The LA Times reports on VP Kamala Harris's latest stumble:
The fallout over the video...is the second in recent weeks where a seemingly innocuous appearance by Harris has become modestly troublesome.
I envision this as a huge argument between the reporters and their editor. How about problematic? No, too woke-y. Maybe something about baggage? Yuck. Yet another headache? Too strong. Troublesome? Hmmm. Sort of troublesome? Modestly troublesome? Go with it.
Well, how do you describe something that's basically a nothingburger? Here's the story: YouTube Originals commissioned a video for World Space Week and the production company did all the usual stuff. They hired a crew, some child actors, put a script together, and did the shoot. One of the segments took the kids to the US Naval Observatory, where Harris talked about science stuff. That's it.
Oh, except that the video didn't explicitly make it clear that the kids were actors. Why does this matter? Beats me, aside from the following clue:
Such stumbles have been featured extensively in conservative media...
Well, duh. Kamala Harris could wear the wrong color shoes and it would be featured extensively in conservative media. In this case, Fox News invented the notion that Harris paid the kids and that the video was a government production, even though they surely knew that neither of those things were true, which immediately made the whole thing a controversy. But only a modestly troublesome one, according to the Times. And only in Fox News circles.
BY THE WAY: Just in case you don't know, Harris is the new Hillary Clinton. Fox News savages her on a regular basis, and they've basically turned her into the Antichrist over there. Why? I suppose partly because she's a woman and mostly because she seems the most likely presidential frontrunner if Joe Biden decides not to run in 2024.
Fox news tries to create a controversy over nothing.
Up next, dog bites man.
Sadly, Faux News has been somewhat successful in the past at ginning up controversy.
The goal of the mighty wurlitzer is to paint anything that's remotely a problem to justify whatever they're up to.
"Kamala Harris could wear the wrong color shoes and it would be featured extensively in conservative media. "
don't you remember, Kevin, how the Wingnut Wurlitzer declared Obama History's Greatest Monster because he wore a tan suit?
Wouldn't it be great if Bannon and the rest of the Gang of Four all sort of disappeared one day, and no one could figure out what happened to them? Then, about a week later, they'd all reappear at Guantanamo.
Bannon already has the "I've just been waterboarded" look.
Steve,
"Bannon already has the "I've just been waterboarded" look."
You win quote of the day. And a smile.
"I suppose partly because she's a woman and mostly because she seems the most likely presidential frontrunner if Joe Biden decides not to run in 2024"
Not even close Kevin
She's VP - not exactly a stepping stone to the presidency.
She needs a fly in her hair or something like that
Biden is nowhere near as much a publicity hog as Trump was/is. She SHOULD be more visible just as a result of THAT.
The republicans will nominate a woman for president before the Dems do.
It will either be Nikki Haley or Noem.
They may or may not win because in this day and age of being fair and non sexist women can be A__holes as much as men are.
Judge her on her merits. What has she done?
Did you even read Kevin's post? "Judge her on her merits" was exactly the point. Instead, we're seeing a flood of nonsense about whether the kids in a science-promoting video with her were paid to be there. How does that have anything to do with "her merits"?
>The republicans will nominate a woman for president before the Dems do.
It will either be Nikki Haley or Noem.
Ummmm....Hillary? Who won the popular vote, BTW.
In this environment, I wonder why they bother making stupid videos like this. No good deed goes unpunished and, well, it’s not even a good deed. No one gives a damn.
"Just in case you don't know, Harris is the new Hillary Clinton."
This. Be it her sex, or Obama's skin or whatever else they can paint an easy target on, the point is to salt the earth for their followers to not be able to see anything but the tales they tell.
"Yes, but her annoying cackle..."
It's because she's a woman. Period. Political opponents have been attacking women associated with leaders since -- well at least as far back as Marie Antoinette. It's a way of attacking Biden without directly confronting him, or opposing his power, both as president and as male.
No. It's not solely because of her gender. Biden is attacked daily ("doddering"). Obama was attacked mercilessly. So was Al Gore. So was John Edwards. The media attacks Harris because she's an easy target (comes across as a San Francisco latte liberal). And, yes, she's a famous Democrat with a strong shot at being a future nominee.
I agree that this event is no big deal, on some level. But from a different angle, you don't find it weird that she has to hire kids to be with her? That kids refuse to be with her in the same room, unless they get paid.
> Harris is the new Hillary Clinton.
Yes, she is another out-of-touch politician with bad judgement.
> I suppose partly because she's a woman and mostly because she seems the most likely presidential frontrunner if Joe Biden decides not to run in 2024.
You think she is a strong candidate? I bet you Republicans would love to run against Kamala Harris. That should tell you what kind of candidate she is.
I notice you said she's out of touch, but then gave no evidence, not even an anecdote.
Could it because you're the example that Kevin is pointing at? Making sstuff up and hoping it sticks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1-CRrMDSLs
Did she ever have good judgement? Last time she ran a political campaign on her own was in 2019 in Democratic primary. What was the highest support she ever got, 2%? Tulsi Gabbard ripped her to shreds in a debate, and shortly after that she dropped out, long before the actual primary season started. Yeah, strong candidate sure.
I personally like Kamala Harris, but early indications suggest to me she'd be a disaster as nominee. It's not fair that Democrats who give off "elitist" vibes are easy targets. But politics doesn't give a rat's ass about what's fair.
I get that you hate Harris. Thanks for that. Now, go away.
Jasper, maybe I misread your post. If I did, I apologize. I am a Californian and am probably way too touchy when it comes to Harris.
No worries. I don't hate Harris. At all. Indeed, she was my (very) early favorite in the pre-primary stage. I think she has a lot going for her.
I don't like this state of affairs, but my perception is that Democrats who can be pigeonholed as "elite" or "out of touch" are a tough sell in purple states. I'd almost go so far as to divide Democrats into two camps: Those who have the kind of brand that can be sold to purple state voters and persuadable moderates (Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John Glenn,Tammy Duckworth, Eric Adams, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Barbara Mikulski, Mark Kelly, Beto O'Rourke) and those who can't (Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Elizabeth Warren). Notice it's not solely (or even primarily) a matter of ideology. I doubt Hillary Clinton is measurably to her husband's left, for instance. Barbara Mikulski was a highly reliable progressive. And so on.
Basically, millions of stupid AF voters want "authenticity" or "working class cred" or "the common touch" (or whatever you want to call it). This dichotomy, again, is super stupid, super anti-intellectual and incredibly harmful. It's also very real (but needless to say it wouldn't matter in presidential elections if we had a national popular vote).
In any event Harris, I fear, is very much in the second camp. Though certainly I hope if comes to it, I'm proven wrong.
She reminds me of my first political love, Al Gore. That did not end well for me or the country (yes SCOTUS screwed us, but he underperformed badly)
I hope being VP improves her "common touch," but so far I'm underwhelmed
Al Gore is exhibit "A" as to the unfairness of history. He deserved better. Was infinitely more highly qualified than reformed coke head George W. Bush. He likely would've made an excellent president. The 911 attacks, Afghanistan and Iraq all might never have happened. I tend to think of "Bush v. Gore" as something of an inflection point in US history. It seems to me that's when things really started going off the rails. Gore's concession speech was of the finest and most moving addresses ever uttered by an American politician.
And yes, a lot of persuadable voters apparently thought he didn't eat ribs or listen to country music as much as W. Bush, and so wasn't qualified to be president. What a travesty.
El Jefe Maximo's solid gold commode was the definition of modest.
Where do you get that VP Harris "hired" those child actors? How do you figure that "they refuse to be in the same room with her, unless they get paid"?
Kevin's post clearly states that YOUTUBE commissioned a video, and hired a production company and child actors. Youtube. Not "Harris." The Vice President's only involvement was in giving that science talk, and it's doubtful that she was "paid" for it.
Oh, and let me suggest a better headline:
"Rightwing Media Goes Crazy with Another Kamala Harris Nothingburger"
Fair enough. Yes Kevin did make it clear that it was Youtube that set this thing up. But a top-level politician with presidential ambitions and with good judgment would know that sitting down with a bunch of paid-for child actors, while pretending that this is just a science conversions with kids, will bring a ton of ridicule. Were normal not-paid-for kids not available to hang out with the VP? The "proper" way for a politician to do a photo op with kids is to have staff call up an elementary school and arrange a visit and event, with all the reports in tow to record this event for eternity. She is taking flak because of her bad judgement.
So now we’re upset that the VP did a photo op the wrong way? As if a “proper” photo op with a bunch of real kids taken out of real school to pose with the VP would’ve been received by Fox News et al so much better than a “fake” photo op with a bunch of kid actors posing as real kids?
That checks out since the GOP is all about authenticity, with George W being a cowboy, Trump being a godly Christian savior, Graham being a heterosexual tough guy… all 100% real average Joe’s.
I am not upset about Kamala Harris doing the "photo op the wrong way". Personally, I am doing fine, thank you very much. I never met her, I never spoke to her. If she does well, or if she crashes or burns, it will not affect my life. But let me ask you this question.
Do you want to win elections?
So that your candidate takes office and gets to govern? Politics is not about what is fair. You can bitch and moan all you want, but if you want to make a difference, you need to win elections.
At this point, it is most likely, that Republicans will take back the House in 2022. Maybe the Senate as well. So the Biden administration will be a lame duck 2022-2024. I predict Biden will not run in 2024. Do you want to win in 2024, or do you want to repeat 2016?
Conservative media want desperately to pretend that Biden and Harris are just as, if not more, incompetent and bumbling as Trump and Pence, and then whine that the mainstream media has a double standard, but of course it doesn't really work because Biden and Harris are fairly boring, conventional pols who aren't ignorant, psychopathic morons. So they have to just make shit up.
Great points. I frequently heard from my Republican acquaintences how "unfair" the media was for pointing out Trump's many, ah, shall we say "boo-boos"? They were immune to the argument that the former guy actually was doing stuff, lots of it, that was wrong, and basically unthinkable for any other President.
"I suppose partly because she's a woman and mostly because she seems the most likely presidential"
Did you somehow forget she's black and the republican party is rabidly racist?
Once again, I miss the "Like" button.
yeah, me too. also the ability to sort comments by likes. Kevin, it would be great if you setup a new commenting system with those features.
Co-rect-a-mundo!
LOL !
“Fox News savages [Harris] on a regular basis … Why? I suppose partly because she's a woman and mostly because she seems the most likely presidential frontrunner if Joe Biden decides not to run in 2024.”
Sure, that’s all true. But, seriously, you can’t write a sentence like that without mentioning that Harris is BLACK !
And I am not one of the woke crowd who seem to think (as far as I can tell) that America is the most racist place ever and must therefore be overthrown (or something).
No. But, among the Fox News crowd? Among Trump voters? Yeah, they don’t like it that Harris is black !
True, this.
"Such stumbles have been featured extensively in conservative media..."
Why is why it should be ignored. If the so-called "mainstream media" (or better yet corporate media" thinks anything that gets replayed repeatedly on Fox News is an excuse to cover it, I'm sorry but FUCK THAT! That is the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. I don't care what the flat earthers and COVID-19 deniers and election conspiracy freaks think is news because every story that appears on Fox (or OAN or Newsmax) is done so with political intent behind it usually to the benefit of one particular side or the benefit of telling their audience what they want to hear and see. And they do so repeatedly in order to make their point. So it's not news, it's propaganda. Do they peruse Stormfront looking for stories? Give me break!
Wait. This was the innocuous video that they are bitching about? Why? Because of a lack of white kids?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wlxq4S-4CCY
This video was covered in conservative media initially not because actors were hired , which was not even known at first , but because it was so cringeworthy and Harris came across as so fake and inauthentic.
They were making fun of this video for a few days before it came out that the kids were actors, which was just icing on the cake .
If the video had Harris seeming to be sincere and like a normal person, the use of child actors would not have been a big story . If she had the political skills of Bill Clinton or Obama, it would be different.
Like it matters. Most politicians have cooth of a nat.
And the latest video endorsing making a blatant political endorsement playing in black churches and clearly violating the law on the tax exempt status of churches should be the bigger story..
Now do white evangelical churches.
Are you referring to the case where one church advocated for Clinton to be defeated and was investigated under the trump administration, lost their tax exempt status and that was upheld by the court?
So now we will see if the biden administration will uphold the law against a church, or here a whole bunch of churches blatantly violating the law to favor their party .
Seems your point was to try to suggest I was being hypocritical or something. If these churches do not lose their tax exempt status, then it is democrats who are complete hypocrites.
Like anybody cares about Harris. She has .5% chance of winning the 2024 nomination. Posters like kk don't realize how politically inept Republicans are right now.
You really think if Biden doesn't run, the sitting Vice President of the United States possesses only a one in 200 shot at the nomination of the Democratic Party?
Considering her unpopularity, yes. 2024 is about who controls the party going forward. It may get ugly.
Lets also remember she only got the job because "hands up, don't shoot"Whitmer imploded. They knew it wasn't going to be a stepping stone position.
But she's not that unpopular with people who vote in Democratic primaries.
Yes, she is. Your not paying attention.
Are you referring to the case where one church advocated for Clinton to be defeated and was investigated under the trump administration, lost their tax exempt status and that was upheld by the court?
So now we will see if the biden administration will uphold the law against a church, or here a whole bunch of churches blatantly violating the law to favor their party .
Seems your point was to try to suggest I was being hypocritical or something. If these churches do not lose their tax exempt status, then it is democrats who are complete hypocrites.