Dialogues on Women and the Demo-Cats: Welcome to Kamalot

Attribution: Lawrence Jackson , Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Featuring the Fabulous Dadbots: Dave S., Mark M., Mark O., Dennis C., Paul C., and Geoff Carter

Sharing my flip flop on Kamala:

Though I still worry ‘bout systemic racism…the problem is it’s systemic…. The theory I had was our Joe/Jane middle class voter would opt for Donald rather than a black woman. And add to that systemic sexism….Hillary didn’t make it…but maybe her issue with Joe/Jane middle class voter was not just her sex—rather the Benghazi smear campaign and the FBI idiot one week before voting day…James Comey? She was so arrogant, (like Barack), she didn’t bother to campaign in Packer land. (Go Pack Go!…btw).

Alas, at this point, the Dems cannot afford a circus… they just need to strap in, attack trump, dredge up coat hanger horror stories in Chicago and pick a decent Veep. Mark Kelly—Arizona is one I read about today.

For a while I was thinking a convention “bake off” might be wise….: Imagine 5-6 candidates spewing forth in Chicago…”gladiator-esque” (per Maureen Dowd—NY Times). With all the network coverage they’d have free advert to rail on trump. But…there’s no time for that. We have Barack to thank for that. Barack never accepted Uncle Joe into his inner circle, rather supported Hilary in 2016. Whaaaat? Had he supported Joe, Trump would likely be just another hard charg’en business man that didn’t make the cut—ala Ross Perot. And Joe would now be finishing up his second term. Further, Barack’s gaffe made Joe all the more stiff upper lipped, such that he only relented at the eleventh hour. I don’t blame Joe one iota.

Sinead nailed it: “He’s (Barack) got a sudden case of the Emperor’s new clothes.”

Nonetheless, Kamala is young, has learned a lot these last (3) years…I like this horse a million times more than the one that can’t find the starting gate.

Bot’s thoughts?

-d.

Hey bots. Farewell, Uncle Joe and thank you. It’s too bad Obama didn’t originally endorse him in 2016. I think he would’ve beaten Trump, been re-elected and would now be sailing off into the sunset instead of walking the plank.

Then Hillary could have run. She might not have won, but maybe Trump would have disappeared. Well, if wishes were fishes.

Kamala? I think she’s got a shot. I hope so. We did once elect a black president and very nearly elected a woman as president.

I think that during the 2008 primaries, Clinton stepped aside for Obama. I think. Am I tripping or did they work it so he had a clear shot at the presidency? She did hold prestigious posts in his administration, too, maybe as part of a deal. Mark, what do you know?

The Dems will not be taking Wisconsin for granted this time. I hope Harris can ride the pro-choice and pro-democracy wave all the way to the beach.

Ugh I have to own up to an erroneous prediction. I thought there was no way that Biden would step down without being faced with a specific, strong opponent. But that never happened. Instead, a committee led by Nancy got through to him. One unattributed quote related that Nancy told Biden and his inner circle that “we can do this the easy way, or the hard way”. I love how that reinforces her bad ass image. In any event, Unca Joe did choose the easy way.

Sexism and Harris? Oh, it’s an issue, but not insurmountable. Hillary can take credit for absorbing the hard hits on that. Hillary’s history is a wee bit tragic. Somehow (with the help of Rush) she just got off to a bad start with the American political culture. She was hated from the get go, even before Bill won the Presidency.

You are correct to point out Benghazi, but that’s just the cherry on a 30-year turd cake.

It’s too bad. Hillary’s technocratic brilliance was just what the US needed to fight Covid. She was born for that (or created in an Easy German lab). I believe that hundreds of thousands of Americans would have survived the pandemic had she and her crack staff of childless cat ladies been in charge.

I like your tactics. Cost hanger stories and Mark Kelly.

I don’t have any problem with Barack backing Hillary instead of Biden in ‘16. The VP choice is always a marriage of convenience. They never were really best friends. And I don’t think Hillary gave way to Obama in ‘08. That was a hard fought battle, and it was good for the party.

Like MarkM, I too thought Biden would hold out a bit longer: I think I predicted he’d hang on until the next debate because, in his old man fever dreams, he was imagining himself crushing Trump with a death blow of quick wit, indisputable facts, and understated machismo. As Biden lay sweating and nursing his aching back on that orthopedic cot hidden behind his desk in the oval office, he was envisioning how the electorate would be entranced by his eloquence and dazzled by his charm. I admit, I was kinda hoping the same thing for him.

But I was way off. Biden has grabbed his old, shrinking gonads and has finally taken a cold, hard look at his strongest opponent. That opponent, of course, is Time. By 2020, the Time when Biden finally won the Presidency, he was an old man, well into geezer-hood. Then four more years of Time passed and now — (because, surprise surprise, that’s how Time works for all of us) — Uncle Joe is even more old and more frail. From being a somewhat feisty old geezer at the start of his term, Biden has by now naturally aged into a somewhat befuddled old coot.

It took some coaxing, but Old Uncle Joe has had his epiphany — that even the President of the United States cannot defeat Time. I always liked Joe Biden and I think he has actually been a pretty good president. But I’m relieved that he is finally passing the torch.

So far, it looks like Biden has managed to slide the torch over to Kamala without too much fuss being made. Is that gonna fly? Should the democratic party stick to that plan and roll with Kamala? I agree that the coat hanger and Mark Kelly plan is sound strategy. But why has Kamala been kept hidden more than is usual for Veeps in the modern era, especially in light of an aging President. Any bot knowledge on this?

From what I’ve seen, Kamala can come off a bit quirky at times. While I’m a fan of quirky, the kids on Tik Tok and X, for better or worse, have posted all kinds of memes about her doing and saying off-beat stuff. Many of them are funny in a good way, which could give her GameStop-like momentum. Check it out. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.

I suppose I should throw my two bits into the hat although I suppose they aren’t actually worth two bits. On a separate thread last week I opined that the national Democrats weren’t a competent political party. Well they look a little more competent this week. They have coalesced very quickly around Kamala, to the point where she actually has the delegate count necessary to win the nomination. Even the 100% all-the-way-with-Joe folks have almost all pivoted to a 100% all-the-way-with-Kamala position. This may lock her into the nomination. I have one reservation. A certain former president who is undoubtedly the most popular national Democrat is so far keeping his powder dry. This could change at any moment, but so far Obama hasn’t endorsed Kamala. This may be personal or it could be a Party strategy. It makes sense to withhold the nomination until after a few respected polls take place after the dust has settled from this crazy 7 days. If those polls look promising, Kamala gets anointed the nominee. If they look bad, they need an open convention process. Only Obama could pull off a call for an open convention. It would be suicide for any other Democrat with political ambitions (Obama’s ambitions are strictly Hollywood at this time). Plus, Obama can’t be defamed as racist (being just as black as Kamala) or sexist (Michelle and the daughters shield him from that).

I suspect the polls won’t change dramatically from the Biden-Trump numbers on account of the Red and Blue camps being dug into their trenches so deeply. But the possibility exists, for the usual racism and sexism themes, but also because of recent history. In the 2020 campaign, her numbers sucked. She has no base, other than black women. Like Hillary, people just don’t like her. That’s hard to overcome. Why don’t people like her? I think she has an authenticity problem. The combination of her outrageous Cheshire Cat grin and her frequent word salad absurdities make her a bit hard to take at face value. We’ll see.

MarkO

Who are these Democrats that settle on Harris as nominee in the space of 24 hours? This is not the Democratic Party that I know. They had a mass brain transplant!

Come to think of it, though, didn’t they kind of do the same thing in 2020? Unca Joe was headed for the trash heap of history when, suddenly, Jim Cliburn endorsed him, he won SC, and all of the other candidates dropped out & got behind him.

I guess that fear of Trump clarifies the mind.

It is true that she is not well liked. But also not well known. So I take that “dislike” poll result as shallow. I think she has a good shot at changing that (unlike Hillary).

As I write (Thursday 7/25) she is on an incredible hot streak. But that will fade, just as all the Trump good feeling evaporated as soon as he started ranting again. It’s going to be trench warfare and Wisconsin is ground zero.

I like Kamala, too. She’s got a bit of that Obama positivity vibe, but I think she lets it get a little out of hand at times—she gets a little giggly and goofy. And some of her turns of phrase are a little funky. But at the same time, some people find it charming. I think she’s drawing kids and at least a portion of the minority vote, but I don’t know how much of that will be balanced out by racist and misogynistic attitudes.

I was watching a panel of female Wisconsin swing voters last night. They were Trump leaners and had nothing good to say about Kamala. One said, “Well, I don’t think she’s very bright,” but then after a moment, she added, “I don’t know, she might be.” That statement is all about race—and maybe about gender and says a helluva lot about the stupidity out there. It would take one minute—or less—for this chowderhead to research Harris’ background as senator, California attorney general, and prosecutor, but it’s so much easier to parrot the living blonde jokes at Fox.

I hope she picks Mark Kelley or Shapiro as a running mate. Or maybe Oprah?

Yesterday, Ari Shapiro, (NPR), brought to a light an interesting piece of systemic sexism. Well, it may have other roots than sexism …tradition…how we refer to women…dunno, bots can weigh in, but there is no denying what takes place. Is it lack of respect or mere cultural politeness? And what is it?

Last name vs first name-ism. It is Trump, Biden and Kamala. Not Trump, Biden and Harris. The tape they shared countless examples. Trump vs Hillary. I never gave it much thought….(err…that’s where that systemic part enters the frame, ay).

Dave

Yah.

It’s just systematic downplaying of the seriousness and gravitas of women who are rocking the patriarchy boat.

Remember Hillary’s “cankles”? Remember how her voice was described as “screechy”? How she was supposed to “smile more”? The same comments have been made about Elizabeth Warren.

This stuff is deeply embedded into our cultural foundation. She never had a chance against a cool cat like Obama. But women really aren’t allowed to be cool cats.

I had to overcome some deep seated misogyny myself to support Hillary. Strong women are tough to handle for old gits like ourselves.

Forgive me if I have already used this example. I had a project manager named Marian who was hyper competent. But it really isn’t sexism on my part to describe her as unskilled with people. She couldn’t connect on a personal level, and was widely despised because of that. I didn’t like her much but I did respect her. She told me once in a review that she admired how I used humor to break the ice and get people comfortable in meetings. I was a bit of a jokester by Mother Mutual standards, I guess. I walked out of that review feeling pretty good about myself. Later, however, I came to realize that this wasn’t really an option for her. Female managers would be destroyed by their superiors (and subordinates) if they joked around in meetings.

The Republicans are already going after Harris’ laugh. Trump has called her “Laughin’ Kamala”. I don’t think it’s going to stick.

I’m sure there’s a real thing that one can call systemic sexism, but the use of surnames vs. first names (pronames?) seems like a weak indicator. I would call this NPR woke filler material. There’s thousands of male vs. female contests from which one can cherrypick examples to make an argument from. And what about the Chinese Americans, for whom the surname is the first name, or the given name is the surname, which is not a surname as in family name, which is the proname… Oh,fuck it.

By the way, all the campaign spam I’m getting from the Harris camp refers to their candidate as KAMALA, so I guess they are conducting systemic sexism on their own candidate. I suspect that most campaigns use the moniker that registers most positively in focus groups and most strongly and immediately identifies the candidate in the target’s mind. The names Hillary and Kamala immediately bring the intended association. The names Clinton and Harris may not. The name Clinton had already been used in many recent campaigns for a different person. The name Harris triggers images of Ed Harris (great actor) and Al Harris (great cornerback) in my mind, not a particular politician.

I hope the Kamala/Harris campaign gets their messaging right. I don’t think leaning onto systemic -isms is going to win much more than a few votes from post-graduate degree holders.

MarkO

Don’t forget W. One man, one letter. One mediocre presidency. Or JFK or LBJ or FDR. More letters, better presidencies. Is there a correlation here? Or Saddam? That was a first name only situation.

I’ve been hearing a lot of pundits calling Biden “Joe” lately—and of course, we lovingly refer to him as our Uncle Joe, but I think Kamala can walk that narrow line (or balance beam) between gravitas and charisma. Yeah, she gets a little goofy and seems to be having too much fun sometimes (for a president), but she’s very likable. It’ll be a good measure of American maturity if we can finally accept the fact that women do need to run the world.

Woke filler material? It’s more than filler, my friend.

I agree that they definitely need to stay away from the “historic black woman” identity play. She needs to be the President for ALL the people. Just like Trump.

Systemic sexism? Systemic racism? Systemic “family values” judgement. Oh yeah. They are ever-present among us and inside us all. They’re, like, totally “systemic”, man, even among us high-minded bots, as MarkM confesses. But, like Mark, the rest of us bots and hopefully 50.1% of our fellow Americans, will hopefully rise above the well-disguised appeals to our more base systemic programming.

So let us stand and behold the battle we must face with the subtle and not-so subtle coding that Trump, Vance and company are exploiting to trigger those culturally programmed systemic responses buried deep within our amygdalas.

For example, Kamala’s laugh. Or cackle. Whatever. When was a male presidential candidate ever judged on his suitability for the Presidency based on the way he laughed? As for coded racism. J.D. Vance just slammed Kamala Harris for “twenty years of living off the government dime” — a fairly crude coded reference to black “welfare queens” — though Harris actually earned her “government dime” as a state attorney and senator. Also, the references about Kamala and staff being “childless cat ladies”? Catchy, for sure. But also a not so veiled implication that career women who aren’t married with children are miserable bitches out to ruin everyone’s lives. Ever hear of a “childless cat man?”

And this is just the negative systemic stuff that I, a crusty old mid-western white man, noticed in passing.

So I’m sure there are plenty more systemic quirks of the collective subconscious out there for the bots to comment upon. Like that first name for women candidates vs. last name for men deal. Possibly an indicator of systemic sexism? Hmmm. This one is good precisely because it’s so “deep system” that I hadn’t even consciously thought of it before. But, as I ponder, I tend to agree with MarkO’s “NPR woke filler material” assessment. Ok, I confess my love/hate issues with NPR, but.c’mon, Hillary was “Hillary” because “Clinton” was already taken and it behooved her to put some space between her and that rascally Bill. Kamala’s own campaign is going with “Kamala” probably because it’s a far more cool, unique, and recognizable name than “Harris”. If her first name was “Susan” or “Linda”, they’d probably go with “Harris” on the lawn signs. And arguably the most powerful woman in US politics today is not generally thought of as “Nancy”.

In yet another example of the Emperor’s new wardrobe still temping Barack…he finally endorsed K. WTF? Why the hesitation? Way too full of himself…he’s lucky he had Nance to do the real work. All he did was cost the Dems more fund raising money, (the skillet was hot!). And as mentioned, he is THEEreason Trump succeeded in 2016 . Yet, he is still popular to some…so everyone needs to kiss his ring.

Dave S.

Interesting. Flawed, but interesting. 😁 Before I join in on the speculation of Dem strategies, a take on racism. When Obama was ordained some far right Caterpillar guys I was working for chuckled about spinners on the limousines at the inauguration parade. But despite that comment—I consider them far, far, right—methinks how dark one is matters…Barack and Kamala (is she more Asian then black?): Not black-black. Tim Scott, well “he’s a __________” whoa….can’t type that, even if I am voicing a KKK type.

Speculations:

I don’t think the Dems are that coordinated. Also working against coordination is time, difference of opinions, big egos and hesitancy to say or type stuff less it be spit back at you. Do they use burner phones for these “smoke filled cyber rooms of today”. (and I think Barack does like smokes btw…)
Maybe Joe delaying his announcement was strategic—to deflate the trump/vance balloon. However, I could see some saying there was value in doing it in the middle of the convention. I’ve heard zero people suggest that, but think about it—it would’ve created chaos… Whatever, I think it just took Joe a while to come to terms with it…hell it takes him 5 hours to get dressed these days.
The one thing DC said I thought plausible was the dispel the black parade talk had Barack acquiesced right out of the gate. Faux restraint.
Well I’m rooting for Miss Harris. She was getting some better press mid-term, from the press, which can be objective at times, witnessed by how harsh they were on her out of the gate in 2020. But, let’s be honest, she’d not have finished in the top 9 had their been a run-off.
Pete Buttigieg—was my fave in 2020 and his stock in this, albeit Madisonian’s mind, has continued to soar. Everyone wants to talk to his guy. Times just had a good q & A with him re the current K state. He won’t be the veep, cuz he’s gay—plain and simple—he knows this. America can only handle so much DEI. However, I, so, so wish he could debate trump. He’d slice him into small pieces. A great communicator. His confidence is off the charts. He looks at the camera, answers any question with reason, facts, brevity and best of all, no side-stepping. Pete in 2032!

-D

Sorry for the diversion …just an interesting word thing to me …subtle in some ways…found myself saying…wait, if they all of a sudden started calling her Harris, I too would be saying who dat?

I’m considering a 2^nd salvo to Tammy’s contact e-mail…the one with the unlimited word count: Muahaha!,this one ‘splaining to these idiots what Harris should’ve said to Milwaukee but will have ample opportunities to say in the near future.

First: I watched the Milwaukee speech, serendipitously scheduled, before Biden relented and after the Rs had their pagan party. (Or…was this a plan…?…I doubt it, Dems are not that conniving and UJ has been unhinged). Was so wishing she’d have said…after the applause, after the acknowledgements to Joseph the Great, after a few high fiving indulgences…but at some point she could’ve gained 20M votes and 200M dollars by saying the following:

(In a sober, almost stern tone). Okay, thanks again, but now we need to get to work. (pause…no smiling). Time to get focused, time to get committed, time to get “ALL IN” Milwaukee! (pause for applause—but important here—stymie the applause (there have been (6) extended glad handing applauses already), so go ahead and be forceful…be serious…”we have a job to do”…this is serious, (her tone, if not words)…followed by.
I need your help. Each and everyone of you. Today, I’m going to provide a framework for what we all need to do, to soundly defeat Donald Trump. Here’s the plan: (Note this alone would speak volumes, scare the you know what out of Donald…”whoa…she is out of the gate strong”…

Her words:

“Step 1: Attack the Cancer:

I start by communicating this plan to All Americans. Note, I said all, not just those within our ranks.
You help, in whichever capacity you can contribute.
Our task is to expose ALL Americans to the con man Donald Trump is.
This is not hard…(pause for laughter), but is serious business. Some guidelines:

Be civil. If someone doesn’t want to discuss…fine. Walk away. But perhaps note: Anger, not civil debate, is the life blood of the Trump con.
Inform them that they are being manipulated. Everything Trump says is carefully designed to make you feel threatened, make you feel angry.
Ask yourself: Is this healthy? Am I being manipulated?
Remind them that America is the melting pot….and all those things Trump says about immigration are 110% BS. Pure manipulation. Similar for health care, taxes, Russia, China, Gaza—all of his stances are designed to promote fear.
Ask others to ask themselves: Has he said anything?, anything?!, other than “it will all be wonderful” if I’m elected. Does he state any specifics? Where’s the meat?
Ask them to consider the amount of negativity in the Trump platform. Who are they trying to scare?
Remind them that true leaders don’t make excuses. Ask them to think about one, just one, great President, great Mother/Father, great boss, great co-worker…really anyone…who has ever pointed the finger as much as Donald Trump? Made excuses…never deferred credit and accepted blame—AS GREAT LEADERS DO—rather does just the opposite.
Ask them if they are tire-ing of the woe is me, pity party that is the core of Donald Trump?

Step 2: (whew step 1 was long, but that’s due to Donald) Onward and upward:

I lead by defining the future under the Harris/Kelly/Shapiro/TBD campaign.
Specifically, (running out of steam here, but I think the platitudes are not as important as the above—“making more voters think…”Am I being conned?, manipulated?….
But not to dodge…basically she needs to hammer on abortion and soft shoe, if not aggressively counter, the issues of taxes, other “extremists…AOC…Bernie…New Socialism State” assaults which Donald has already started.
In summary she should point out: Note: All of these issues are important, and I’ve outlined actual plans…not a barrage of negativ-isms…rather substance. If Donald wants to debate any one of these with substance, not adolescent negativism…“bring it on”

This approach is designed to preempt Trump/Vance from the same negativism/fear mongering banter. In a debate or ad or public speeches this can become a steady, deafening drumbeat rebuttal to the no doubt “incoming!” missiles headed Harris’s way.

Sorry one last word on the Harris bros:

Love Ed, did ya’ll see him in State of Grace? Plays a two bit Sopranos type that has to off his brother. Sean Penn also in it—his then wife—Robin Wright, but a character actor named Joe Viterelli steals the show.
And Al…number 39 if I recall correctly, bailed us out against a stronger Seahawk squad, after a twin ex-pack–H and H squad–(Holmgren and Matt Hasselback) rolled into title town only to have Al do a pick six after cocky Matt exclaimed “we’re gonna win, after winning the OT toss. He would’ve been right…they were carving us up…but Al, made a good guess, right about at midfield, in OT…(not fact checking self on any of this).

Later bots,

-d.