and he was put in prison to serve out his term. One big problem, there were four other witnesses who said the man who threw the gun under the car was not black. And one of those witnesses was a North Carolina sheriff. This information was never turned over to the man's attorney. When the Innocence Project got involved nine years after he was sent to prison, they got a judge to release him and order a new hearing. Kamala Harris' staff decided to appeal the judge's decision--an appeal she would have approved. The prisoner spent two more years in confinement until a judge vacated the decision and released him. As far as I'm concerned, I would never vote for anyone who makes these type of terrible decisions. Hopefully she won't ever run for president again.
25
@Paulette
And there are more stories like this. Three others were wrongfully convicted by Harris and have been released by order of a higher court, which she appealed. How many more are still in prison? Sounds like there is a least one and that is unacceptable.
4
I reject the premise of this column: Kamala Harris was never crowned the "perfect Democrat" or the "frontrunner" by perhaps any but a small group of people; perhaps just people the author, Miriam Pawel, is familiar with.
As far as what doomed her campaign, there's far more to the story than Pawel suggests, but the important point is this: The campaigns of many Dem candidates to be the Dem nominee in 2020 have ended due to lack of poll support and financial support.
Moreover, there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the arc of Harris' campaign nor about her candidacy ending. She ran, got some major attention for a while, didn't succeed, ceased her campaign, and it's not the end of her political career. That's the same narrative arc of scores of candidates in major party presidential nomination campaigns in US history.
14
She came in with a LOT of goodwill, with by far the largest kickoff rally crowd of any candidate. Unfortunately, she squandered it, and at the end tried to morph into an "identity" candidate appealing to black voters.
She needs to do a better job of being a Senator, or may end up having a challenge for her seat. I am still waiting for her to introduce at least ONE bill in the Senate that passes.
16
What doomed her campaign for me was that she just had been elected senator in 2018. If there's one thing the Democrats and the rest of us need it's more senators who are able to do other than fear to act responsibly.
4
This is the benefit of the long and extensive primary process. It became increasingly clear to the voters that she’s not somebody you’d want running the federal government. Her behavior just seemed a bit off in the debates.
Her strategy for reaching the White House May be to be a VP pick. I doubt that would excite many voters. It would be more of a box checking move for the nominee.
5
This is a summary of what happened but not a very substantial analysis of the reasons.
5
Besides, her impolite remark against Biden in the first debate that cost her support, the other factor, I think is strategic. She deeply wants to take the VP spot be it from Biden or Pete. Biden has hinted Stacey Abrams (GA) and KH wants to rush to take that spot. She knows that Biden if elected may not stand for a second term, that makes it better for her, secondly, come 2024 if she is not VP then AOC and her progressive wing is waiting to take POTUS spot, that would make KH not relevant then.
5
What doomed Kamala's campaign was the complete inability to tell voters what she wanted to achieve and who she was. She got lost in her message of whether she wanted to run as a tough prosecutor, a very liberal law reformer, a black woman, an Indian woman, a multiracial woman, a centrist, or whatever else. All that stuck with voters was that she was very eager to ramp up race rhetoric even against the fellow Democratic candidate (Biden) whose inclusive approach to the social and political fabric is undeniable. She was unnecessarily pugnacious toward opponents who treated her kindly (Biden, Mayor Pete) and shockingly passive against those (Gabbard) whose attacks required an immediate and tough rebuke. Overall, it is good she is gone - she would be all lost against Trump once the election season moves beyond the primaries, being unable to appropriately balance passivity and aggression, and by being another DEM candidate (see John Kerry and Hillary) who cannot tell the voters why she seeks presidency other than because she really, really, really wants to live in the White House.
31
@Paul
You bring up a good point, her attacks on males yet females got a pass or softer treatment for a "worse" offense. I would like to think voters are getting sick of identity politics. Sadly, I know many are not.
1
There's a simpler way to put it: California is out of control, and it's no longer much of a model for anyone. Harris's incompetent campaign is only one part of the story.
15
There are other spectra besides California politics to measure Harris. Politics have been forever changed by women. In Presidential politics, it's mostly been about Hillary and Palin. But countless others have, from Ocasio-Cortez to Elizabeth Dole have helped set the standard. And what comes of it is a move to the middle. Women must come off as hard as well as soft. And so too men. Palin, in her inimitable way, and Hillary, with dignity, both got there. As for Harris, with all her tough talk, she is too soft. If she comes back, she needs to play the prosecutor in her more convincingly.
Kamala’s candidacy was predicated on the ultimate cognitive dissonance of the Democratic voter... Those who say skin color and gender should not be a discriminating factor in choosing a candidate, but would actually do so precisely under those very pretenses in her favor if she simply regurgitated the party line with a smile on her face. That speaks volumes to how damaged this party continues to be following 2016.
16
I was initially very enthusiastic about Senator Harris, but when she attacked Biden in the first debate about ...busing, I was instantly put off. This election is about defeating Trump and his GOP /Russian enablers, and we need a strong, clever person to lead us in this almost holy endeavor to save the country, alas, Harris was clearly not that person.
12
We in California are well aquainted with Mrs. Harris' politics and the reasons why she couldn't make it this time around.
9
Simple, her message was never clear, she is a moderate leaning towards the right; and some of the things that she did in the past came back to bite her. Nothing else.
9
My thoughts on her as a candidate were initially positive. But as I saw her performance on the national stage my impression was she didn’t have any core beliefs, or bedrock principles. Nothing there but politics.
17
Kamala Harris's candidacy is compartmentalized in countless categories. Here, we're told, she was shaped by California. Some of us ignore the labels and the too clever arguments and focus on the individual. Kamala Harris, simply stated, is not up to the job. And it's got nothing to do with labels. She's not that smart enough and she's not shrewd enough. She's a lightweight. And we need a heavyweight.
8
She lost this round, but I have a feeling she'll be back. I think she'll learn from this political version of "Survivor".
7
I am a 25 year California resident that is relieved that Kamala is not going to be on the ballot for president. She has been very good at serving herself and little else.
51
It always has been troubling that from her first campaign for office, there were murmurs that Harris was headed toward running for President. That focus on next steps meant she never seemed to effectively communicate a passion for much of anything. I hope that this setback will provide an opportunity for her to step back and think about what policies and strategies she really wants to commit to and advocate for in the future. I’d also recommend reconsidering reliance on relatives for major campaign roles as opposed to less prominent background advice. It occasionally works - see the Kennedys — but it often does not — see the Trumps. And it can cause lots of friction among staff.
Harris can play a valuable role in the Senate. Her performance at various hearings has shown her examination skills are well suited to elicit information and get to the heart of an inquiry.
If she finds her passion, she may have another shot. But one hopes that running for an office is more than about simply getting an office. It should be about looking for a way to get something important accomplished; we already have seen the worst of what happens when the only reason is all about the candidate.
17
Harris' campaign failed because her history failed to live up to the hype. Like the man said in Joe and the Volcano, "I know he can get the job but can he do the job?" The record shows that no, she can't do the job.
9
"Did We Ever Know the Real Kamala Harris?"
That may not quite be the right question. The consensus seems to be that the campaign failed because everyone saw that there actually wasn't a "real Kamala Harris." There was plenty of style and image, but little substantive content.
In many years that would be plenty good enough. But, whatever our policy differences, we all seem to tacitly agree that we now face serious problems that demand serious solutions.
14
Kamala Harris has time and time again proven herself to be the least genuine candidate running in this race. The American people see right through her desperate attempts to go viral and create controversy through straw man fallacies and "gotchya" moments by taking advantage of the media's 60-second answer debate format.
45
Harris' message lacked clarity. She seemed to do well in the debates when she attacked others...personally I did not see those attacks as particularly helpful to the Democrats or her campaign. When she mischaracterized Biden's vote on busing, it felt as though she was mining the past for current outrage. That is how it landed for me at least, and I am not a Biden devotee.
I thought Senator Harris was perfectly on-point during the Kavanaugh hearings and showed her skillful expertise in cross-examining a most obnoxious, condescending and undeserving Supreme Court nominee.
I will look forward to watching and following her as Senator of the great state of California.
8
@Philly girl
- HOPEFULLY she'll be " perfectly on-point " when getting the chance " to cross-examine a most obnoxious, condescending DJT ! " in the future.., if that happens then i hope i'm still around to get the chance to see it ..
You can tell from her interviews and debates she was unknowledgeable on any issues other than criminal justice issues which most Americans don't have experience with or care about. She was just an attorney, never managed anything, never built anything, knew little about the economy, foreign policy or health care. its not surprising she is out
18
She won't be missed.
Typical money-and-power political climber who happens to be a woman of color.
The country is full of them. Nothin' new to see here.
31
I’m a Californian, and when you’re not sure who a candidate is for some state or local office, you vote the party ticket, and probably a lot of people voted for Kamala Harris that way, not because she was a known commodity, with say, a political or public profile of any kind. She lost me when I saw her pandering on that Charlemagne tha God show, about her familiarity with weed because of her Jamaican father, who then went public with his horror over her remarks, saying, I think, that her ancestors would be turning their graves. So even if you’re sort of an opportunist, or a careerist, you still need some talent for the craven occupation of politician, and she wasn’t blessed with that. Plus, unlike many others, I found her unpleasant in those Barr and Kavanaugh hearings, with that peremptory manner. What I’ve never read anyone say, is how likable she was. Because she just wasn’t. And it doesn’t matter how many “boxes” you “check”, if your personality doesn’t read as authentic. Television captures every nuance, and the over-smiling, oddly but erratically emphatic moments, the somersaulting positions ... well, they betrayed all there was betray. So for a candidate no one really knew, no tears are being shed, despite all the tokenism and other insincere commentary attending the end of this candidacy.
26
Harris' downfall followed immediately after she mercilessly trashed Joe Biden in a debate. Biden won that one.
Harris failed to gain the support of people of color, and failure to win even your own identity group in the polls is a problem from which there is no recovery. She simply failed to click with the voters.
11
Exactly.
Thanks to God for Tulsi Gabbard.
Now there is a women who knows who she is and what she stands for: her fellow Americans, all; no fake identity politics, just a legislator who represents Hawaiian and values all Americans and could be a fine Vice President.
Here's hoping Harris will not show up on the Democratic ticket as a potential V.P. candidate.
20
@JRS - NEVER Tulsi. She could be a fine VP - for a Republican candidate. She’s the only one I could never “vote blue” for.
1
@JRS
Interesting...I do not trust Gabbard AT ALL! She sounds exactly like she's been to the" School of Russian Talking Points." Scary.
I could NEVER trust or vote for anyone who meets with Bahar al - Assad, a murderous dictator and supreme violator of human rights.
1
So interesting, she was doing fine in the polls when she confronted Biden and supported progressive policies, yes she did say she was for Medicare for all. ( The those who want it propaganda would still have High co payments and out of pockets and leaving you high and dry if you got really sick, and still leave millions with no coverage, don't be fooled) But then when her donors had a chat with her she waffled on M4all, and guess what? She went down in the polls. Still to drop out now when she was fifth, according to my news sources was because the donors came and told her it was not her day, or her time, like in film " On The Waterfront" She had to take a hit, she was stealing votes from the candidate they have chosen to win the primary.
And please note Mr. no real policies, get to know my values first, ha ha ha. Mayor Pete and his pro choice about Medicare for those who want it, but will never get it that way, ad in Iowa, and the ads a group of republicans put on the air there costing around 6 million bucks, paid for by insurance companies, both ads, And they both have the same themes. Medicare for all who want unlike real M4all which is half the price and darn it everyone has it. Which the elite hate. but Mayor Pete's modest one only cost a million. Do not be fooled by right wing Pete. He thinks he can fool you. Can he?
4
Harris had many problems, the least of which was being from California. African-Americans were suspicious of her role as a prosecutor. Running for president is hard and you had better be organized. So now her campaign has imploded.
Harris needs to do a careful examination of herself and figure out why she failed so miserably.
3
President was not going to happen for her future, likely. But as US Atty Gen, now that's a job for which she's well qualified. Someone tough and experienced has to clean up the criminality and malfeasance of Trump and his cronies. She would be a great choice for that job.
3
@N Breakspear
It is clear from Harris' record that she is NOT qualified to be AG. We need a champion for civil and environmental rights, Harris not this person.
5
If she had to deal with any of the people commenting on her heritage, lack of focus, dating history, elitism, one debate comment on Biden, I bet she is happy to be out of the race. Americans are down right nasty.
4
@Sasha
All this was known before she tossed her hat into the ring. She made the issues of gender, bussing, who she knew as well as the fake science of race. And all that should have been ignored?
2
Here's what you can take to the bank. Her donors reverse dialed her and told her she was to get out of the race so that some of her backers would swing over to some other corporate candidate Biden or the latest media heart throb Buttigieg. I think Biden's toast and will lose to Trump. Buttigieg is a white Obama, very well spoken, talks around all the issues, has his finger in the air and will be as promising as Obama and in the end will be as disappointing as Obama if he can even get elected. In my view he can't get elected because black people won't vote for him no matter how hard he tries. I'm guessing Harris will be the top nod for VP regardless of which corporate Democrat wins the nomination and even Bernie Sanders would likely pick her or Tulsi.
5
Ms Harris comes off as arrogant and opportunistic, which makes her viscerally unappealing...and that’s why her support evaporated. Meanwhile, are we weary of identity politics yet? Yes, we are.
30
Senator Harris truly is the perfect Democrat presidential candidate.
That’s the problem.
10
she was doomed from the start....
way too sarcastic and condescending
she came across as angry and full of herself
she scared men....white and black
a wicked smile that was not funny or warm ....scary
20
You have no clue about Kamala Harris, why she withdrew and why she got to where she got to begin with.
Don Harris is a Jamaican socialist development economist. London and Berkeley educated, Stanford emeritus Professor who advised the Jamaican socialist prime minister in the late seventies. Bob Marley was in the same team.
Mom was an Indian cancer researcher who died of the disease she researched for most of her adult life. Separated from Don and in charge of two daughters whom she saw through their education and early success.
Harris is an honest person. Warm, humane, extremely charismatic and magnetic.
She realized that the game is not one she wants to play. Admirably, she pulled out and will be more effective pushing from outside than “inside.”
Bless her. Nice lady. We will hear from her a lot in the future.
9
Her campaign ended with "That little girl was me."
22
Any writer who titles an Op Ed with:"Did We Ever Know The Real___________" is doing nothing more than writing a hatchet piece disguised as enlightenment. Really NYT; your readers require much better than this.
17
I regret Kamala Harris leaving the race. In senate hearings she's been a pit bull, and I think Democrats need a pit bull at just this moment. She has baggage, but I'm not convinced that what a candidate has done in the past is an accurate predictor of what they'll do in changed circumstances. And in debates, she always seemed like she was rethinking her answer every time, not just parroting talking points. She seemed real, and tough, and I don't think there's another candidate besides Bernie Sanders I can say that about.
115
@Kyle Gann
I can say that about Elizabeth Warren, using your measure:
1) "she always seemed like she was rethinking her answer every time, not just parroting talking points
2) "She seemed real,
3) "and tough"
In fact, only Elizabeth Warren fits that measure.
I am interested in what a candidate has done in the past because it is an actual predictor, but you are saying the lie:
"She has baggage, but I'm not convinced that what a candidate has done in the past is an accurate predictor of what they'll do in changed circumstances."
Kyle Gann, Brett Kavanugh's past was riddled with troublesome and violent unjust behavior; do you think the U.S. Supreme Court is a good venue to see just how much of a predictor it turns out to be? What does the data show of Clarence Thomas' time and judgments on the high bench?
And every predictor correctly pointed to Donald J. Trump being a reckless endangerment to America.
So I can say Elizabeth Warren has a track record of helping Americans since she first had in her hands a way to do it. She is a predictor come true when you see her life's fight to make life for right for people who fall into the trap that cause her parents great affliction, triggered because he suffered a heart attack at work
Elizabeth Warren has been thinking about helping almost her whole life. She has a plan, and we don't have a lot of time.
42
@Kyle Gann
You might want to go back and revisit those tapes, in reality she was more sound and fury than effective.
You want to see effective? Look at Senator Mazie Hirono -- she did her homework and changed Murkowski's vote on Kavanaugh.
I'll take substance over style any day.
35
@Dolly
Elizabeth Warren's plan involves handing the Presidency to Donald Trump in 2020
As an Opinion writer in this paper wrote last week:
"Elizabeth Warren is God's gift to Donald Trump."
Trump went after Biden for a reason.
Trump knew that it was Biden who posed a threat to Trump's re-election.
If Trump thought that Warren was the threat, Trump would have gone after Warren.
3
The worst of our San Francisco political machine - not close to a meritocracy - but the latest vessel of hope vs realism.
I hoped she’d win so that we’d have a friend in high places when the California Public Employee Pension system is bankrupt and needs Federal bailout.
5
I expected her to be a formidable candidate, but as time went by I didn't get a clear sense of why she was running, aside from her own burning ambition. She did not address economic issues as clearly as Warren or Sanders, and did not seem to embrace progressive solutions, but was more in the neo liberal wing of the Democratic party. Once Warren started issuing her "I've got a plan for that" policy statements, I was sold on her. If Harris had taken the same progressive tack, I do believe should could have been the nominee.
2
A quality person to be sure, her campaign zigged when it should have zagged and vice versa.
Harris propounded no strong, consistent rationale for her candidacy. No rationale is fatal to a candidate.
As with other candidates as yet to drop out, she did not provide voters a clear set of priniciples and reasons as to why she should get our votes as opposed to others. Voters need reasons to vote for a candidate, not just against the other person.
The reported disunity within the campaign hurt her chances, I am sure. Disunity or not, the reports of it were bad. Money woes, too, took an exacting toll.
Frankly, she jokingly complained a lot publicly about her need to camp out in Iowa, as one will recall. She complained too much. She seemed not to be a "happy warrior" on the trail, but rather a person who viewed retail campaigning as only slightly less painful than 2 root canals before 9 a.m. on a Sunay morning.
Like many, she wanted the office (and who could blame her) but the impression she gave to this observer, and many others, was that she did not want it enough to do the tough campaign work necessary to get it.
Campaigning across most of America (not all) is retail in a way that here in SoCal and in NoCal can never again be. The needs and the manner of campaigning here in L.A. for example isn't like that in the cities and small towns of South Carolina ... and Iowa.
Kamala Harris' problem as a candidate was that she was seen as a panderer. To be elected California Attorney General and U.S. Senator requires a different set of skills than winning the Democrat Party nomination for President.
Bill Clinton was a notorious panderer. But this is 2019, not 1992. Voters today crave "authenticity," even if a candidate is an authentic boor as is the case of Donald Trump. To Trump supporters, the fact that he lets it all hang out is one of his charms.
Harris, on the other hand, was widely perceived as saying whatever it took to win support. It worked for Bill Clinton in 1992, but Democrat Party primary voters and caucus-goers are looking for something different today.
5
Senator Harris is smart, articulate and a leader. Why this piece when she has stepped out of the race but not of politics? Don't kick smart good people over mistakes that they can correct in the future. She'll make an excellent Senator ; she should be considered for a high level position in any Democratic cabinet and she is young enough to run again for the Presidency.
Give her an applause for throwing her hat in the ring for the toughest race and the toughest job in the world.
I hope Senator Harris speaks more about her Indian side. Her single Indian mother raised her well.
6
I like Kamala Harris and am glad she remains in the Senate. But, on the campaign trail, it always struck me that she had one snappy applause line and then not much else. There didn't seem to be any intellectual investment. Best to her.
1
@Paul Wertz That's my perception, as well. She went for the "snappy applause line" and "gotcha" moment, but there was no substance to her campaign.
3
Senator Harris is smart, articulate and a leader. Why this piece when she has stepped out of the race but not of politics? Don't kick smart good people over mistakes that they can correct in the future. She'll make an excellent Senator, she should be considered for a high level position in any Democratic cabinet and she is young enough to run again for the Presidency.
Give her an applause for throwing her hat on the ring for the toughest race and job in the world.
I hope Senator Harris speaks more about her Indian side. Her single Indian mother raised her well.
1
In Seinfeld Episode no. 39 (The Parking Space), season 3, episode 22, originally broadcast on April 22, 1992, the character Sid sums it all up about Kamala Harris.
Sid: "Never mind who I am. I know who I am. Do you know who you are?"
Unfortunately, Kamala Harris has no idea who she is.
I hope she finds out one day.
48
don't care.
she was running because the field was a mess and she never seemed interested in showing the "real".
7
Iowa and NH should not be allowed to choose our Presidential candidates; they lack the diversity especially when it comes to the Democratic party. I am also appalled at these hit pieces in the New York Times on perfectly fine candidates while a complete disaster sits in the White House.
12
@Sasha They won't
So correct.. Iowa? as homogeneous as whole milk..New Hampshire?..Maple Surple..Something is so wrong to be choosing candidates in ancient outdated ways. I liked Ms Harris and her strength...She would have torn Trump to smithereens...Meanwhile we all should know that news organizations only give time to a candidate they like.
2
Ms Harris lost me when she blasted Joe Biden with her rehearsed take down line. "That little girl was me..." Bad self serving line, and , strictly speaking, bad grammar.
32
Well, no. Not bad grammar. “That little girl was I” sounds ridiculous, which is all grammar is.
Let's see she disappears her Indian background and her life in Montreal. And what about good old Willie?....she disappeared him too. Promotion canape, as the French say.
And she threw a lot of people in jail for victimless drug crimes.
And she took money from anyone.
Good riddance.
30
@Keramies I've seen NO evidence she locked up a LOT of people for victimless drug crimes. Was it her or state laws?
2
@DM She was agressive in seeking prison sentence for pot use while she herself admitted to using pot.
Wow what a dull rehash of stuff that's been said over and again for at least two months. Boring article about a third - rate candidate.
11
Leaders lead. If her campaign was lead by someone other than her or without her approval, then she lack leadership qualities, which means that either way, we know her.
9
She was completely out of her element, and CA has known that all too well.
12
What doomed Kamala Harris's campaign? A one-sentence article would suffice: "I do not believe you are a racist...but..."
23
As others have said, she does not seem genuine, especially when compared to Bernie and Elizabeth. I also wonderedn where her funding came from. Was she for Medicare for all when she declined corporate money but then was against it when she couldn’t raise enough without it? So once she decided to accept corporate donations, she suddenly was for private health insurance and against Medicare for all. She appears disingenuous to me.
4
What wins is a strong, clear message and simple way to identify the candidate. California produced Reagan, an enormously skillful communicator and enormously terrible president. I like Kamala a lot but she didn't burnish her brand quickly or clearly enough. So perhaps she's still more of a human being than a creature of the media. Which in the end might be a good thing.
3
Folks are going into analysis apoplexy over this but sometimes someone who may have had an impressive record in important realms of public service is just a terrible presidential candidate.
Look at Hillary Clinton. Think she would have gotten as far as she did in a crowded field?
9
@Jonathan Baron - Hillary WON in “a crowded field” — won the Democratic primary and won the general election (popular vote, which ain’t so popular with the Republican Party). Why do so many people forget that this so-called terrible candidate was a winner and would’ve made an excellent president? I can’t fathom why....
1
Whenever a tough policy question was asked, she’d say ”we can have a conversation about that.” She seemed not to believe she needed to have actually thought about issues, just about snark.
11
She is bright, clever and politically savvy. Like Elizabeth, she joined the Bernie “free for all” wagon to compete which was a disgrace showing her political immaturity. Taking on Biden was a poor strategy which showed her desperation. Hope she learned a lot thru the process. She needs to stand for issues which matters to the general public, not the fringe free loaders. Our nation has many problems. Rural America is on oxygen and infested with poverty and drug addiction. Alas, they are now Trump supporters since they are desperate for help. Unfortunately, the wannabe candidates have no clue how to reach out to the voters.
4
What caused her to fail at her presidential bid pales in comparison of wealthy, well-educated fenake Senator and a poor rural voter.
Was she ever really in ?
Didn’t think so.
6
I was interested in her, then came the attack on Biden.
16
Her laid-back, three-martini California attitude somehow seems incongruous with her intolerant prosecutorial inclinations. This may also have been troubling to Tulsi Gabbard, a fellow Hindu deeply committed to Hindu tenets of peace and love.
8
To me, she presented as if she were a prosecutor in court. She never seemed very engaging, but rather accusational. I think she had some good ideas and that she is intelligent, but sadly her manner got in the way.
3
Oh yes, lets all kick her now when she is down. Trumps manner is catching,even for democrats. Its pretty shameless.
7
Ask the young African Americans that Ms Harris put in jail as a zealous prosecutor- did we see the best of her?
7
What made me not-at-all excited about Harris was an op-ed published on these very pages that explained her record as a prosecutor. And the more I looked at it, it seemed as though the pattern was that AG Harris, like many AGs before her, had spent her career trampling on the rights of the brown, the poor, and the powerless in order to gain a reputation of "tough". For instance, Harris had no problem ruining thousands of lives over small amounts of cannabis, even though she had smoked herself. And Harris went on record as wanting to keep people in prison not because they were a threat to society but so they could be forced to work as cheap firefighters. And meanwhile, she treated Steve Mnuchin with kid gloves because he donated $2000 to her Senate campaign - talk about pliable.
This record was later highlighted at a debate by Tulsi Gabbard of all people.
Ambition is fine. Ambition that depends on stomping on others by the thousands is not. If you want to lead, lift up those at the bottom by organizing them (like Obama), arguing cases for them (like H Clinton), designing and pushing laws that will help them (like Warren), or standing with them at protests (like Bernie).
If you want to know the real Kamala Harris, talk to Kevin Cooper, who is on death row right now because AG Harris opposed DNA tests that many, including Nicholas Kristof, think will exonerate him.
672
@Dave When my wife and I read about some prosecutor engaging in some so-called tough law and order ,steam rolling prosecutions ,we look at each other and say looks like we know who next gubernatorial or senatorial candidate will be. Well trodden path this is. Giuliani,Christie, Spitzer, and Schneiderman are good examples.
66
@FJS And all terrible hypocrites...
33
@Dave You are spot on. I'll be honest, I like her presentation, and on some interviews she seemed reasonable and moderate. But to deny someone on death row the right to prove their innocence speaks of someone more concerned about a Willie Horton type of ad campaign than justice. And the race thing - she decries the pre-bussing era while staying silent about the obvious racial imbalances in the justice system.
45
I’ve watched Ms. Harris’ career from the local level here in SF, to the state, and then national level. She’s smart, articulate, well qualified, and would have made a wonderful President. That being said, I was never able to understand what her messaging was. I’m sorry to see a woman and person of color leave the race.
251
@Tam That is sort of the problem with the entire Democratic slate.
20
@Tam
Kamala has what it takes to lead. I am sorry to see her leave the campaign but take heart in the fact that she will be back to run again, with this experience under her belt.
15
@Tam,
What do gender and color have to do with it? We're looking for someone to represent ALL Americans.
13
She struck me as mean and condescending during the Kavanaugh hearings and ditto on calling out Biden for his opposition to busing. Almost no one supported busing, including many African Americans. I realize that Trump is mean and condescending, but few people other than he can pull this off and maintain a base. I don't think 'condescending' is a good strategy for any Democrat, because it's a losing strategy.
362
@dga Cannot agree more. Her shameless attack on Biden, just like Julian Castro's attack, just made them seems heartless and mean, plus weak. What a losing combination.
132
@dga
Kavanaugh.. you mean the nasty sneering, condescending, aggressive nominee that took pleasure in attacking women on the committee and making demands on them? That Kavanaugh? Who by the way is clearly an alcoholic and it is unfortunate that the hearings got side tracked and did not ferret that out.
If anything.. she was not tough enough on that self important and entitled under achiever.
As for Biden... while I do not think any Democrat candidates should be attacking each other during the primaries.... Biden is a walking talking bullseye waiting to be targeted. He needs to also quit the campaign.
94
@dga she wanted to appear outraged and incisive, but she came across as mean. Why? She simply wanted points. She used what she thought was a prosecutorial approach in order to look good. But she has no substance or credibility in the arena of policy or idea.
11
What was lacking from Senator Harris was a strong personal narrative on why she should be president. People of color, women, and the marginalized are often questioned about their ambition to serve.
White, wealthy men rarely face the same scrutiny about their motivation to lead it because it is often considered a birthright to be ambitious.
I hope she continues to serve the people of California with a strong voice. Maybe she will serve as judge as an attorney general in the futures.
3
I think the real KH was the one that decided to make fun of and embarrass Joe Biden, first with a well planned (untrue) story where she happened to just have a picture of herself from 40 years ago ready for the cameras, the second where she said, Yes we can Joe as a slogan which no one picked up or applauded. Nuff said about who she really was.
15
There was no "there" there with Kamala but one must marvel at her world class ambition.
Perhaps if she could have communicated just why she was running we might have liked her more?
Nah.
5
As The Intercept has reported, she was cozy with the Catholic Church who's who in San Francisco and let pedophile priests off easy. That's why I would have never voted for her.
5
Racism. Sexism. That must be it.
3
Did Kamala Devi Harris believe that what got Barack Hussein Obama elected President was his color aka race aka ethnicity aka national origin aka sectarian exotic background plus an elite education and a ' Good Negro' comforting persona and style?
I don't think that is even remotely near the truth.
Black African Americans particularly black Protestant women are the most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party. But they can't afford to be sentimental and unrealistic. And their voting record reflects that reality.
Strategic with permanent interests and values with a dual complementary path towards their freedom and liberty.
Demanding that the system accept their final and full integration in every phase of civil secular life. While making the best of bars and barriers that isolate them behind caricatures and stereotypes canards and tropes .
Kamala Harris had no message nor rationale for her campaign beyond carefully choreographed phony comments. Phony is the softest judgment on her. Entitled is another.
8
A Democrat candidate for President can’t be from a coastal state these days, and hope to win. The coasts are too “bubble”. It’s amazing that Dems and the DNC don’t get that.
But that sure doesn’t stop a constant flow of competitors for the title from Massachusetts! They think Kennedy’s gold dust will fall on them and create magic.
God love ‘em all. Mikey, Johnny, Lizzy. Duval (How we wish his name worked with the “ey” at the end; you’ve got to have the “ey” at the end in MA).
Signed: Richy Pauly Stevie Donny Bobby Jackie Petey Danny and Eddie from Somerville. Go Pats.
2
The circular firing squad proceeds.
6
Only the NYTimes could, without a hint of sarcasm, suggest that Democrats in CA are “moderate.”
14
@LTJ Well gee we're about 40 million people out here and 40 some odd % are registered democrats. We range from fairly conservative to quite liberal...with many"moderates" in between. Clearly you've made up your mind about both the NYT and the citizens of California. But I wonder how perpetuating stereotypes contributes to the national dialogue?
This disingenuous piece fails to ask two key and pointed questions: Does Kamala Harris know who she is or what she stands for? Why did the NY Times become her primary rah-rah booster, anointing her the new Hillary, instead of critically examining her controversial record?
14
Does anybody care!
5
It's over.
1
Her mother was a communist and her father was a Black Panther. No wonder we don't know who she is.
4
@James Ribe
Harris’ mother was a cancer researcher. Her father is an economics professor at Stanford.
It’s called lying, Dude.
1
Did we really ever know the real Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan Clinton, Bush or Trump? Or do we know what the media, party political machines, corporate sponsors, or the Russians have told/sold us? Who they are may be secondary to who they serve.
5
In a word, substance. That’s what was missing from this campaign. We’ve all heard of celebrities who are famous for being famous. There is a political analogue to that, the lightweight who moves up on the strength of powerful patrons, so much so that it obviates formulating strong positions and accomplishing real results. The best leaders we have had have been those who lacked the early support of political patrons, and who eventually earned their patronage by a long, slow record of accomplishments. Through it, they became mature, seasoned and experienced. Those who think they can avoid this long and difficult road by taking shortcuts are either forced to confront reality (like Kamala Harris) or if they succeed find they have no reservoir of experience to serve them through difficult times in governing.
8
Let us hope this is her last foray into national politics. I've watched her question individuals in Senate hearings and look foolish. I've watched her instantly agree with individuals on the campaign trail in order to gain approval in the moment, only to later recant. I've watched her make nonsensical attacks on Joe Biden with regards to busing, only to learn it was planned - with appropriate merchandising followup. I've watched her get cut to ribbons by the far more impressive Tulsi Gabbard.
Harris never seemed intellectually capable of the Presidency. She always seemed like a silly "party girl," who made good. She should feel lucky to be a Senator and leave well enough alone.
17
I, and apparently many other Dems, liked her take-down of Biden until I realized that she basically race-baited him on yesterday's hot-button issue. I would have preferred that she attacked him for playing catamite to Wall Street on the bankruptcy bill.
Still, I'm disappointed. I could see her generating some turnout-buzz among rank and file Dems, while playing well in affluent suburban America. She would have been tough for Trump to beat. Now we're stuck with Biden who enthuses no one, the phony-baloney Mayor of Mayberry, a crotchety old man, the smiling monster from Minn., and the Sen. from Mass. who just can't seem to seal the deal - and strangely isn't polling well in her own home state. Corey Booker is looking better and better. If only he'd start running for President instead of Newark city council.
3
She had some strengths but to call her the "perfect candidate" at the beginning is or was ridiculous. She was new to national office and had yet to make an impact. A perfect candidate would have more to run on.
5
"Kamala Harris was crowned as the perfect Democrat for 2020"?
And WHO "crowned" Harris? The media, who seems terminally infected with the desire to "crown" or anoint "rock star" candidates on the sole basis of their (media-generated) celebrity?
How about focusing on issues and candidate positions for a change of pace?
16
Career Pol. What's not to like?
5
You know what should have doomed her campaign Ms. Pawel? The audacity that she proclaimed herself the left coast Eric Holder, which is EXACTLY what she was/is and I don't know what's more absurd, the fact that was one of her selling points or the fact you're not of aware why that's problematic.
5
comely kamela will serve as vp for joe pa biden, who will resign after a year or 2- and hand the reins to kamela for the next 6 0r 10 years- starting the gal world. joe is the last of the guy world- and he understand that he needs to leave in a hurry.
As attorney general of California, why hasn't she cleaned up the rape kit scandal which is so prevalent in US but more so in her state?
6
I never got the impression that senator harris had a great handle on policy. She struggled during both town halls and debates to articulate a deep understanding of policy, domestic or foreign.
I don't think she was prepped well enough to rebound once she lost momentum.
7
The attack on Biden did her in. Castro did the same thing and now he’s history too.
33
Junior CA US Senators from both parties have a lackluster re-election history...
2
What doomed her campaign was listening to people like you.
A candidate perfect on paper is a recipe for disaster.
Add to that she believed the hype, and lost contact with the real world.
Deserved to leave, just as every othe Democratic clown car candidate.
5
Her abuses of poor minorities in the Bay Area and CA Criminal Justice systems hurt her. She would have gone much farther if she had been a tireless worker on behalf of CJ reform. Instead, she took a justice system and exploited it's worse features.
Turn out 20 more candidates. They will all stand in the shadow of Trump. The only person who can outdo Trump is Trump.
6
The attempted kneecapping of Biden with a sleazy conflation of the important difference between forced and voluntary busing was the epitome of going low. In order to generate buzz and momentum, she mortgaged her own credibility.
66
I liked Kamela Harris a lot. She was my candidate!
But she recognized that there was no path forward
at this point. I think there is a real problem for the
Democrats in that the leading candidate in the "polls"
is the least progressive candidate in the list.
2
Can we please stop with the "Here's what ... ( ...you need to know"). Give us the facts and let us decide what it is that we need to know!
7
She was interesting at first to many Democratic voters because she is a black woman.
But then she revealed herself to be just another shameless opportunist with no principles or beliefs you could pin down. Other than she should be President.
22
@Old Maywood
First, she was gonna get rid of all private health insurance. When some pointed out that 150 million people had such insurance, and that many had given up raises to negotiate that insurance and wanted to keep it, suddenly she switched. It revealed that she plainly hadn’t thought about the issues, but had simply picked a position that seemed popular.
Appallingly unprepared, which reveals either sense of entitlement or laziness.
9
Harris is first and foremost a lawyer. She doesn't have political philosophies or principles. All she has is a lawyer's ability to identify issues, and a lawyer's resolve to prevail on them, coupled with a blind ambition to succeed. Like all lawyers, she is willing to take either side -- whichever one "hires" her -- and fight for victory. If anyone, such as Biden, is in her way, her job is to vanquish them at whatever cost to her victory.
16
I am afraid her unsustainable "perfect candidate" status ultimately resulted from the positive publicity she was receiving early on from both the party and the media. Frankly, if we learned anything from the 2016 primary/presidential election campaigns, when Hillary Clinton became the "chosen one", this time around clearly, the voter is getting tired of the media and party telling them who they should vote for.
They would prefer to make their own choice.
20
To paraphrase Ed Koch’s famous quote about Bella Abzug, Ms. Harris’ neighbors must know her. As the author points out, she zigzagged on policy and her candidacy had no clear rationale or constituency. Her staged takedown of Joe Biden at one of the early debates was seen for what it was, scripted and phony. She lacks conviction save for one thing: Her career. The Democrats can do much better in 2020.
20
She seemed "off" during the last debate - I noticed and commented to those I was watching with. Her demeanor seemed distracted and not really present. Perhaps she was coming to terms in the moment that the end was closer than she'd originally believed.
6
The way we choose candidates is flawed.
Every candidate chooses themselves and runs around like sole proprietors, trying to attract voters and money.
So the media focus is on personality and minute degrees of policy difference.
But where is the Party? The Democrats need a platform that they publicly stand for - then we wouldn’t need this wasteful 2-year long ritual.
Not to mention that in 2020 any Democrat will do.
12
@Space Needle -- But any Democrat will not do. You seem to be forgetting working class voters in the swing states who voted for Trump last time. Their issues need to be addressed by someone they are willing to vote for. Are we forgetting history and condemned to repeat it? Is it deja vu all over again?
7
Writing that Sen Harris went to “ college in the East” does not do justice to her decision to attend Howard University after finishing high school in Montreal or to Howard’s impact on her. At the same time, the article fails to acknowledge the sense of entitlement that the Harris sisters seem to have assimilated from their mother, with her background as a member of India’s elite.
26
Wow. The commenters are really piling on with unusual vehemence.
Harris was not my favourite candidate . . . and I think she ran a very inconsistent campaign. But the level of hate for her in many of the comments is disturbing. It makes one wonder how much misogyny and racism is at work here.
16
@617to416
I agree. The same bitter streak/schadenfreude runs through the Times' report on Harris' withdrawal from the race as well.
Stunning.
9
@617to416
Harris injected a level of negative discourse into the race that was simply unnecessary. Busing? "I don't think you're a racist?" These were cheap shots.
11
@617to416
Or maybe people just didn’t think she was genuine or well prepared. Not liking Harris does not in itself make anyone sexist or racist. There are people who decided to support her in part because she was a female of color. Doesn’t that equally make those people sexist and racist?
11
"Did We Ever Know the Real Kamala Harris?"
At times we saw the real Kamala Harris, and we liked what we saw. For instance, when she wasn't acting like a Sanders minion. She did have some natural constituencies. For example, among my acquaintances, both younger women and older women saw much in her that they liked.
2
Not to be too flippant, but I wonder if the "perfect candidate" label had more to do with her gender and ethnicity, and maybe the back story her campaign tried to sell. In other words, the superficial package and not the actual contents.
54
@Bob Krantz
Gender and ethnicity are never superficial. They inform where a person comes from, where they are, and where they will go in life. I appreciate Harris' intellect, honesty, humanity, humor, and intent. I also like what a woman of color can offer our country in a leadership role. Any candidate we choose will have a gender and an ethnicity. Interesting how much more we notice those traits when the candidate is a woman and a person of color.
3
I think it is extremely hard for a candidate to expose who they are to millions of people: how do you appear authentic unless you can do that, neither Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton let us know who they really were. What they are doing is extremely hard and very scary, some of the candidates who are extremely sure of themselves can be authentic, no one exposes themselves completely, but we do get a better feeling of genuineness and that I believe is what voters are looking for.
5
Like Buttigieg, she's an empty barrel--nothing but ambition and gloss. Like him, she never had (and never has had) any genuine policies or vision, let alone an understanding of the deep structural changes that need to happen to stop America's slide into an oligarchy.. She was a skilled social climber who was super good at sucking up to San Francisco's wealthy people, and that's about it. Even her so-called 'prosecutorial skills' are oversold. I'm glad she's out. Now, if we could just get rid of Buttigieg and Bloomberg.
56
I agree. Call me a cynical NYer but she instantly struck me as hollow, and not even Hollywood. Agree also on mayor Pete. Mayor Mike on the other hand? He proved that besides making billions in business, he could also manage a complex multi-billion dollar city government and make significant progress for the better in 12 years that was scandal, fairly progressive (stop and frisk became abusive and overly-used), and turned NYC into a magnet for for Americans again. As sell as immigrants. I like Joe. I fear the Stalinist leaning of Warren, though Bernie has had it. But I also like Mike.
4
@Cyntha Amen, sister.
2
I said from the get go there was no real rationale for her candidacy other than her ambition and California moving up its primary. She criticized Biden for opposing forced busing but refused to support it. She flippantly advocated getting rid of all private insurance only to immediately walk it back when she got pushed back. On other issues all she should could come up with was let's have a conversation about it. Joy Reid and others attempted to make this about her being mixed race and a woman. It was more about somebody being totally out of their league.
18
Now she can get back to work for the constituents who voted for her in California.
7
I know that she giggles when she talks about smoking pot after years of jailing people for the same and that she wasn't concerned enough about our health care issues to have a well-thought-out plan before she spoke about it.
23
I have a very hoity toity cousin who is very “to the manor born” (in her head). She and Ms. Harris speak exactly alike. I don’t mean exact sound, but a sort of let-them-eat-cake tone and aura.
That’s a very bad way to sound in the USA right now. Especially if you’re from California or the other coast. Just ask the candidate who coined “deplorables”.
23
@In The Ville I have a hard time with that logic (which I hear a lot with different versions). How then does one explain Trump? Are Americans so gullible and simple minded that they have a hard time with people that are educated, thoughtful, articulate and experienced and prefer dunces like Bush Jr and Trump? Apparently so.
4
Glad you answered your own question. Surprised you needed to ask.
1
Disfunctional far-left Democrat Party machine politics doesn't sell outside California...even to other Democrats.
7
For many of the reasons discussed in this guest column by Miriam Pawel, the decision by Kamala Harris to drop her quest for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party was the right decision. Similarly, Senator Harris would not be a good selection by the eventual Democratic nominee for President to be a running mate for Vice President. As Ms. Pawel points out, however, Kamala Harris would make a great Attorney General.
5
None of the senators who entered the race have done well except for the two progressive senators who both had large national followings to begin with, particularly Bernie Sanders. The lesson seems to be that being a senator without a large national following makes it difficult to get traction in this Democratic primary and the same goes for members of the House. Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker are still hanging in there but for how long? Booker looks like he could be the next to withdraw. If he does than there will be explanations about why he didn't get anywhere.
1
Attacking Biden was just weird. No coherent strategy or clear message.
30
another failed run for high office; who really cares.
1
I think her biggest blunder was to go after Biden on busing. Busing ? Busing? Was there ever a more unpopular program in white communities. At first I thought she was very shrewd. Then to top that off she had shirts for sale with her young face indicating she was the girl on the bus, How calculating. Too smart by half, Her only chance was at VP. If Biden gets to top of ticket that will be very unlikely. That was one stupid roll of the dice.
23
She is mean person....Americans don't like mean people
27
They don’t like mean people??? How about the president ?,
6
@Kevin McGarry
you are joking right?
Uh, hello. Have you registered exactly who is the White House’s current denizen?
1
She is republican lite, a sure loser. People without principles should lose.
8
Apparently Brown had been separated from his wife several years before briefly dating Harris.
Her failure is directly attributed to her affiliation to the city of Oakland. Oakland is cursed. Two professionals sports franchises gone and the A’s are next. The Black Panthers and the Hell’s Angels are, for the most part, gone as well. Don’t even get me started about the police department and city council.
Now, it is late to know who really is Kamala Harris.
1
Kamela was trying to inspire by talking tough and wagging her finger. That's not what the world needs. We need a uniter who inspires with positive messages and sells them in detail. It's not about how awful Trump is, or beating Trump. It's about where do we want to go as a nation? Income equality, the environment, the national debt, healthcare, immigration, reuniting with our many allies...so much to discuss. Finger wagging: not.
14
Rule #1. Don't have your sister be the head of your campaign. You'll never be told the truth.
22
Tulsi doomed her campaign...
7
As others have commented, she’s a zero with no ideas who just wants to rule.
The author of the article forgot to add Harris’s “childhood and adolescence spent in Canada” and Newsom getting his start via Getty family ties...
11
Newsome got his start through his dad, a very connected Superior Court judge, the Getty’s provided the funding.
2
Please. Let’s see. Tough on crime. Rich. Record of putting young black men in jail. Married to a really rich guy. Really Rich. About the only thing going for her is she is black. That was not enough. In today’s Democratic Party she was destine to fail. And she did.
5
I would not be happy to have Harris on a ticket as VP. Who would take her? Buttigieg?
Hopefully not Biden after she trashed him. Pretty arrogant.
10
You need a large ego to think you can be elected President.
A large ego powered by a genuine desire to make a difference and improve the lives of your voters, I can get behind.
A large ego powered simply by raw naked ambition to claw your way to the top is shallow and shameless.
13
I’ll get back to you tomorrow Kamala. I doubt I’ll ever see a woman president before I die.
1
@Harry B
Maybe Nikki Haley in 2024? Sigh...
3
We knew more than we needed to know about Harris.
The day she laughed about smoking pot on national media.
When, as a senator, she should be campaigning school kids to say no to drugs.
Will she even keep her senate seat? Now that would be funny, Ha-ha-ha-harris.
6
What's with all the comments about how mean Ms. Harris was to Joe Biden?
1
I think what really doomed Senator Kamala Harris's campaign, aside from logistical and other concerns, was her wholly disingenuous attack on Senator Biden in the first debate - on race, no less!
Knowing just who Senator Biden is, I wouldn't be surprised if she finds herself being asked to be a part of the Biden administration.
12
Other readers have given numerous reasons why Harris was not a good candidate, but the biggest hurdle that even the perfect candidate, Harris would never have been able to overcome was that she’s from California- The state conservative voters love to hate. What they don’t realize is how many wealthy conservatives, particularly from Texas live here a good chunk of the year. ( must not be that bad) There’s only been two presidents from California, Nixon and Reagan a Democrat doesn’t stand a chance.
1
Senator Harris was a great choice but last summer she fizzled and could not keep up. Good for her for admitting now that she cannot run in this campaign any longer. Another example that unfortunately in this country money makes a person, especially a political one. However, despite setbacks, Senator Harris has gained recognition. She would make a great Attorney General in the next administration. She certainly has more credentials than Teddy Barr. At least she can keep her senate seat for California and be a voice in the trial of this corrupt president. Good luck to you, Senator Harris! We, the People know that you are fighting for us.
3
What doomed her is pretty simple. She was the flavor of the month, a superficial jolt in that almost no one outside California had spent any time scrutinizing her. And lo and behold, she was one of those candidates that the more you got to know her, the more you didn't like her. She just was so calculating and annoying. But the far left of the Democratic Party seems to naturally gravitate toward ultra-liberal candidates from the east coast and west coast who have no shot of winning in the Midwest or the South. It is so obvious that Amy K is the only Democrat who would crush Trump in every Midwest state and would be a viable candidate to turn some of the south blue. The next debate with one less candidate is a good thing.
21
"That reality undercut a key argument cited by pundits who labeled her an instant front-runner when she entered the presidential race. "
Included in these "pundits" are multiple writers for the Times, along w editors who placed these praise song stories prominently, often on the front page with color photos. And this was almost from the beginning--she'd stated no policies, nothing substantive that would merit her elevation.
While simultaneously beating the Harris drum, this newspaper published many--for a while, daily--negative articles about Biden.
I appreciate the NYT and am a subscriber, and I'm not pushing for Biden. My point is that this kind of early thumb-on-the-scale writing does a disservice to voters. During this early period and throughout the primaries, we need this paper to report what the candidates say and what their records are. That's it--and that's a lot.
Thankfully, in this case, we can see that voters' views are finally being acknowledged. But I hope that Times editors will pause to consider the paper's track record in this race so far, perhaps correcting course and serving its readers rather than serving a particular candidate.
13
@cmk Yes, it’s true what you said about the daily negative stories about Biden back when Kamala was a thing. But those days have been over for a while, and now Pete has become the target of the mainstream liberal presses, this paper included. Meanwhile Liz and Bernie continue to skate by unscathed. The bias astounds.
4
She comes across like a snarling, mean spirited human being when attacking those she doesn’t like, including Kavanaugh and Biden. And it’s not because she is a woman that she appeared so I likable—a male candidate who attacked others as viciously as she did would appear as unlikable, perhaps more so. It’s good to see her gone.
21
Funny how everyone drops the detail that Harris spent a short time in Berkeley and a much longer time in Canada. Her life story is scripted and tweaked to make it hew to the image and agenda she is pushing. Kamala is a chameleon (I always think of the song “Karma Chameleon” when I hear her name).
I was so happy when she entered the race — I thought I might even vote for her — but I quickly tried of her. At this point, I’m glad she dropped out. I don’t believe that she was ever 100 percent committed to running for the office of President. I suspect she was really positioning herself for a cabinet appointment, should the Democrats win. Or maybe she’s hoping to be a VP candidate. Anyway, she kind of blew it.
13
@Passion for Peaches She really blew a lot if you think about it.
4
Lots of ambition. Very little substance.
20
The fact, that as a young woman, she dated Willie Brown is a dis -qualifier in itself. Brown, the ex-mayor of San Francisco is a known womanizer and certainly one to surround himself with sycophants and entourages. He was a big player in San Francisco. She wanted to be a big player as well.
16
I think most people saw her as the ambitious phony who was executing a career plan to get to the top, beginning with favorable dating decisions back in San Francisco. It's too bad Kamala had to go down and swallow her pride.
16
She is a phony. We don't know her because she doesn't know what she stands for.
I'm more concerned about when her second iteration surfaces, after she learns her lessons from this failure, when she becomes a more adroit chameleon.
14
With Kamala out and Corey struggling to meet the requirements of the next debate, the next Democratic debate may feature...
...all white candidates.
I hope the Dems learn a lesson from this; too many candidates doesn't serve the ideals of the party, nor does it support the whole of the population because candidates of color get knocked out of the running.
1
The attack on Joe Biden always will be connected with her in the memories of millions of white voters for whom this was the first exposure to Kamala Harris. Without a clearer identity, it will be who she is. Were she more thoughtful, she would have considered that she was running for President of all the people. She was insensitive to the feelings of white parents about school busing as their children were driven past the neighborhood school toward a failing inner city black-majority school. She revived those feelings by her attack and aggravated them further by joyfully recalling how well she thrived, in her new and very desirable school, now integrated. For white parents whose children were driven in the opposite direction, clearly they did not feel that joy.
19
You are correct about Harris' presidential campaign. "Her candidacy appeared to have no real rationale and no clear constituency."
Her guiding principle was getting elected and she tested the wind every day. She was ultra liberal when running in San Francisco, more moderate when running for state-wide office and totally confusing running for President.
Good riddance.
14
Yes we did. That was her downfall. Once we got to know her, not too many people liked her.
11
There is a lot to like about Senator Harris, and we have already seen sparks of greatness both in her Senate service and in her campaign. However, I always had the feeling that 2020 was more of a test run for her, rather than a genuine all-out push for the white house. She was somewhat timid about strongly taking sides in a race that has not been so forgiving to fence-sitters, but that is essential for a politician who may be worrying about being branded in future races. She also learned about her vulnerabilities from different segments of the party, issues that she can work to better shore up when she runs again in the future. The most difficult hurdle is for her to develop into the kind of visionary leader that Democrats seem to be desperate for these days, and that is a much tougher hurdle. In any case, we should be happy that we have her in the Senate, where she will be a force to reckon with...
10
I don't think we have ever known the "real" X. where X is any politician, except maybe President Trump, who tweets his every thought.
That should be enough to remind you to be careful what you wish for.
7
Say this for Trump: Because of him, America is experiencing that our country has ill-defined (if at all) the qualifications for eligibility to even be on the ballot for our highest office. Likewise, a shopping-bag of candidates also becomes a grab bag in which is seldom found a gem. Because they are so-often mentioned as to their intent, it's whatever the framers intended has functionally become all-but-moot in real time where far-too-much energy and resources are spent treating our elective process like a trip to the grocery store. What the country needs is a Constitutional Convention to match form with function in today's global world.
1
Ms Harris is clearly a very intelligent women. As several commentators have observed, she also is quite ambitious. She may be suitable AG in any administration, democratic or republican.
In the debates, however, she came across as quite an
opportunistic fighter. Her attack on Joe Biden was gratuitous and possibly undid her chances.
But what chances does a woman have in a trumpified country? Besides, I don't believe America is ready for a Madam President. I hope I am not too wrong in reading the gender politics of our country.
6
Early in the campaign, Harris played the identity politics card, using that as the primary basis of her platform. It fell flat with Democrats who are wary of such an angle, understanding that the swing voters needed for a win in 2020 will not be moved, and might even be alienated, by identity politics. I'm a liberal Democrat and I'm glad to see Harris out of the race. We need someone capable of winning tough voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. That would not have been Harris.
87
She was crowned? I don't remember that.
Regardless, a combination of factors: the Biden misstep (save the attack for the Someone Who Really Deserves It.)
No clear message. She is fabulous as a Prosecutor and great at taking down liars on Committee, but she had to do the "likable" dance, and it cost her. I saw the Real Kamala going after those people, and that's what I liked.
Generalized fear, pathological fear in America, of circling the drain, and trying to figure out how to stop it. Most of us are invested in that dance and understand all too well.
And, of course, a nice dose of good old Misogyny. Don't underestimate how much harder any woman has to work to be "likable" in this country, when so many men in office aren't anyone you'd bother saying hello to.
2
@Crossed Swords How wrong is that, though - "great at taking down liars on Committee" - Five minutes of fame for that and that's about all the ppl got for making her their Senator? And HUGE CA only has 2! All the more reason the 2 they have should be "on the job" She shouldve shut up and listened up to authentic, experienced legislators who have actually legislated before running off to run for President. She is an imposter. Glad the Dem electorate didnt buy the emptiness she was selling. It's a GOOD DAY!
3
This article did a nice job of encapsulating Harris. She needs new credentials. She has an excellent opportunity in the Senate to do so.
2
@NOTATE REDMOND: Then she would do well to adopt new tactics instead of hijacking mailing lists from, say, the Four Directions voter outreach initiative.
2
Kamala would have been the best candidate to face off in a debate with Trump. No allowed interrupting, talking over, looming. He would have ended up shaking.
7
@Ellen Yes, he would shake at the debates, and then he would win the 2020 election
3
It is absurd to refer to the parties in California as weak. It has one party, the Democrat Party, which suppresses Republican candidacies. It creates a pretense that it has moderate objectives.
It is the only kind of state where someone who wins face offs in general elections against only other Democrats can be deluded into believing they can trick national voters that they are moderates.
Harris is a moderate compared to what other Democrat or Republican candidate?
1
@ebmem "suppresses republicans' -- how exactly?? by not voting for them? They are on every ballot, they just don't get votes (in the cities-- the Central Valley and the Inland Empire is full of candidates with an "R" after their name -- god help us, we sent Devin Nunes to Congress!
1
I see two things that destroyed her candidacy:
1) attempting to campaign far to the left of her actual record - i.e hypocrisy: and
2) a Democratic Party electorate that is far to the left of corporate and Clinton triangulating Dems.
3
Short answer for her demise as a candidate: She failed miserably to live up to the hype.
11
I am happy she dropped out because she's simply another career politician who wants to be president. Most folks in CA probably don't know her because she never really stood for anything never fought for anything besides furthering her career aspirations. She was born into privilege but tried to associate herself with the struggles of poor disenfranchised black women. She thought that her multi-racial background and gender were sufficient; they were not.
29
Wow, long history of Seantor Harris but only one paragraph on the topic at hand. Should have chosen an accurate headline or simply saved some electrons/ink by not putting this in the paper.
4
Harris's attack at the first debate on Joe Biden as being anti-busing was unfair and orchestrated. She even had t-shirts already printed with "I was that girl." Biden has been a strong supporter of civil rights, and did not deserve that attack. I'm not really a Biden supporter--Warren or Buttagieg have my vote right now, but I was turned off by her attack.
60
Harris acted goofy, slurred her words and gave unfocused answers during the debates and in interviews. She did not come across as even keeled or even remotely presidential. I'm not necessarily implying anything about her sobriety, but let's just say she did not seem grounded. I was not the only one who noticed this, and don't think it didn't have an impact on her candidacy for her ability to manage her campaign.
18
Harris was my pick to unseat the outlaw in the Oval Office. As Nicolle Wallace said today, "Kamala Harris checked all the boxes." It's too bad Democratic primary voters are so fickle. Most of them appear to change their preference several times before voting. I was with Harris since the beginning. She had a good start. Maybe she'll run again in 2024. She would be less than 60 at the start of that campaign. We need younger presidential candidates!
7
@David
Isn't it past time for the baby boomers and time for a Gen
X candidate? She's a candidate for the 20th Century. She looks young or modern only compared to the baby boomer slate clinging to power.
3
It take more than hawking a few t-shirts related to get the nomination. She has little understanding of the bussing issue and never took the time to educate herself on it.
So long, Kamala.
11
@Sendero Caribe Par for the course. She didnt seem to take her new legislating job - Senate seat - very seriously either. Instead of using it as a launch pad to Leader of the Free World, she might have at least pretended she wanted to become skilled at the job she once said she wanted. If I were a CA resident who'd voted for her, I'd feel scammed. And the T shirt thing was dreadful. Just so wrong.
6
I honestly believe Kamala Harris’s downfall started with her combative offensive attack on Joe Biden in the first debate. What she believed would give her a boost was only a temporary boost. She came out with a deliberate attempt to attack Biden who did not expect it. Many if not all did not appreciate that.
34
@Eraven Yep, I watched her attack Biden in that debate, a very bad idea! I thought she was okay until that moment. Then she became instant history.
I never want to see Democratic candidates for any office attack each other! They should present their case again and again, backed by facts, research and genuine emotion for their program, and that's all. No attack dog stuff!!
6
Americans want authenticity in their candidates. Then, we can decide whether we are interested in the candidate or not. Even Mr. Trump is authentic, as off-putting as that authenticity is to a majority of the American population. Many of the Democrats are authentic. Ms. Harris never had authentic moment. Instead, she seemed to be flailing around looking for the right shape to shift to, and the right notes to toot, as circumstances changed around her. It was not fun to watch or hear, and it made so many of us not want to support her. Better to be authentic and lose than to be inauthentic and defeat yourself.
60
@Snowball - "Even Mr. Trump is authentic,..."
He is? The only authenticity he has is you know he'll change positions if that's what his base indicates it wants when he comes up with a position his base does not receive well. Your own "...she seemed to be flailing around looking for the right shape to shift to, and the right notes to toot...". Only his base willingly accepts the multitude of times he has to at times change until he gets it right for them while the dems are not as forgiving of those who play the same game in their arena.
5
@Snowball
Being inauthentic also cost Romney and Hillary elective success. Either of them would have done better if their public persona did a better job of reflecting their true selves.
8
Amen!
4
Thanks to the NYT for this article, where was it 8 or 9 months ago. Most recently you also gave us important background on Bernie, it made me gain much more respect and enthusiasm for him. It is easy for the media these days to have a narrow focus and just give us trite labels like far left, progressive or socialist without ever really giving us meaningful background on a candidate.
Specifically as it relates to Kamala Harris, she lost me with her vasilation on issues and staged attack on Biden not her very evident aggressiveness and ladder climbing. I have watched her in senatorial hearings, she is remarkable. So Ms. Harris get your stuff together and decide what you really stand for. You would make an exceptional VP or Attorney General.
9
@Steve I agree with your assessment of her strengths and your conclusion (VP or AG). I hope to see more of her in positions of influence that are well-matched to her talents.
3
Kamala Harris was a child of privilege. She went to a Montessori school in the US, was bused 3 years to an elite white school in Berkeley, and went to an elite school in Canada. Her parents had doctoral level educations and were likely in the top 10% of their community’s income level.
Harris’ attack on Joe Biden during the first debate was a cheap shot, truly beneath the dignity of a serious presidential candidate; prior to the debate her campaign website was ready to start selling T-shirts with pictures of her as a little girl with the caption “That little girl was me.” Really a bit much.
Her playing the race card and simultaneously bashing the top-polling Democratic contender was not a two-fer but a great disappointment. I had hopes for Harris before the debates, despite her hard line on prosecuting and incarcerating blacks, but now she was at the bottom of my list and I'm glad she's out.
She would have had to confront reality and recalibrate her campaign strategy, especially when potential voters realized that she supports federal support of and involvement in busing white and black schoolchildren to create integrated schools. (She ducked this question since the first debate.)
Busing was politically toxic in the 1970s and 1980s and is no less so today. If the 2020 Democratic platform includes federally mandated busing of black and white children to promote school integration, we are doomed to a second Trump term.
103
@Mon Ray
During the 1970s and 1980s the federal government forced busing in the South and forced an end to governmental institutionalized racism. The federal government did this despite the reality that it misused scarce educational resources. In low population density regions, school districts encompass huge geographic footprints, so busing to achieve school education put a lot of kids on school buses for an hour each way.
The irony is that the federal government never forced integration in urban areas governed by Democrats even though integration could have been effected by moving attendance zones a few blocks or a mile at the greatest.
We now live in a country where the most segregated public schools exist in Democrat cities where the residents rail about the racism of Republicans whose children, in red states, attend integrated public schools with no muss or fuss.
The children of privilege are those most likely to join the ruling elite and have the least comprehension of what the people want or need.
Thus, we wind up with Kamala accusing Joe of wishing Kamala had attended a segregated school. In reality, her well connected family got her bussed at public expense to a better school than her less well connected poor neighbors.
It's hard to make this stuff up, the disconnect between the narrative and reality.
19
@Mon Ray
I’m not surprised that you’re clueless about busing, and clueless about schools in California in general. Your critique on Harris is completely off the mark. I don’t know why anyone would even listen to what you have to say, and I guess that includes me. Signing off
1
@Mon Ray Most of your "facts" in the first paragraph are wrong. She lived in an apartment in a modest, racially mixed area of Berkeley a few block from where I lived for ~20 years. She was bused from the Berkeley flat lands to what was formerly a nearly all white elementary school (Thousand Oaks) in a very nice, upscale neighborhood and never went to a Montessori school. The "elite" high school that she went to was a high quality public high school in suburban Montreal.
Some consultants spun her around in a chair until she went, "Whee!!!" They spent her money and left her by the roadside. She is responsible for letting it happen, but that m.o. is how these consultants work.
19
@Bob Pinzler Yes, and I read that the consultants convinced Al Gore to be strong and wooden.......we know how that worked out! Now that he is an environmental leader, I see the real Al Gore that was missing during his campaign.
3
@Linda McKim-Bell
Good one. Al Gore is a leader in extracting wealth from his advancement of a religion. He leveraged his public service to gathering cash selling fake science and "consulting" fees to help businesses extract largesse out of cap and trade legislation.
He supported ethanol subsidies despite the fact that it doesn't reduce greenhouse gases, it does increase consumer costs, consumes scarce water resources and enriches various cronies.
Had Gore been elected in 2000, none of his policies would have differed from Bush policies. Just as when Obama was elected in 2008, none of his policies differed from those of Bush. There was no environmental or immigration legislation passed [even with a 60 Senate super majority] and Obama's rule by pen and cell phone was a temporary illusion.
Regardless of which Democrat might be elected in the future, even with a Democrat Congress, there will be no substantive change in establishment policy, no progressive advancement. Cronies own the Democrats and establishment Republicans.
In contrast, love him, hate him or tolerate him, Trump has followed through on his campaign promises and has disrupted the status quo. The establishment is distraught and the big money donors who own the MSM have been advancing regime change since 2016.
1
Kamala Harris has worked for the people all her life.
Her career of service started when she was appointed to two state commissions by then State Assembly leader Willie Brown. She would go on to work with Mayor Brown intimately- for the people.
The injustice in our country has forced Senator Harris to take on ever greater leadership roles. It has never been about her- always about the issues.
From those humble beginnings Kamala Harris has served the people first, only, and always.
5
@Willt26
You left out the part that she slept her way into that position with Willie Brown.
5
@Willt26
You have an interesting spin of Kamala's career.
She grew up the child of privilege. She leveraged a personal relationship and was appointed to well paid government positions. She then progressed to elective office, sponsored by a California Democrat establishment in a state with no Republican opposition, their primaries having been eliminated by the ruling elite.
As a prosecutor, she was a law-and-order proponent and spent years in her official capacity preventing the release of evidence that ultimately exonerated a falsely convicted "felon."
In a jurisdiction governed by a single ruling party, like California or Chicago, all it requires to be elected is being presentable and anointed by the ruling elite. The problem that Kamala has is that it wasn't possible for her to vote "present" and thereby conceal her policies, as was the case with Obama. So she wasn't able to leverage her Senate seat won in an election against another Democrat into the Presidency.
Don't cry for Kamala. A Senate seat is pretty good even for child of wealth. Maybe, over time, she will attempt to use her "leadership" skills to advance legislation that will improve America.
3
People saw through her. What you call zig zagging was pandering where the thought the wind was blowing. Stood for nothing other than identity politics and tokenism on the top ticket. Her $6,000 giveaway to every household <$100K was fiscal insanity, and would have required the tax laws to rob Paul to pay Paul. She never figured out how to pay for her Medicare plan, and deferred to an expert as if we should buy her plan just on credentials.
She should now focus on the Senate trial, where she can make a name for herself if she's smart and skillful.
Then, I think she'd make the perfect Atty General. She can stick it to Trump and his accomplices in 2021, and throw away the keys.
19
@GCM - "She can stick it to Trump and his accomplices in 2021, and throw away the keys."
Ny will likely get him first after he's defeated in 2020, no? Or do the feds have preference? It'll likely take them some time to gather together the case once they get in and have access to what they can't get access to know. Meanwhile ny's already ready to go. Now we just gotta get the guy thrown out.
Not gonna be easy but hopefully there are enough Americans who have been willing to open their eyes to truth instead of ducking and dodging it. Sure can't count on this senate to do their duty to The Constitution. For them their only duty is to themselves.
1
Here we go again!
The political pundits' analysis with 20/20 hindsight!!
Here the author contradicts herself by initially stating that Harris won the Attorney General and US Senate seats in spite of being comparatively unknown. Then the author states that Harris' Presidential campaign lost steam because she is still comparatively unknown!!
Also, she states the fickle minds of California voters. What does THAT have anything to do with Harris' Presidential campaign?
Frankly, FAR MORE data and other analyses are needed to truly figure out WHY Kamala Harris fizzled out. Even then, even with 20/20 hindsight figuring out WHY some Presidential campaigns work better and others do not, is not an easy task.
This article seems to have failed in that task.
4
@S. Roy
This opinion piece is a disaster in a number of ways, to be honest.
3
Her demise may also be attributed to a poorly structured campaign organization.
9
@NativeBos
Mostly that, in my view.
A well formed campaign organization would have quickly focused Kamela on clear, consistent, and persistent messaging.
But you know that.. that is on Kamela... since nobody was on that campaign that she did not approve and authorize... beginning with putting her sister in an outsized roll on the campaign.
2
All Harris has was ambition and a "narrative." Like Hillary Clinton, she really never knew why she wanted to be president, or what she would do if elected. All she knew was that her election would "symbolize' something (like Hillary Clinton's ridiculous white pants suit or her unshattered "glass ceiling"). The time for a candidate who offers only a "narrative" and an "appealing personality," passed into history along with the Obama and his failed administration, the last traces of which are being uprooted by Donald Trump. If a Democrat is going win, he or she is going to have to stand for something. There are only two candidates in the current field who know what they stand for: Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Trump will make mincemeat of the rest.
32
"...along with the Obama and his failed administration,..."
You've got to be kidding. Obama would wipe up trump if the two went head to head, and clinton did have the focus only you apparently missed it, willingly or not. She's always had the focus. She was like a 2nd vp to her husband, and a trusted advisor.
You're getting this from someone who did not want obama when he ran for his first term but sure supported him for his 2nd. I didn't believe any administration could get us out of the mess nearly as quickly but he proved me to be very wrong.
4
@Cassandra
The problem with Sanders and Warren is that the electorate will make mincemeat of them. Sanders dream of replicating the 1960's workers paradise of the USSR [but he'll do it right, this time] appeals only to millennials who came of age after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As far as Warren is concerned, she shares certain qualities with Hillary that will prevent her win. First of all, she has a public agenda that differs from her private agenda. Second, her fake American Indian heritage and fraudulent professional advancement is a comparable defect to Hillary's years of being a facilitator of her husband's serial predation. Just as Hillary could never get any leverage against Trump's admitted serial womanizing because of her own sins, Elizabeth will not be able to get any leverage asserting Trump is racist because it will just draw attention to her personal corruption.
What they also have in common is an impressive resume and yet few actual accomplishments. For their time in the Senate, do they have any legislation to show their influence? Does Elizabeth have anything to show from her brainchild, the federal consumer agency that is being eviscerated by the federal courts and has bizarre accomplishments like fining auto for overcharging minorities for excess interest rates and is now providing refunds to white men.
1
@ebmem - "While a member of the U.S. Senate, Clinton sponsored 31 pieces of legislation, including 21 bills, 9 amendments, 33 Senate Resolutions, and 21 concurrent resolutions.[11] Fourteen of her Senate resolutions were passed,...
Clinton has enjoyed high approval ratings for her job as Senator within New York, reaching an all-time high of 72 to 74 percent approving (including half of Republicans) over 23 to 24 percent disapproving in December 2006, before her presidential campaign became active;[105][106] by August 2007, after a half year of campaigning, it was still 64 percent over 34 percent.[107]"
Easy enough to find and answer your own question
Harris was never running for president. She was always running to be the next Democratic Attorney General.
And when whomever is chosen as the Democrat crushes trump in the next election, she will be.
7
@Baxter She didn't need to fake a run for the US presidency to become the next Democratic attorney general. If what you say is true; she's not trustworthy and unethical.
4
@Baxter
Could be true. Could be false.
No way to know for sure... unless we see her offered the AG role and she turns it down and stays in her senate seat.
1
@Chuck She hardly ingratiated herself to any of the other candidates. Biden would love to make her grovel.
And the last senator who gave up a seat to be AG didn't fare so well.
2
Really? A person runs for the Presidency, their candidacy flounders, and they're a failure? Hmm.
Harris is a US Senator from California. She formerly served as that state's Attorney General.
California has around 40 million people - that's more than most countries, with a bigger economy.
Harris is a force. She will be heard from again. Do not fob her off as a "failure."
43
@rds
Too bad she has nothing to show for her two years in the Senate.
7
I still think the Biden / Harris ticket is the one to beat Trump... Of course Biden agrees not to seek a second term... So Harris runs with Mayor Pete as her VP next time and they get two terms. By then I think we will have cleansed our pallet of the bad Trump-aftertaste.
6
@jbg
Even in the unlikely chance that Democrats were to win in 2020, overcoming the incumbent advantage, it is hard to believe Democrats would be able to hold the Presidency. Obama was elected with a Democrat Congress and accomplished exactly nothing in his first two years. Although he was re-elected, over the next election cycles, Democrats lost 1000 elective offices nationwide.
1
Simply: Harris is a centrist Democrat.
No thank you.
We had one of those in 2016 and it didn’t work too well.
19
@Objectively Subjective
We had a centrist Democrat in 2006 and in 2012, and it worked just fine. I’m probably to the left of you, but anyone who thinks that the left leaning democrat can win solely on those credentials is dreaming.
7
@Objectively Subjective
A left wing liberal candidate cannot get elected to president.. period.. full stop. Sorry to burst your bubble... but it is what it is. What doome Hillary was not her position on the political spectrum... but rather her lack of charisma for the office.
In national elections like the office of president a candidate needs to be either center left or center right in order to appeal to most independents (who loathe extremes for the most part).
3
@Chuck Trump has charisma? Vote blue, no matter who.
Ms Harris lost me (and I was seriously interested) with her rush to judgement about the innocence of J. Smollett in Chicago who turned out to be lying. Something very off-putting about that whole episode.
We've had far too many presidents who shot from the lip.
28
Big ego. Lots of ambition. No platform. A first term senator in her early years of service and she announces for president. On what basis? Cheap shots aimed at Biden showed her for who she is and bad advice from third rate campaign advisors.
Bet she won't win reelection to the senate from CA and even better, won't win a primary battle. Maybe she should try teaching. A politician she is not.
22
Lamenting that Harris would have "destroyed" Trump in the debates is silly. Does anyone really think that Trump would sit still, like a hostile witness, for cross-examination according to court rules?
There's no judge in the debates that can order, under threat of jailing, a candidate to answer the question, only that question, and to refrain from inflammatory asides.
Trump is the master of all that. And Harris is well versed only in a specific, highly concentrated set of rules known as our legal system. Guess who wins in TV "debates" that are really just about talking points.
Trump would have had her sputtering about racism, sexism, busing and his bullying nature. Pro tip: being the victim is not what we look for in a president. He would eat her alive.
12
@Wine Country Dude stated: Pro tip: being the victim is not what we look for in a president.
Pro tip: Trump plays victim every single day with his grievance based politics.. and has since he rode down that escalator to announce his run for president. So.. apparently professional victims can become president.. not that Kamela has ever played the victim card in her career.
@Chuck
No. Trump fights back, furiously and without quarter. There's a difference.
1
Four Democrat candidates have fallen by the wayside in the last month. Shave off another ten by early next year. Thin the herd and show the voters the in-depth policy agendas of the remaining candidates.
7
@Spanky
Whoever remains standing after the herd is thinned have a single selling point, they are not Trump. Hillary tried that in 2016 and was unsuccessful.
Once there is a Democrat candidate selected, big money will open the spigots and attempt to buy the election. Hillary spent four times as much as Trump and missed the win. Trump has raised more since the clown car was formed and hasn't spent much. The Democrat winner will have to face a well rested , well financed Trump after having been wounded during the primaries.
It is a repeat of the Democrat plan for 2016, when a rested, well financed Hillary was supposed to face an impoverished, wounded JEB. With the parties reversed.
Democrats have been attempting to wound Trump with 80% lies and 20% truth and have become increasingly ineffective Trump has retained all of his 2016 support and added to it with his accomplishments.
Pete has been just as two faced if not more so yet he seems to have a free pass by the press.
20
@Mathias
It's primary season... where every candidate takes a turn in the hot seat of contempt and challenge. It simply has not yet been Petes turn... though he has taken heat over his history several times.. but he was not high in the rankings at that point in the campaign.
Pete is going to face a reckoning in the next few months as actual primaries and caucuses approach.
3
Her downfall was the same thing that spurred her rise: the busing debacle. She came at Biden -- hard -- over busing. And for a moment it worked. But then voters looked into the issue and found that the attack was hollow (people across racial lines opposed busing; Biden was hardly an outlier). Worse still, they found the moment hypocritical. Shortly after the debate, Kamala said she supported the very same voluntary busing policy that she skewered Biden for. The whole thing made her look awfully political and insincere. Her poll numbers sank as quickly as they rose, and they never recovered. There's a lesson in there. I'm sure she'll heed it next time she runs.
19
@Y.N. I'm not sure it was going after Biden that did the damage. Let's not forget the second debate, where Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Kamala Harris when she brought up the Senator's pathetic prosecutorial record as California Attorney General. Harris didn't know how to respond to those truth bombs (she didn't even dispute them), so she instead smeared Gabbard as an Assad and Putin toady after the debate and said of herself, "I'm obviously a top-tier candidate." This made Harris look incapable of facing criticism of her record and obliterated the notion that she was a likable person.
5
@Alden Henrie Agree with you completely. Though I do think that the Biden attack was a short-sighted win in exchange for a long-term loss.
She can be the future of the party, hopefully a VP possibility.
1
You can't know someone who doesn't seem to truly know herself or her own political beliefs until they are poll tested.
5
@Elisa
I think Kamela knows full well who she is, what she believes, and what is important from her perspective in politics.
Kamela clearly made a decision to not get out over her skis early in the campaign. Problem is.. that made here look indecisive, rather then being simply cautious. That ended up being a mistake for her.. yet if she had boldly carved out a stance early on.. she would have been (at that time) attacked by the other candidates.
My husband sent her $25 on impulse after watching her in the last debate. I am happy that he never asked my opinion of this generous act. It is part of what has kept us together for 35 years.
What doomed her?
Where to begin.
As a prosecutor she put more black men in prison than all the other candidates combined. She never picked up much black support in the polls ( I guess she had a black problem like Cory Booker and others including Obama in his run against Hillary).
She had superb prosecutorial, trial lawyer skills as a gifted orator.
But she had no message except elect me.
Her major rise in the polls came after delivering a carefully prepared attack against Biden in which, as usual, he was a deer in the headlights, fumbling for a response.
Now we are left with two extreme leftists, Bernard Sanders and Liz Warren, Biden, a man whose platform is I was Obama's VP and who has major problems getting anyone to be enthusiastic about him, and Pete.
Pete is the only one who can win the midwest, mop the floor with Trump ( he will eat Biden for lunch and then loudly burp as feathers come out of his mouth), and carry the election.
He will be our next and best president.
11
@Simon Sez
There is no way that voters in the Midwest or South will elect an openly gay candidate as president.
7
@Liz
Indeed. And at that, a *37 year old* gay man whose sole executive experience has been as mayor of a 100,000 city in Indiana (note that running a multi-billion dollar business, as Trump has, qualifies certainly as executive experience).
I like the guy and could vote for him at some point. But his election in 2020 is a fantasy.
3
@Simon Sez Want to make a bet?
1
"Americans vote for people for what they stand for , except for President where the vote for whom they ARE"
Cokie Roberts
Ms. Harris proved Cokie Roberts to be correct . If they can not figure out who you are,they will not vote for you.
6
I was turned off by her antics at the Kavanaugh hearings and the sight of her and Cory clearly trying to use his misfortunes as a stepping stone. Craven ambition is an ugly thing. Then we had her strange string of threats, all negative, to block her opponents' media accounts, arrest gun owners, advance the cause of impeachment as a political act, this time against a sitting judge...it just seemed that Ms. Harris had a vindictive streak. All this was further reinforced when she joined Hillary's campaign against Congresswoman Gabbard, a tactic perfected by McCarthy back in the 50s. Smearing an opponent as a Russian asset struck me as a new low. The final nail in her coffin for me was her abuse of staff as revealed in her campaign manager's letter of resignation. I was as shocked as he by her lack of compassion. So, I say good luck and if she takes her cue from Hillary, we will be seeing her again soon, perhaps in 2024. Who knows?
10
"Did we ever know the real Kamala Harris?"
Yes, we did. That's why she was forced to drop out of the race because we didn't like what we learned.
If Democrats around the nation would have just paid attention to Californians who knew her best, we would all have been spared the drama altogether.
29
Her voice is irritating. And she has a tendency to speak down to her audience; lecturing voters is a sure way to lose.
Nice resume, but she never had the goods. Might be a decent attorney general one day, though.
10
Kamala H. has 2 or 3 strikes against her, so do Amy K. and Elizabeth W. depending on how your count. Like Obama, Besides being female, Kamala does not fit easily into the mold of the African American or South Asian politician, and she is from California. Being from MA and CA alone is enough for many from the Mid-West to vote against her.
I also find it interesting that the women are always referred by their first name and not Senator Warren, Senator Klobucher, or Senator Harris. On the other hand, Peter B. is always referred as Mayor Pete.
3
I don’t know. Seems to me that Warren is never Elizabeth, and Sanders is always Bernie.
13
Look, Kamala's a one-term senator driven by blind ambition rather than any clear vision. End of story.
For now. This is not the last we've seen of her.
11
Ed Muskie was dirty tricked into crying on camera and became the first potential opponent deselected by incumbent party operatives - Watergate had begun. It worked because Democrats let themselves be so easily gulled against the Lincolnesque Edmund Muskie. Al Franken was first this cycle. He was a unique political talent, known and popular nationwide, a prolific fundraiser, listened to by young people not open to most politicians. Kamala Harris may have been seen as potentially formidable as both white liberals and general blacks were quickly misled into stampeding against her. Now Senator Warren appears targeted for opposition deselection. Democrats and their candidates better let Democratic voting select their candidates and then the new President of the landslide reunited states of America.
1
Unbridled ego, a failure to live up to expectations and pandering to the lowest common denominator, whether it was identity politics or neoliberal corporatist dogma. Good riddance, Senator Harris. You’re not the change this country needs.
19
She was a bit too oleaginous for my taste.
8
The only reason she had any phase of prominence was from her playing racial identity politics against Biden. After that she kept falling. She was an arrogant women whose main goal was power, with no rationale.
Obama was similar -- a man with no real past, no principles, but a remarkable campaigner who did not focus on race. For Harris, other than her "story", what did she offer?
10
“She was crowned the perfect Democrat for 2020.”
What doomed her candidacy is that she was crowned the perfect Democrat on the basis of two things: her race and her gender. She had no vision, a poor and evasive record, no leadership, no organizational skills. But she was a woman and she was black, so she was “historic”! Well guess what? Nobody cares.
Her downfall as a candidate is a victory for substance over identity politics.
35
@Mike
No, she is a bi-racial woman who claims black when it is benefiting for her career. It happens all the time and in various industries.
9
@Mike
So New Yorker to New Yorker Mike. I'm a fan of Pete Buttiigieg. Do you think he has the specifics you listed?
Just curious.
2
@Liz Even Warren claimed native american anchestry when it suited her to get into Harvard; later she apologized but she got the benefits from that privileged entry.
1
She's an utter asset. Question:
Does this preclude her from being a running mate?
I could see her rounding out......Fill in the blank.
Harris' problem was that most people got to know who the real Harris is and they said no thanks.
12
She's fortunate to have quit now.
Trump would have mopped the floor with her in any TV debate.
8
@BearBoy
Yes, she's fortunate to quit but not because of Trump. The man is a poor debater who simply degrades his opponents as he did the Republican candidates in 2016. A college student could successfully debate Trump because he's ignorant of most things.
Will make a great AG.
Senator Harris has got a lot yet to contribute in the Senate and possibly beyond... Campaign problems, broad and shallow like the Platte River, and whatever, she was not ready for prime time...
And maybe like Hillary Clinton who was becoming a great U.S. Senator, following in the footsteps of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Harris could aim to do much the same...
Her scripted Biden attack is what really doomed her bid. At first it was wow! But when folks gave it thought—beyond the high brought on by her ferocious prosecutorial slammer—they turned away. And Biden was against forced busing! A policy that differed only slightly from her own position.
So to blast Biden—so surprisingly it almost knocked him off balance, if not out the room—was crazy stuff—and we already have someone in the WH doing that, what we're trying to get rid of.
13
Yes, we saw a shameless human being who loved portraying herself as a victim.
19
I personally didn't care for her voice. It had an annoying nasal quality to it.
3
Harris was done in by Tulsi Gabbard’s measured and articulate dismantling of her disgraceful record as California AG. Gabbard is the natural choice to replace Kamala in the Top Tier.
10
Harris lost me back during the Kavanaugh hearings. Remember? She pinned Bouf Kavanaugh about whether he had had a conversation with someone at a law firm, and as she pressed him he began to squirm, visibly alarmed. I thought, OK she knows something that will disqualify him, some revelation that can save the nation from this think-tank princox being handed a SCOTUS seat, and she was playing it like the woman warrior of a prosecutor she was rumored to be.
And then - nothing. She had nothing. The hearing moved on and Bouf was named. There was no there there. Just like her campaign. It was sad, and a let-down.
11
On less concrete and specific terms than her policy stances, I personally felt that Ms. Harris reeked of insincerity in her delivery and body language. While accepting that some percentage of this could be unconscious bias, authenticity is an important factor for me in evaluating a candidate, and I suspect for many others too.
It would be interesting to see a poll of how this factor relates to candidate standings.
8
I had high hopes for Kamala Harris. But it's hard to live up to the hype, and she didn't. In the debates, which gave her exposure to the entire country, she did not impress. It wasn't clear what she stood for, and attacking Joe Biden on busing was a blunder.
Maybe she will learn from her mistakes and take another shot at the presidency in 4 or 8 years. Meanwhile, if a Democrat is elected president, she will probably be high on the list for Attorney General.
She's young and still has a great future whether as a senator or in a Democratic administration.
3
Her "priorities and values" are entirely based on self-promotion and catering to the rich and powerful. That is how she got where she is. Her inability to connect with real people and their concerns is no surprise: Her life has been spent avoiding them. (No accident that she is one of the wealthiest US Senators.)
35
Had a feeling her campaign was sinking when it released a video of Harris cooking with a TV star in the supporter's dazzling Hollywood kitchen. How exactly was that going to win Iowa?
19
There was a very good New Yorker profile in July, which captured Kamala Harris's problem pretty nicely. You got the sense she had thought more about how to win the office than why she wanted to be President and what she would do once she got there.
This paragraph was telling: 'To the extent that she had crafted a persona, it was a contradictory one, evading categorization. “She’s the easy-to-listen-to, poorly defined identity candidate,” Samuel Popkin, a political scientist and pollster, told me—a progressive centrist, tacking this way and that.'
I hope she takes Trump apart in the impeachment trial.
22
@CarpeDiem64
Yes, please on impeachment. She’s great when given a witness to interrogate. Put her to work on Trump’s crimes.
1
Kamala was never going to out-progressive Warren
She misunderstod that her best chance was to emphasize her poetry (what unites people, our humanity) instead of her prose (her ability to out-tough Trump - everyone knows who Trump is)
And she failed to play up her immigrant roots which would have been a distinguishing factor. Most people didn't/don't know of her Indian background and that she spend her teen years in Montreal.
6
@JoeG
One of my Indian-American techie friends put it this way, "She gets all her smarts from her mother and she was raised in Canada as a Hindu but she's ashamed to let anyone know that." Given the increasing financial importance of Indian-American donors, that may not have been a good move. And it may just have had something to do with Tulsi's attacks on her.
4
@Cloudy In fairness. her fathers was an economics professor at Stanford. That's pretty smart too.
6
She was popular partly because she was welcomed as a rising star by President Obama. When she said she was running, I didn't know much about her, but was inclined to support her. Once I found out a little more about her record as a prosecutor/attorney general, her relatively cheap shot on Biden, and the other candidates' positions, I switched to another candidate. With over 20 candidates, voters have the luxury of choosing someone with a record that closely hews to their values.
46
@Wut When Harris took here cheap shot at Biden over busing many claimed it was her best moment. My wife turned to me and said, "Her candidacy is over." I concurred. There was something very contrived and off putting in that moment. That coupled with the fact that she didn't seem to have a program or set of issues that she was championing other than she was going to out tough Trump doomed her campaign. She has performed admirably in the Senate but that seems to be better suited for her abilities and temperament than POTUS.
28
@Wut
To make a long story short: Not enough substance.
From 5000 km distance: Her disastrous Biden strategy revealed the shortage of her abilities:
- Poor historical knowledges, (bussing, track record of Mr. Biden, position of Mr, Biden as a true loyalist in the Obama government)
- no consistent strategy but a single "social warrior style" flash attack against a person who can not be blamed this way in fact,
- Large-scale violation of party disclipline on public stage
- Disappointment not only of liberals through both actions and the lack of action in the aftermath. Even not hot air.
Thank you Ms. Pawel for showing that these findings seem not to be coincidential.
To be blunt: Ms Harris seems to be one of those overrated token woman - not "politically correct" but this is the way it is - who was lucky to be at right place at the right time some day she was still profiting from until now.
No comparison to Ms. Pelosi or to Ms. Haley on the other side of the front line.
4
@Wut , it was Biden who invited her to the WH to meet Obama and who gave her some plum projects, a hand up. I'm sure that played into his amazement at her knife between his ribs on global TV, all pre-arranged.
11
It’s lame to conclude she may yet advance further in public service if she gains clarity about her priorities and values. Senator Harris is 55 years old, highly educated and has already had a full career in public life. And she has excellent communication skills. It’s more sensible to just conclude that she doesn’t truly have a core set of priorities or values.
91
I was surprised to read of her history because she's made such a non- presence. My sister and I both felt she
needed more seasoning, but she really has been around a good while here in California. I didn't really notice her
until the committee hearings and later at the debates.
Perhaps, in time, she will evolve into someone of
distinction.
8
@EJA-I'm actually sad that Kamala Harris ended her campaign, though I see it's the best decision. I hope she turns her energy, skills and intellect toward becoming a strong and powerful Senator. California and the nation needs her talents -- especially her ability to make a case for what it so obvious; Trump and Republican enablers willingness to subvert democracy for political and financial gain. And the imperative to hold them to account.
@Ann Harris doesn't have much interest in being a strong and powerful senator. Just like she had a no interest in being a fair, strong and powerful AG or DA for that matter.
She's actually not that good at making a case -- she's good at throwing out red meat. Those who agree with her think she's making a good case and talk about her "skills".
I was appalled at her questioning of both Kavanaugh and Sessions -- neither of which are worth spit. But her questioning frequently reminded me of Sen McCarthy. Attack by innuendo.
Mazie -- wasn't as "sharp", wasn't as loud, did her homework and actually changed a vote.
Harris is an empty suit.
2
There are a lot of things in the article that are accurate. Particularly that she never really takes a clear stance on much until it is already cemented in the public's mind.
It became obvious this past weekend when Willie Brown, her ex-lover, touted Michael Bloomberg in his Sunday San Francisco Chronicle op-ed.
But beyond that, she's not as genuine as she needs to be. She first hitched her star to the aforementioned Willie Brown, becoming his lover while he was still married, though that hasn't been a problem with Donald Trump. And even as District Attorney of San Francisco and later California Attorney General she always seemed more of an opportunist and interested in the next thing rather than trying to do her best in those positions. So to many Californians even she seems disingenuous.
Hopefully, she'll focus on being a great Senator (as was her predecessor, Barbara Boxer) before she again runs for President.
40
That Kamala Harris was forced out of the race by a shortage of financial resources while billionaire candidates with less to offer self fund their candidacies says a lot about our political system. And it's not good.
14
@Jackson
Her polling is similar to or better than the (billionaire) candidates I mention. They're still in the race. She's not. I'll repeat myself. That's not good.
1
@Matt Harris also had taken contributions from forty-six billionaires during her campaign, more than any other candidate in the primary. Also not good.
7
Kamala Harris is a brilliant leader with youth and intellectual drive that may launch her in the future. Meanwhile, a school girl who had suffered discrimination grew up to study at leading universities and become Attorney General of California and, later, U.S. Senator -- two statewide offices in a major industrial and populous state. If Ms. Harris does nothing else, these are tremendous achievements and form the bedrock of a lifetime career.
But on a national level . . . My bets are on Ms. Harris. We have not heard the last of her, and our country is the better for it!
6
Something tells me, no, we never did "know" Kamala Harris, but I liked the spark I saw. I don't think she's finished.
14
California is fortunate to have Senator Kamala Harris, and so is the United States.
Donald Trump has messed up this country’s presidency so much, we might just feel sympathy for whoever has to step in and clean up his mess.
Harris can play a very beneficial role right where she is - in the Senate.
19
Forget California, we in the rest of the country did get to know her: a consummate opportunist. From the Willie Brown affair to the policy flip-flops, her downfall was not the lack of campaign resources but the lack of moral resources.
240
@David
Sexism at its finest. Scattered all throughout these replies but yours is most blatant.
1
Kamala Harris was good at expressing indignation, ridicule and contempt.
The two most successful Presidential candidates in the last forty years, Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan, weren't very good at those three communication techniques.
149
@Tom Callaghan A recent one expressed all three very well and won (arguably, the definition of a successful Presidential candidate, right?). And, regardless of the 2020 outcome, that campaign and current term have likely set new norms for political discourse.
7
@Grant ever hear of an outlier?
Way over analyzing here Miriam.
She ran a badly managed campaign that lacked focus and punch (visibility wise) that is so necessary for a presidential primary campaign in a crowded field. That is it. pure and simple.
Calfornia state politics has absolutely nothing to do with her failure, nor her alleged "inevitability". Kamela is a moderate Democrat, as are most Democrats in the state frankly.. and the fact is.. none of that mattered so far in the primary... you know the primary where we remain months away from the first caucus or ballot.
6
It doesn't surprise me that Ms. Harris has withdrawn from presidential campaign.
I just remember when i was posting a comment in here after the first debate, some months ago, naming her among the dems candidates who wouldn't make it all the way, and receiving replies and reading other comments asking me "why not?" or that they could see her "easily" as the next president of US.
If only she had a real plan...
A presidential campaign is no joke for either Dems or Reps. If people thought all that was necessary to win the race was to show off as a Dems politician because... you know...winning it's a sure thing having mr. Trump as opponent they better think about it again. No message, prosecutorial attitude on stage and "me, myself and i" personal story is not what lifts you in the polls.
Identity politics is a long lost cause, too. Time to move on.
10
I'm an early supporter of Senator Harris (funny how seldom you see those two words together in the NYT, which from all appearances has had a stealth editorial campaign against her from day 1). I think her campaign suffered from the very problems pointed out: a lack of clear definition of who she is and what she stands for, and the weak connection between her prosecutorial skills and the election process. Except for a debate context, her legal and courtroom skills would have little impact on actually unseating Trump, and previewing those in an attack on Biden was both pointless and counterproductive.
She was attacked outright in the NYT as a tough prosecutor, but failed to put that toughness in context. Going after domestic abusers and thugs who terrorize neighborhoods in San Francisco is not anathema to liberals, but her opponents got away with that cheap shot (reverse Willie Horton, if you will).
We have a tough job ahead of us if you think about the main task: to bring democracy to the USA. I'm skeptical about Sen. Warren's ability to focus on that, doubtful of Sen. Sanders' real political skills, and unconvinced that Vice President Biden can bring the fight to the correct, or any, battlefield. It cannot be said enough: no reforms of any kind will succeed unless we can prevent the minority of Trump supporters from hijacking our government in the future. That is job one, and it's a shame that the person best suited is out.
7
A huge missed opportunity for America. I’m sorry for her - America I mean. Sen. Harris will be fine.
2
She is a zero and the public responded by starving her campaign fund raising.
As Freddie Mercury opined, "Another one bites the dust."
13
Her abhorrent record as state attorney general is all I needed to give her the thumbs down.
Kamala is about Kamala! We can and need to do better.
72
She would have made mincemeat out of Trump in the debates.
8
I donated to her campaign, but after seeing a clip of her appearing in a Fox News interview to provide post-debate commentary...I think I was initially "hoping" she was someone I wanted to support. That Fox News logo under her face made all the things Tulsi insinuated all of a sudden seem sage. Kamala might be a Hillary in Angela Davis clothing.
4
I have no opinion about Senator Harris other than to say she would have been infinitely better than Trump.
13
Her unyielding support for Israel was enough for me to lose interest in her. I wish her all the best, but glad she dropped out.
10
She stood for nothing other than herself. She kept changing her opinions based on what she thought the audience wanted to hear. When asked about her stand on important issues where she did not know which way the wind was blowing, she'd invariably reply "that's a conversation worth having". She attacked Joe Biden for being a racist. Joe Biden! I am surprised she lasted this long.
129
My hope is that perhaps now Harris will now begin to distinguish herself as a US Senator. CA and the country can only benefit if she claims a role as an effective Senate leader.
14
@George
She has had years to do that.
5
This op-ed left out that when she ran for Senator that she ran against another Democrat in the general election, not a Republican. She won in what is now a one party state. In her run for the President, it seemed like she was running for President of California, not the United States. California has become one giant political bubble, and Kamala Harris was its messenger.
8
I was initially excited about her entering the race, and I made several contributions to help her along. Then the debates (and all that included) came along, and my heart kept getting broken. I hope Senator Harris learned lessons from this experience and will, perhaps, someday consider another go at it.
1
I think the majority of people saw her for who she actually is: a politician; someone who was willing to bend with whatever current was perceived to be the winning current at any particular moment. When the current appeared to change, so did Senator Harris. I think people are desperate for authenticity. Senator Harris is not that.
37
i contributed to her campaign, and i was a volunteer on her campaign. i thought she would make the best president of all the democratic candidates and i still do. but as of yet she is not a good campaigner. i never saw her in person but i did watch her on tv in debates and on talk shows and i am not surprised her efforts came to naught. plus even though her attack on biden gave her a bump in the polls it was a disappointing mistake. so my suggestion to which ever remaining candidate gets the nomination is to offer her the vice presidency. im sure she will learn from her mistakes and improve her performance as a campaigner. there would be no better person to be the attack person a role typically given to the vice presidential candidate, she and would make mince meat of pence in any debate. and when its her turn she will make an excellent president.
2
Her law and order bona fides made her the perfect antidote to Trump, but she disavowed them at every turn. People can blame her staff and her campaign, but she crafted a message that was an incoherent mix of regret, apology and inconsistency.
16
While I always liked her and though she was a good candidate, If you can't organize your campaign, how can you organize the white house? The good news is that she will still be in the senate where outstanding people (dems) like her are needed.
10
She is clearly a very ambitious person. Ambition in women is often viewed with great suspicion. That being said, there was a certain "What Makes Sammy Run" quality to her. She should have waited. But, there is always next time.
2
I agree with Oprah. Kamala will be around a long time.
6
Kamala Harris, in some ways, reminds me of Hillary Clinton in 2016: I really wasn't sure why either was running for president, other than that they wanted to be president. (And this comes from someone who voted for Clinton for president and for Harris for senator.) Clinton presented myriad "five-point plans" for everything under the sun, but still, I had no idea what were the two or three things she most wanted to accomplish as president. She ran as the "non-Trump," which turned out to be a fatally incomplete strategy.
In terms of self-presentation, Harris often struck me as insincere in her recent campaigning, trying to give the proper "spin" to her answers, but without real convictions. I wished for more authenticity.
72
@Richard To quote Ed McMahon's response to Johnny Carson's The Amazing Karnack: "You are correct, sir."
Perhaps the more accurate comparison is to that other Clinton: Bill. In the end, it's about THEIR ambition.
5
She seemed like the perfect candidate at first: a strong woman of color, from a large state, who was "For the People." I took this to mean that she was for the masses, not for the elite. How disappointed I was to learn that this was mainly a statement of her prosecutorial inclinations.
From her candidacy with "no real rationale and no clear constituency" to her line that "Justice is on the ballot," things only got worse.
Threatening to prosecute her opponent in the Presidential election? Sounded to me like "Lock Him Up!" which I found just as horrifying as when Trump and his supporters threatened Hillary.
I don't want to see a USA where it becomes routine to prosecute the opposing candidate after the election.
At this point, I can't imagine Kamala ever running again. She apparently has no core convictions, no vision of a better America, and no reason for running, other than her own aggrandizement.
125
@Unconventional Liberal Really? A "perfect candidate" because she's "a strong woman of color?" Like Hillary, she seemed to think that her identity was enough of a platform to win. What's really troubling is that so many seem to think this matters more than substance, track record and authenticity. I don't agree with Bernie, but at least he's a man of his convictions. Oh, but he's white male. Never mind.
18
The author describes the context of Harris' rise in local politics, not her debacle as a presidential candidate on a much bigger stage.
Remind me again, what was her message?
23
Kamala came with a great deal of hype that finally showed little substance. It takes more than been female and black to illustrate worthiness for the White House. I am sure she will learn from her mistakes and show up in 2024.
22
@John Or maybe she will learn, and not show up. Something Hillary never learned.
14
@John
This election is to important to have an individual who is not committed to any cause should not be in the mix.. Ms. Harris could put her finger up in the air and give us a speech that was not connected to anything. Her brand was missing.
Bernie has been running since 2016 helping other democrats get elected. Sitting at the table with countless families as did Warren, Ms. Harris didn't realize that running a structured campaign is hard work. Bernie ,Warren, are senators, they can organize their time to touch people and Ms. Harris made the decision not to do so. they take money only from small donors. Ms. Harris didn't think enough of the people to get to know anyone but pretend that she does.
Ms. Harris is not President Obama who was touching people for years, she is not the person to recreate the Obama coalition because basically she thought she was entitled to the nomination. She is about herself not about the people and people of color realized that. This election is not about a female dictator. Ms. Harris needs to be about the impeachment hearings and for her to do her job. The presidency run is not a vanity photo shot, do your job.
15
There will be speculation that Biden, if he is the nominee, will choose Harris as his running mate. Maybe once that was true, not anymore. She has the stain of "loser" now. He'll need to pick someone else. If she'll do it, Stacy Abrams is the perfect choice.
22
@Jay S: How about your own FL congresswoman, Ms. Val Demings? She seems to have all the right stuff based on what I have observed in the hearings where she has asked excellent questions with perfect follow-ups.
5
@Jay S: How about your own FL congresswoman, Ms. Val Demings? She seems to have all the right stuff based on what I have observed in the hearings where she has asked excellent questions with perfect follow-ups.
Her executive experience as Chief of Police in Orlando should not be undervalued either!
2
I hope not Harris! And not after she trashed him!
1
The fact the brain trust at the DNC and within the Democratic Establishment could even THINK Kamala Harris would be "the perfect candidate for 2020" tells you everything that is wrong about the Democratic Party as now constituted.
Democratic voters had several debates and innumerable campaign stops in Iowa to listen to what Kamala had to offer to America in a time of great need, and they heard nothing. Nothing but the usual poll-tested soundbites, which Kamala woodenly mouthed on the campaign trail. Happily, what the Democratic electorate correctly perceived was that Kamala was nothing but another corporate backed, neoliberal empty suit spewed up by the DNC hoping she'd catch fire.
Lacking authenticity, having no real message (unlike, say, BERNIE) the Democratic voters said thanks but no thanks. Once again, the Democratic Establishment and organs like the WaPo and the NYT evince surprise, completely unable to fathom why it is that the dogs aren't eating the dog food.
Keep it up, Democratic Establishment, and you'll hand the 2020 elections to Trump once again.
164
@Greg Gerner
Well stated and eerily reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s run in 2016 . A lot of hype and hope but ultimately doomed by a lack of passion and purpose and no coherent campaign message .
After the Iraq War and the bailout the electorate doesn’t trust the Establishment even a little bit . For some unknown reason the Democrats haven’t grasped this yet . Biden and Mayor Pete are in the same anodyne category . Only Bernie Sanders gets the pulse of the country and he’s the only prayer Democrats have of toppling Trump .
20
@Greg Gerner
I must have missed something but I don't remember hearing that the "brain trust at the DNC and within the Democratic Establishment" thought she would be the perfect candidate. The "unlike Bernie Sanders" makes me think you are another Bernie supporter who is still mad that your candidate didn't get the nod last time around. Please - enough pouting about the last Democratic primary contest. It is 2019 and the Democratic Party needs to focus on getting the best candidate it can in order to defeat Donald Trump. Let's work together to pursue this goal rather than fighting among ourselves. And - just so you know - I was not a strong supporter of Clinton or Sanders. And I am certainly not part of the Democratic brain trust.
8
@Mary Ann you clearly don’t know how to read between the lines... im not even sure what to tell you. Greg is 100 percent correct. Ask yourself why and how certain candidates are sold to you in the media and in the debates. Doesn’t take long to see party manipulation of the entire thing.
15
Here in California, we knew just one thing about Kamala Harris: She is AMBITIOUS. Beyond that, she remains a mystery.
385
@Yellow Dog There is more than a little implicit bias in this statement. Ambitious women cannot be trusted? The truth is that she was well known in San Francisco and little known in Los Angeles. Very simple.
6
@cshine I lived in San Francisco when Kamala Harris began her political career as District Attorney. She was well-known to me there for bringing high-profile cases to the public's attention, like her witch-hunt against the best President that City College of San Francisco ever had. CCSF has never recovered from the loss of quality leadership.
Another case that made her famous here was announcing her refusal to bring a death penalty in the case of someone accused of murdering a police officer before the prosecution began.
Ambition, in and of itself, isn't a handicap unless it is a substitute for substantive policy commitments for which she was not known either in San Francisco or in her position as Attorney General of California. In a State in which there is great sympathy for the economically disadvantaged, Harris made no progress in improving the equality of our justice system. We are making progress now, in her absence.
72
@Yellow Dog
If your an American who cares about democracy at this critical point in time we don't care what she is all about. The polling spoke, she never gained any traction. Ms. Harris had an opportunity to speak/help all of America yet no one understood her language. I suppose Willie her old boyfriend her mentor was just to busy to continue to help her out. Her campaign was an explosion waiting for the match.
While she was in California she did a good job putting black men and women in prison so that is not a mystery. Her law and order ideology spoke for her record. Anything to get her where she wanted to be. She like Corey should not take black people for granted. Substance does count and standing up for this country and the race at this time is paramount.
The DNC should not put this election at risk by allowing her to run for VP. America spoke and the stakes are to high for her to be a VP when she didn't even know enough to be a candidate for president. The people spoke by realizing that she is not up to the task just like Pence .
We need winners and winners need to leave their egos at the door, we are all fighting for democracy and freedom. There is no room for vanity whether it be anyone who has money or entitled people who have received every opportunity their is in this lifetime.
19