Let us stipulate: the failure of Kamala Harris to thrive in the race for the Democratic nomination for President was not because Democratic voters are racist or sexist. It is because she was a lousy candidate from the beginning. Checking off boxes is never enough, thank heaven. She is a woman, “of color,” a lawyer and a Senator from a large and powerful state. To top it all off, Harris is relatively young, and attractive. Perfect!
Except it was easy to see that she was an empty suit with a penchant for saying stupid things, often things she couldn’t possibly believe and that contracdicted her record as a prosecutor. She said that it was “outrageous” that the Trump administration wanted to deport illegal immigrants who had committed crimes. [Me: “It is not and cannot be “outrageous” to say that any illegal immigrant, criminal or not, qualifies for deportation. To maintain otherwise is to say that the United States cannot enforce its immigration laws, and not only that, it is “outrageous” to enforce the laws. Is that the position of the Democratic Party? “] She said that she supported legalizing pot because it brought people “joy.” You know, like heroin, rape, and child molesting. She said, when Joe Biden correctly pointed out that a President could not ban “assault weapons” by executive order, she responded, “Well, I mean, I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say yes, we can.” Horrified when she saw the exchange,, law prof Ann Althouse wrote, “The transcript cannot convey the feeling and expression in Kamala Harris’s [ response]. It is so awful, so lightweight and dismissive of constitutional law (and without any of the dignity of constitutional critique.”
There are plenty more catalogued here, and it is hardly exhaustive. Harris flopped because she proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was unqualified to be a Senator, much less a President. As if that wasn’t enough, she couldn’t manage her campaign, which had disintegrated into finger-pointing and defections. When Barack Obama was challenged in 2008 over his lack of leadership experience, he cited the success of his campaign. Slim indeed, but Harris couldn’t even say that.
As the writing on the wall began to be undeniable, Harris stooped to race- and gender baiting, expressing doubts as to whether a “woman of color” could be elected President (in such a racist, sexist nation, she implied.) No, Senator it’s just that you can’t be elected.
Her polling in free-fall, Harris dropped out today. What was the reaction of the Left’s pundits? Why, outrage over that racism and sexism of the public, of course:
- “Obviously I’m no centrist but it’s downright effed up that smart, compelling, *very* experienced, centrist Democratic candidates of color are floundering while a smart but wildly inexperienced, centrist white mayor of teeny tiny city is surging,” liberal writer Sally Kohn wrote in a tweet. “Bad look, Democrats.”
No, the “bad look” was all Harris’s, who looked like a floundering, pandering, amateur at best. Well, Kohn looks like a racist, so there’s that.
- Left-wing commentator Lauren Duca commented that “all of the candidates who currently qualify for the December Democratic debate are white (Sanders, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Steyer)….White supremacy is not just a Fox News problem, folks.”
I guess what we need is quotas and affirmative action for candidate debates, or we’re endorsing white supremacy.
- “Harris dropping out leaves the Democrats with an all-white debate stage for December — Biden, Sanders, Warren, Steyer, Buttigieg, Klobuchar,” complained left-wing writer Judd Legum. “The Democratic Party has created a process [that] includes Steyer but excludes Cory Booker.”
Go ahead, Judd, show me the fair process that guarantees a place on the stage for black and brown candidates who have failed to distinguish themselves or convince voters that they should be President. Booker, Harris, and Castro are weak. If they were white, they wouldn’t be running. Neither would Deval Patrick. The process is not the problem. The candidates are the problem.
- “It’s really fucked up that straight white male billionaires (plural) are going to qualify for the next debate while Kamala Harris is leaving the race. Like, immensely,” wrote Adam Peck, a staffer at the left-wing Center for American Progress.
Translation: If candidates fitting into our exalted demographic groups don’t succeed, regardless of their performance, everything must be rigged.
- “Very fitting that Kamala would drop out and the myriad of rich white dudes whose names people can’t even remember are staying in,” wrote Laura Bassett. Imani Gandy, an analyst at left-wing outlet Rewire News, wrote, “Kamala may not have been my number one candidate, but she belongs in the race. Now we’ve got rich white dudes papering the airwaves with their bullshit. It’s not right.”
Because anti-white racism is right…
- Finally, this gem from Al Sharpton, speaking of anti-white racists, on a MSNBC panel today: “Women are held to a different standard and black women especially.”
The problem, Al, is that Harris was held to any standards, none of which she could meet.
What are these people saying? Clearly, they are attributing to racism a result that had nothing to do with racism at all. It had to do with merit, or the lack of it. In a weak, extreme, inept field, Harris managed to come off as even less qualified than the rest. But this is the fantasy to which progressives have committed themselves. All failures of “persons of color” are not their fault, and they are not accountable. Racism is always the cause.
As for the selection of candidates on the debate stage in December, the scandal is not that Harris, Booker and Castro won’t be there. They are not going to be nominated to run for President, and they don’t deserve to be. The scandal is that the Democrats don’t have anyone better than the candidates who will be there, of any color.