Kamala Harris as VP Candidate

[Parasaurolophus]

Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal.

I suspect that my values are less transactional than yours, even though I'm a feminist and you're not.

But we digress.

[ergative]

Biden narrowed his selection pool by gender. Fine, but if I'm supposed to be excited by a candidate because they're a "strong independent woman" pant suit and all, that person probably shouldn't have gotten their start in the political arena by boinking one of the most corrupt politicians on the planet in exchange for a "low show" patronage job paying 70k a year to meet twice a month in 1990s money.

Willie Brown is 32 years older than Kamala, but this didn't stop her from pursuing the then married San Fran political figure when 29 years old in order to secure the cash, connections and prizes. All feminists should be proud of this ingenious shortcut. Also, she said "I believe them" regarding Biden's accusers. Huh? That's even stranger to me than accepting the debate "I don't think you're a racist" swipe. How are you on a ticket with someone you say you believe to be guilty of sexual misconduct?

Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal. Couple this with a horrible record of "for thee, not me" attitude as a prosecutor and all you can really say is that the choice wasn't quite as bad as Susan Rice, who I thought Biden's handlers would select. All anyone needs to do is edit Tulsi's beat down from the debates to fit a 30 second ad spot and run with it.

I myself am really not thrilled that Biden's sexual misconduct has been forgotten so easily---but at worst that puts him even with Trump, so their relative demerits cancel each other out and I can just judge them by all the other points of comparison where Biden comes out ahead.

I don't know this thing about Harris sleeping with people for political advantage; could be true, but as long as the arrangement was consensual it's better than both Trump and Biden's behavior. I don't see anything to be gained by comparing her to a feminist ideal. I see a lot to be gained by comparing her to the alternatives.

I really enjoy the metaphor about voting as public transit: there may not be a perfect route to get you where you want to go, so you do the best you can. Get on the bus that's going closest to your direction.

[downer]

It seems clear that no one really cares about candidates' sexual history or even their sexual misconduct, post Clinton and Trump. Some will try to use it against a candidate in a campaign, but it rarely works. It's almost as if the whole #metoo phenomenon got wiped out.

Similarly, no one really cares about candidates' religious beliefs -- not even the evangelicals. They just care about advancing their own agendas.

[ergative]

It seems clear that no one really cares about candidates' sexual history or even their sexual misconduct, post Clinton and Trump. Some will try to use it against a candidate in a campaign, but it rarely works. It's almost as if the whole #metoo phenomenon got wiped out.

Similarly, no one really cares about candidates' religious beliefs -- not even the evangelicals. They just care about advancing their own agendas.

Well, Roy Moore's sexual history knocked him out of the running. There's still something there. But I agree with you about religious beliefs. I don't care what various candidates think about the supernatural order of the universe---except inasmuch as those beliefs affect their policy decisions. They can worship the spaghetti monster as far as I'm concerned, as long as they leave their noodly appendages out of my uterus and fund social programs and science appropriately.

[marshwiggle]

It seems clear that no one really cares about candidates' sexual history or even their sexual misconduct, post Clinton and Trump. Some will try to use it against a candidate in a campaign, but it rarely works. It's almost as if the whole #metoo phenomenon got wiped out.

I think it's more that most people, (i.e. NOT the people marching and carrying placards), know that a lot of sexual relationships which people may regret at a later date were actually consensual (even if terribly ill-advised) at the time. One may argue, for instance, that Monica Lewinsky was exploited, but she was an adult, and suggesting she needed to be "protected" from her own choices sounds a lot like Saudi Arabla where women need chaperones.

The "metoo" movement, which had some merit early on, became increasingly irrelevant as it refused to make distinctions between sexual harassment or assault, which are undesired at the time,  and other kinds of relationships with a bad outcome but which were voluntarily chosen at the time.

[nebo113]

"boinking"...... If you want to go there, why not just say she fu*ked her way to the top.  BTW:  I'm a nasty pussy for Kamala!! 

[spork]

Like most feminists, Kamala has no values at all and is purely about the transaction, leveraging fake ideology when convenient and tossing it when in the way of the deal.

I suspect that my values are less transactional than yours, even though I'm a feminist and you're not.

But we digress.

That made me laugh out loud. Thank you.

She's a good choice for the VP slot because a brown-skinned female child of immigrants who was once a district attorney is Trump's worst nightmare in terms of campaign strategy. Doubling down on the misogynistic and xenophobic messaging that he's engaged in since the 2016 campaign could alienate white suburban females even more than it already has while increasing turnout of non-white voters. Plus she does well on camera, unlike Mr. Pence, who refers to his wife as Mother.

[mythbuster]

For all of those who worry that Kamala is too "law and order" for the liberals, just remember that she took over the SF DA's office from Terence Hallinan.
If you don't know who he is, please read his wiki page, it's a RIDE through the crazy SF liberal politics of the later 20th century:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_Hallinan
So yes, she was running as the conservative (by SF standards) against essentially a communist.

As for dating Willie Brown, if you know about Willie it doesn't really mean much.

I grew up in the SF area, and now live in the DEEP South. So I fully understand that one areas conservative is another's flaming liberal.

[writingprof]

How are we to parse this line from the Times, particularly the phrase in bold?

Mr. Carlson said that there were "time-share salesmen you could trust more" than Ms. Harris and "payday lenders who are more sincere," alluding to an institution long accused of exploiting poor communities of color.

What is the point of that last phrase, unless it's to somehow suggest that Carlson's reference to payday lenders was racist.  How was it?  I'm seriously asking.  On its face, the line neutrally invokes a group popularly thought not to be trustworthy and states that Harris is even less trustworthy.  "Used-car salesman" would have done just as well.  But how is comparing Harris to a payday lender racist?  I could understand if Carlson had compared her to a drug-dealer.  In such a case, he would have been using her race against her by invoking a kind of criminality that is popularly (if unfairly) associated with black people.  But payday lenders aren't themselves black!  (Are they?)  It seems clear to me that the Times didn't bother, in this case, to think through its own accusation.

Here's the piece.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/08/12/us/biden-vs-trump?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

And before somebody says "It's a dog whistle," how is it, exactly?

[mahagonny]

Can you name a ticket that won because feminism was on their platform in any amount other than as an asterisk? I expect if either Biden or Harris talks about 'equal rights for women'  for more than a few words they'll finish themselves off.

[writingprof]

Can you name a ticket that won because feminism was on their platform in any amount other than as an asterisk? I expect if either Biden or Harris talks about 'equal rights for women'  for more than a few words they'll finish themselves off.

Because 51% of the population is against equal rights for women?  Or because Trump will lie about what they actually said so skillfully that it will tilt the election?

[financeguy]

It's because everyone knows what racial and gender politics are actually about: Shaking down people who do not wish to be called racist or sexist. The BLM and MeToo movements have a list of things they want and if you disagree with them or out the behavior of their members, you're going to get called one of the naughty words ending in "ist" that gets you fired from your corporate job, regardless of how legitimate the claim is.

A major corporation simply does not want to be in the business of protecting people against unjustified attacks. They just want the problem to go away and will happily pay a shakedown fee of getting rid of employee #33728, posting a twitter "we're disappointed in..." response and then getting back to making widgets before this person has even had the chance to carry his box of belongings from cubicle to lower lobby and have the ceremonial door to the backside.

But if you're on their "side" in the shakedown, you get a pass on what they supposedly care about. Time's Up movement? We'll support accusers, unless they accuse Biden or someone else we agree with.

And BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out. Don't try to have it both ways. I just want to leave the word "racist" ringing like a bell before whatever else I'm going to say to immunize myself from any push back and to further employ a shakedown tactic. Anyone who makes a statement like that toward a white person knows that the R word is the only thing anyone listening is going to hear. 

[mahagonny]

 It's not like when I was a kid and they were getting the pill. What would feminists even want this time? Other than a chance to say 'respect us, man! We're the feminists.' You can't get votes that way and you shouldn't. Even when we all thought Hillary was gonna win four years ago, the quietest moment on the campaign trail was when she talked about 'finally, we will get women an even break' or some such. Nobody cheered. Everybody knows it's the democrats' cause that tanked.
There was a thread on the old forum about how to deal with 'mansplaining.' It turned out to be a real barnburner. Yet when I talk to friends they don't even know what it means. I can actually tell them, without mansplaining. All of this should tell us something.
I don't have my finger on the pulse of black urban women and what they look for in a candidate, but what would help them would be more fathers in the household. Not better ways to keep them from visiting the kids, not better ways to get money in a divorce. The old regular family.

[marshwiggle]

And BTW, one thing I think white people should legitimately demand is to cease use of the rhetorical "I don't think you're a racist but..." that Kamala used against Slow Joe in the debate. If you legitimately think someone (white or otherwise) is a racist or has engaged in racially inappropriate actions, by all means call it out. Don't try to have it both ways. I just want to leave the word "racist" ringing like a bell before whatever else I'm going to say to immunize myself from any push back and to further employ a shakedown tactic. Anyone who makes a statement like that toward a white person knows that the R word is the only thing anyone listening is going to hear.

Imagine replacing "racist" with "pedophile" to get the idea of how it works.

[Hegemony]

I am appalled that there are still people who think anti-feminist (i.e. misogynist) and anti-racist movements are no longer necessary — or maybe never were — and that they're just performances by people acting in bad faith. I shouldn't be surprised, since I've seen a lot of it on this forum, as well as in our culture.  For me it's just more evidence that my concerns will not be taken seriously — my concerns and those of women and minorities who've experienced bigotry and racism repeatedly — and I've certainly had decades of evidence to that effect. It's so hard not to despair.