Major, but I think fairly accurate, paraphrasing:
Gabbard to Harris: You did these bad things as a prosecutor.
Harris: I’m proud of my career as a prosecutor (note the lack of refutation of specific Gabbard assertions).
Anderson Cooper to Harris, post-debate: What is your reaction to Gabbard?
Harris: Syria. Assad. Who the hell is Gabbard?
She’s gonna have to do way better than that when there are fewer candidates and this can be explored further, and especially if Trump gets a chance at her.
Actually, “which one was Gabbard?” strikes me as a good response, without the Syria stuff at all. On some level acting Presidential already, or at least like a front-runner. It might need to be semi-humourously done, and I am not sure Harris has the confidence to bring it off, but a candidate needs to learn how to brush off attacks from people trying to drag themselves up by pulling on you.
At any rate, Harris is highly unlikely to face off against Gabbard again, so a simple brush-off might minimize the effects of the attack.
Regards,
Shodan
Now that Harris’ vulnerability on that point is exposed, it won’t matter if it’s Gabbard who keeps pressing it or any other candidate who was paying attention last night.
Oh, sure, it might be minimized this time. But the point is she needs a real defense, and deflecting won’t do it. This is not about just Gabbard, IOW.
And she should have thought of one years ago. This isn’t the first campaign she’s been in where it’s come up.
Given that she’s gotten this far without one, I guess that is some comfort to Harris supporters. But not much, I’d think.
In California she is associated with the still very influential Willie Brown. She is running nationwide now and the same old crap won’t cut it. Well, it might, but it shouldn’t.
This is far from being a new line of attack. The Kremlin bots have been pushing ‘Kamala’s a cop’ ever since she declared.
It’s entirely possible that she has a full defense–sound bites and all–but recognizes it’s one that will play better in the general than in the primary.
In the general, having leaned more ‘law and order’ than ‘social worker’ will play well. In the primary, it’s all about getting past the Kremlin bots and the useful idiots who echo their ‘she doesn’t have the back of the black community’ line.
Granted, the specific charges need to be refuted or explained. Some may not actually be true:
I’m not seeing specifics on the ‘prisoners used for labor’ or ‘targeting minorities on low-level drug charges’ accusations. But one would expect that Harris’ campaign will address these.
As for Harris herself speaking out: again, I’m guessing that she’ll do so more forcefully if she makes it to the general.
I think Kamala Harris should be pushing law and order in the primaries, if not now quite yet. Tell us how she is the best for prosecuting corrupt politicians and criminal corporations, without naming names of course. Tell us how she’s going to prevent foreign and corrupt domestic influence on our elections. Tell us how she’s going to vigorously go after violations of civil rights and voting rights. Tell us her plan for going after tax cheats. Promise that the Justice department and IRS will get the resources and authorizations they need to do all this. And for the cherry on top, promise that she will change the policy that a president in office cannot be indicted.
America needs the Democratic party to make law and order a priority. And Kamala Harris is in the prime position to do that.
So far, I have only seen Kremlin hits on Biden.
Do you have cite about these?
Note, i have no doubt they are ready to pounce on whoever is the front runner or whoever they are scared of.
Seth Abramson has been documenting Kremlin support for Tulsi Gabbard, which presumably would be for the purpose of helping her tear down all the Dem candidates (not just Harris):
and
Harris has talked about Russian bots working against her campaign:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/kamala-harris-twitter-bots/index.html
The CNN writer expresses a lot of skepticism, but concedes that in recent years, bot activity has occurred without being detected.
eta: my own remark about bots pushing the “Kamala is a cop” meme is based on a story I saw on one of the cable news channels. I don’t recall which one or which day I saw it, so am not succeeding in finding a link. However, I do think it would be unwise to bet against the likelihood that the Kremlin would prefer Trump to Harris, and is active on the internet in pursuit of that preference.
NM
Ok, I see that, I am slightly dubious but…:dubious:
And the only cite for Harris is herself- i am more than slightly dubious. :dubious:
Look, they will attack the frontrunner and Harris is far from that.
Not that they wont, mind you, i have no doubt of that. Let Harris become the favorite and they will be all over her. But she aint a target- *yet.
If Russian bots are helping Gabbard’s campaign, they really need better bots because she’s been fairly active in national politics for the past few years and in this campaign, and she’s barely pulling 1% of the vote. Being a bottom-tier candidate, Gabbard did what other bottom-tier candidates do (and did last night): she made a top-tier candidate her target in what could be her last debate appearance.
I wish a couple of those skeletons were not in her closet, but she still looks like the strongest of the top tier. She has a unique combination of charisma, likability, competence, and toughness.
Here’s some info/fact-checking on those: Debate fact check: Kamala Harris' criminal justice record
That is reassuring.
I may have said it before but I don’t think Harris’ record as a prosecutor is going to be a liability at all. Her being criticized by the left as a get-tough-on-crime prosecutor will probably actually reassure some white moderates that she’s not some pinko pansy, and I doubt that people of color will view her as a racist. She probably years ago made the calculation that the AG spot was a statewide office that would give her a profile that might make her appealing to a broader audience. As I’ve said previously, Harris is calculating and slippery, and she’s a very dangerous opponent for that reason. And she will probably get more dangerous for her opposition as the race narrows because a smaller field with more specific targets will give her time to attack her opposition like a courtroom prosecutor, one on one.
The Russian bot claims are backed up by no evidence. Pure hysteria. Once again the case for Russian interference is largely resting upon the fact that RT exists.
Search YouTube for Gabbard and the first thing that comes up is a disgusting McCarthy-style smear of Gabbard on the View. Yes, the corporate press has found its candidate. Unsurprisingly, it is the warmonger dirty cop.
All of this makes sense, but my perception is that being the law and order candidate is a liability in the Democratic primaries even if it would be a positive in the general election.
Regards,
Shodan