I’ve spent much of the past several days post debates touring other pro-Democratic sites trying to get a general sense of what folks elsewhere are thinking. I got caught up in one very lengthy thread in which Kamala Harris was excoriated in surprisingly nasty personal terms that I characterize as ranging between “how dare she ambush poor Joe” to, “Who does that F***ing B**** think she is?”.
It seems to me the reaction arises, in part, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of debates; the purpose of which is to give candidates a chance to introduce themselves, present their proposed policy positions, and to challenge one’s opponents.
That holds true for every candidate, all of whom have vulnerabilities and are going to have to defend their records. The risk that this process will weaken the eventual nominee is real but that’s the price we pay for a big tent party that invited (too) many candidates to participate.
I’ve also seen repeated complaints that Harris broke a “pledge” between the candidates. The pledge was only that they would all support the eventual nominee; not that they would play nice and not engage competitively with each other.
As for the strategy of going at Biden, underdog candidates always “punch up” at the leader to get attention and expand their base of support. That’s exactly what Harris did.
Curiously, Julian Castro did the same thing to Beto O’Rourke in the previous evening’s debate when he asked the latter whether he supported repeal of sec. 1325 (the statute that criminalizes illegal entry into the country). Beto was not ready for the question and floundered – but, curiously, there was no great hue and cry over that “ambush” perhaps because they are perceived as second tier candidates.
As between the candidates, these disagreements are rarely personal. Biden and Harris will find common cause when the time comes – just as Biden found it with Eastman and Talmadge.
One of the more disconcerting aspects of the Harris/Biden exchange was that Joe didn’t have a ready response to an attack he had to know was coming. If he had simply said, “I will match my Senate record on civil rights against yours as California AG. When time permits, let’s have that discussion,” the narrative today would be completely different today. Instead, he fumbled, raising questions about his apparent lack of preparation.
Kamala Harris is a courtroom prosecutor and a good one. That’s her calling card. She has now rocked Kavanaugh, Barr and Biden, placing all three on the defensive. Joe has plenty of time to show he can counter.
We have several other talented candidates worthy of our time and attention. Rather than overreact to one issue or episode, however charged it may be, it seems to me we are best served by studying their positions and presentations, finding those whose views most closely reflect our own, and hope our chosen candidate can beat Trump.
What we do not need to do as Democrats is to destroy our candidates from within. They are quite capable of doing that to one another. As Joe is fond of saying, “that’s the deal.”
Keep on pushing.
It seems to me the reaction arises, in part, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of debates; the purpose of which is to give candidates a chance to introduce themselves, present their proposed policy positions, and to challenge one’s opponents.
That holds true for every candidate, all of whom have vulnerabilities and are going to have to defend their records. The risk that this process will weaken the eventual nominee is real but that’s the price we pay for a big tent party that invited (too) many candidates to participate.
I’ve also seen repeated complaints that Harris broke a “pledge” between the candidates. The pledge was only that they would all support the eventual nominee; not that they would play nice and not engage competitively with each other.
As for the strategy of going at Biden, underdog candidates always “punch up” at the leader to get attention and expand their base of support. That’s exactly what Harris did.
Curiously, Julian Castro did the same thing to Beto O’Rourke in the previous evening’s debate when he asked the latter whether he supported repeal of sec. 1325 (the statute that criminalizes illegal entry into the country). Beto was not ready for the question and floundered – but, curiously, there was no great hue and cry over that “ambush” perhaps because they are perceived as second tier candidates.
As between the candidates, these disagreements are rarely personal. Biden and Harris will find common cause when the time comes – just as Biden found it with Eastman and Talmadge.
One of the more disconcerting aspects of the Harris/Biden exchange was that Joe didn’t have a ready response to an attack he had to know was coming. If he had simply said, “I will match my Senate record on civil rights against yours as California AG. When time permits, let’s have that discussion,” the narrative today would be completely different today. Instead, he fumbled, raising questions about his apparent lack of preparation.
Kamala Harris is a courtroom prosecutor and a good one. That’s her calling card. She has now rocked Kavanaugh, Barr and Biden, placing all three on the defensive. Joe has plenty of time to show he can counter.
We have several other talented candidates worthy of our time and attention. Rather than overreact to one issue or episode, however charged it may be, it seems to me we are best served by studying their positions and presentations, finding those whose views most closely reflect our own, and hope our chosen candidate can beat Trump.
What we do not need to do as Democrats is to destroy our candidates from within. They are quite capable of doing that to one another. As Joe is fond of saying, “that’s the deal.”
Keep on pushing.
No comments:
Post a Comment