What an excellent way to start the day. Thank you for this informative piece. I am sure there are others like me who thought vaguely , oh, she has foreign policy experience . But you brought the receipts.
As an Independent, I am baffled by this recent attitude among Democrats. The commentary of the "corporate media" is almost unanimously pro-Harris. Nearly every newspaper endorsed Trump's opponent in the last two elections, and will again. What don't you like?
Well I am Daniel, but you bring up an interesting point. Everyone I know is a Democrat, and a small but aggressive number will not discuss issues. At all. You are either for us or against us, issues be damned.
Or: media too often throws undeserved sops to Trump in misguided effort to demonstrate their commitment to balanced reporting, but in so doing create imbalance in the facts and thereby help no one.
Thank you for this fulsome rebuttal. But the original claim required no evidence because it was simply a continuation of the bad faith double standard that the brown girl MUST present her homework for inspection AND must score 110% on the test to pass whereas her old white male opponent just needs to write his name on the test paper. She is judged against perfection, so that she will always be found wanting. Which was the objective all along.
John Hannah—Dick Cheney’s foreign policy advisor!—commenting on Kamala Harris’s foreign policy credentials is the black hole of comedy.
His credential, such as it is, should permanently disqualify him from any role in foreign policy. Holding any government job, teaching the subject, or even speaking to a reporter. I wouldn’t let him serve as a file clerk.
Good morning! Two thoughts: 1) Trump did have foreign policy experience … we just tend to under rate business experience, but all it did was accentuate his turn toward oligarchy; 2) I suspect the questions of Harris’ experience, unconnected to fact, is that she’s a … woman. Although perhaps because she’s been leery to weigh in on one of the most significant international policy issues of the day: Gaza.
On that last, no, nobody wants to touch radioactive issues in an election campaign. I think you nailed it when you suggested her being a woman is at the heart of this. They just can't help underestimating her.
Harris and Trump have their "baked in" voters. The key are independents, who will decide this election. How will Afghanistan, Gaza, and Ukraine play with them?
What an excellent way to start the day. Thank you for this informative piece. I am sure there are others like me who thought vaguely , oh, she has foreign policy experience . But you brought the receipts.
The corporate media’s entire framing of this election has been … odd.
As an Independent, I am baffled by this recent attitude among Democrats. The commentary of the "corporate media" is almost unanimously pro-Harris. Nearly every newspaper endorsed Trump's opponent in the last two elections, and will again. What don't you like?
To be fair, as a reader of all your comments I am baffled when you describe yourself as "an independent."
Well I am Daniel, but you bring up an interesting point. Everyone I know is a Democrat, and a small but aggressive number will not discuss issues. At all. You are either for us or against us, issues be damned.
People choose sides based on the issues they care about. And then they vote for the party/candidate that most aligns with their values.
For example, let’s say Fred’s issue that he cares about the very most is abortion - he’s against it.
Based on Fred’s position on abortion for which party will he vote. Obviously and always the republicans.
And if you don’t know Fred’s abortion stance and he only tells you he’s a republican odds are you’d think he’s anti-abortion.
My point is "issues they care about" don't exist.
Shorter: Media accepts Trump lies as true
Or: media too often throws undeserved sops to Trump in misguided effort to demonstrate their commitment to balanced reporting, but in so doing create imbalance in the facts and thereby help no one.
I perhaps should have said,
Shorter: Media accepts Trump's lies as valid analysis to be repeated as if they were true
Thank you for this fulsome rebuttal. But the original claim required no evidence because it was simply a continuation of the bad faith double standard that the brown girl MUST present her homework for inspection AND must score 110% on the test to pass whereas her old white male opponent just needs to write his name on the test paper. She is judged against perfection, so that she will always be found wanting. Which was the objective all along.
John Hannah—Dick Cheney’s foreign policy advisor!—commenting on Kamala Harris’s foreign policy credentials is the black hole of comedy.
His credential, such as it is, should permanently disqualify him from any role in foreign policy. Holding any government job, teaching the subject, or even speaking to a reporter. I wouldn’t let him serve as a file clerk.
You actually believe what you wrote here?
Good morning! Two thoughts: 1) Trump did have foreign policy experience … we just tend to under rate business experience, but all it did was accentuate his turn toward oligarchy; 2) I suspect the questions of Harris’ experience, unconnected to fact, is that she’s a … woman. Although perhaps because she’s been leery to weigh in on one of the most significant international policy issues of the day: Gaza.
On that last, no, nobody wants to touch radioactive issues in an election campaign. I think you nailed it when you suggested her being a woman is at the heart of this. They just can't help underestimating her.
Who owns Politico?
Harris and Trump have their "baked in" voters. The key are independents, who will decide this election. How will Afghanistan, Gaza, and Ukraine play with them?
Kaplan’s piece in Slate is worth reading in full
Shorter: Media wants Trump to win