Nice summation of her career and policies. Having lived in CA during many years of her tenure it was apparent really on that she was a very shrewd opportunist, with a record that reflected her ambitions.
So the vibe I'm getting is kind of a Democratic Mitch McConnell? And also not trustworthy, so I'm not having a lot of faith in her doing shit for Gaza. Or me tbh
I think that's a perfectly reasonable understanding. If she does become President, I think she will likely have one or two good things that surprise us (much like Biden), while the rest is same-old Democratic centrism.
Nailed it. Unfortunately not a lot of true, change can be expected from the Democrats. Asking with the situation in Gaza, I'm especially watching if she sticks with and backs up Lina Kahn's fantastic efforts.
The Kahn issue is interesting. Biden was way better with his FTC than I expected. IMO, he was more progressive than the median Democrat. I really hope Kamala keeps Kahn around.
Sorry, I read my wall of text and it feels shouty and that wasn't my intent. Just fyi and apologies. It's really humid here and it makes me act aggro once in a while.
I didn't say that she wouldn't. I just said on Gaza, specifically and likely myself which breaks down demographically like this: low-income, middle-aged, underemployed, atheist , extremely liberal, socialist-believer, resident of MAGA-controlled supermajority state but Dem Governor so Medicaid expansion exists already.
Are there things she could do that would be great for the other residents of the country? The state? The city? Absolutely. But none of the easiest most politically useful things she can make her banner promises necessitate her stopping arms shipments to Israel. And with the Chevron doctrine not available to back her up, I'm not clear the success against corporate crimes can be done on a national scale from the executive branch. I think we're undervaluing the difficulties we're going to be seeing due to the recent SCUSA decisions. But she can campaign on fixing this as a start, if she wanted. And if it were only that I don't anticipate change for myself that's never been the only motivating factor for my support. It's that I'm deeply, viscerally unable to stomach voting in a way that excuses a genocide and ethnocide. Will she be better than Trump?! 1 million percent,yes of course,I'm not ignorant. But I still can't vote for someone that's not going to attempt to end a genocide. Ever.
I totally hear you! I think you're correct that she'd be better than Trump. But, as you said, that doesn't mean people will feel good about, or will vote for her. I don't blame anyone for looking at the Democratic party and wanting nothing to do with it. It's a totally moral position!
I loved Terence Halinan. He was a leftist of the sort solely lacking in politics today. Raised in a wealthy family he was a persistent champion of the underdog- and thorn in the side of the SFPD and capitalist interests. Your characterization “broadly considered inept” is simply incorrect. Times changed, it was the height of neoliberalism. Halinan was an old-school leftist who never backed down on principle. He was praised by many following his death in 2020 including Willie Brown and former Supervisor Tom Ammiano.
Halinan was targeted by the SFPD and the Chronicle for defeat- they supported Kamala (Halinan hired her) and who, as you point out, was a de facto cop and now genocide supporter.
I suggest readers follow @LeeFang’s Substack. He’s chronicled Harris’ CA political career as closely as anyone.
Thanks, Jim! I appreciate your insight. To clarify, I wasn't offering my interpretation of Halinan but how he was viewed/portrayed by the San Francisco climate at the time. I didn't research his record or politics, only as it relates to the election against Harris. I hope that clarifies.
Understand Joe. Just realize when you interpret / view by way of “the SFO climate” you’re picking up establishment views meant to discredit a leftist like Halinan. I lived there when he was DA. I know his son well. He was a true piece of work (a brawler) but his policies were decidedly anti-ethical to the Democratic elites: property owners, the Chronicle, the SFPD, etc. Kamala was / is a neolib who took up their mantel. This was her beginning, politically.
She hasn’t changed in any meaningful way. Times and issues have changed, but Kamala is a me-first politician. She’s not anywhere near as bad as Trump but she’s not even close to being the sort of president a leftist would admire.
I agree, Harris is a fraud but she is so much more dangerous than that. Bear with me here while I explain the context of my statement.
I'm sure your readers have noticed an alarming trend of democratic countries (Canada, England, Australia, Germany, Ireland) installing very undemocratic policies of state surveillance, censorship, and other authoritative measures. Similarly, in my opinion, Biden's immigration policy was meant to lead us into the same destabilizing scenario these other G5 countries are experiencing, which will lead to the election of more dictatorial voices and authoritative crackdowns. Don't think it won't happen here given the right circumstances and the coopting of our already unstable leadership.
This authoritarian play book was green lighted here in the US with a trial run during the pandemic first under Trump and then rocketed upwards by the Biden administration. Fortunately for all of us, nefarious government players were exposed by courageous independent journalists, in large part by Elon's purchase of Twitter and willingness to open his books so to speak. The FOIAs continue to roll in and expose more every day.
So forward to the election: Need I remind you that Harris was selected very undemocratically by an elite group of donors without any primary challenges, only after they couldn't keep up the "Biden is perfectly fine" charade. Just a month ago, she was a liability and suddenly she is the darling of the media. What actually changed, except the script?
The current administration has also planted numerous legal roadblocks in front of the first serious 3rd party candidate, RFKJr (as well as Trump). This article focuses on Harris but the Republicans are no better. So if anyone thinks voting for either corporate-owned duopoly candidate run by the deep state is going to change the direction we are headed, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. We have way bigger problems than electing a Republican versus Democrat.
I completely agree Trump and the Republicans would be no better. I'm glad to hear you picked up on something I was trying to get across: I went back and forth on whether I should write this for a while, as I don't want some people to think I'm saying they should vote for Trump. Rather, I just wanted to inform people so they can make their own choices, whatever that may be.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful insight, Tina!
Nice summation of her career and policies. Having lived in CA during many years of her tenure it was apparent really on that she was a very shrewd opportunist, with a record that reflected her ambitions.
Opportunist is really the best way to describe her. Whatever way the winds are blowing — good or bad — that's the way Kamala Harris goes.
Very useful summary. Thanks for writing!
Glad you enjoyed it!
So the vibe I'm getting is kind of a Democratic Mitch McConnell? And also not trustworthy, so I'm not having a lot of faith in her doing shit for Gaza. Or me tbh
I think that's a perfectly reasonable understanding. If she does become President, I think she will likely have one or two good things that surprise us (much like Biden), while the rest is same-old Democratic centrism.
Nailed it. Unfortunately not a lot of true, change can be expected from the Democrats. Asking with the situation in Gaza, I'm especially watching if she sticks with and backs up Lina Kahn's fantastic efforts.
The Kahn issue is interesting. Biden was way better with his FTC than I expected. IMO, he was more progressive than the median Democrat. I really hope Kamala keeps Kahn around.
Sorry, I read my wall of text and it feels shouty and that wasn't my intent. Just fyi and apologies. It's really humid here and it makes me act aggro once in a while.
lol no worries, Rachel!
I didn't say that she wouldn't. I just said on Gaza, specifically and likely myself which breaks down demographically like this: low-income, middle-aged, underemployed, atheist , extremely liberal, socialist-believer, resident of MAGA-controlled supermajority state but Dem Governor so Medicaid expansion exists already.
Are there things she could do that would be great for the other residents of the country? The state? The city? Absolutely. But none of the easiest most politically useful things she can make her banner promises necessitate her stopping arms shipments to Israel. And with the Chevron doctrine not available to back her up, I'm not clear the success against corporate crimes can be done on a national scale from the executive branch. I think we're undervaluing the difficulties we're going to be seeing due to the recent SCUSA decisions. But she can campaign on fixing this as a start, if she wanted. And if it were only that I don't anticipate change for myself that's never been the only motivating factor for my support. It's that I'm deeply, viscerally unable to stomach voting in a way that excuses a genocide and ethnocide. Will she be better than Trump?! 1 million percent,yes of course,I'm not ignorant. But I still can't vote for someone that's not going to attempt to end a genocide. Ever.
I totally hear you! I think you're correct that she'd be better than Trump. But, as you said, that doesn't mean people will feel good about, or will vote for her. I don't blame anyone for looking at the Democratic party and wanting nothing to do with it. It's a totally moral position!
Excellent Joe. Thank you for putting this together. We have a lot of work to do. No stopping.
I loved Terence Halinan. He was a leftist of the sort solely lacking in politics today. Raised in a wealthy family he was a persistent champion of the underdog- and thorn in the side of the SFPD and capitalist interests. Your characterization “broadly considered inept” is simply incorrect. Times changed, it was the height of neoliberalism. Halinan was an old-school leftist who never backed down on principle. He was praised by many following his death in 2020 including Willie Brown and former Supervisor Tom Ammiano.
Halinan was targeted by the SFPD and the Chronicle for defeat- they supported Kamala (Halinan hired her) and who, as you point out, was a de facto cop and now genocide supporter.
I suggest readers follow @LeeFang’s Substack. He’s chronicled Harris’ CA political career as closely as anyone.
Thanks, Jim! I appreciate your insight. To clarify, I wasn't offering my interpretation of Halinan but how he was viewed/portrayed by the San Francisco climate at the time. I didn't research his record or politics, only as it relates to the election against Harris. I hope that clarifies.
Understand Joe. Just realize when you interpret / view by way of “the SFO climate” you’re picking up establishment views meant to discredit a leftist like Halinan. I lived there when he was DA. I know his son well. He was a true piece of work (a brawler) but his policies were decidedly anti-ethical to the Democratic elites: property owners, the Chronicle, the SFPD, etc. Kamala was / is a neolib who took up their mantel. This was her beginning, politically.
She hasn’t changed in any meaningful way. Times and issues have changed, but Kamala is a me-first politician. She’s not anywhere near as bad as Trump but she’s not even close to being the sort of president a leftist would admire.
🤝
I agree, Harris is a fraud but she is so much more dangerous than that. Bear with me here while I explain the context of my statement.
I'm sure your readers have noticed an alarming trend of democratic countries (Canada, England, Australia, Germany, Ireland) installing very undemocratic policies of state surveillance, censorship, and other authoritative measures. Similarly, in my opinion, Biden's immigration policy was meant to lead us into the same destabilizing scenario these other G5 countries are experiencing, which will lead to the election of more dictatorial voices and authoritative crackdowns. Don't think it won't happen here given the right circumstances and the coopting of our already unstable leadership.
This authoritarian play book was green lighted here in the US with a trial run during the pandemic first under Trump and then rocketed upwards by the Biden administration. Fortunately for all of us, nefarious government players were exposed by courageous independent journalists, in large part by Elon's purchase of Twitter and willingness to open his books so to speak. The FOIAs continue to roll in and expose more every day.
So forward to the election: Need I remind you that Harris was selected very undemocratically by an elite group of donors without any primary challenges, only after they couldn't keep up the "Biden is perfectly fine" charade. Just a month ago, she was a liability and suddenly she is the darling of the media. What actually changed, except the script?
The current administration has also planted numerous legal roadblocks in front of the first serious 3rd party candidate, RFKJr (as well as Trump). This article focuses on Harris but the Republicans are no better. So if anyone thinks voting for either corporate-owned duopoly candidate run by the deep state is going to change the direction we are headed, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. We have way bigger problems than electing a Republican versus Democrat.
I completely agree Trump and the Republicans would be no better. I'm glad to hear you picked up on something I was trying to get across: I went back and forth on whether I should write this for a while, as I don't want some people to think I'm saying they should vote for Trump. Rather, I just wanted to inform people so they can make their own choices, whatever that may be.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful insight, Tina!