I have noticed how, in the past eight weeks, there is an article about Kamala Harris' quest for the VP spot in major corporate owned newspapers nearly every single day.
Now, we are treated to an article in CNBC that explains why Harris has not fully secured the VP spot, though she remains in the hunt.
What I found striking in the article is how a few "bundlers," including one from Florida, have more access to and influence over Biden than, oh, I don't know, hundreds of thousands of activists and delegates across the nation. Oligopoly anyone? These rich people control what happens in the Democratic Party, and what this article reveals is simply there is division among the people who actually count over a particular potential VP candidate--and you and me? We don't count. #DemExit.
Over at the Lawyers/Guns/Money Blog, Paul Campos thinks there is sexism at work in the opposition to Harris among some Biden "bundlers" because they are calling Harris "ambitious." Um, Paul, the "sexism" argument works more credibly if there are competing male VP candidates, which Biden has already said there would be none. So, maybe this is reverse sexism since no men allowed to audition for VP? LOL.
Campos belittles the substance of those in the Biden circle's critique of Harris, which is this: There is only one woman in the VP short-list who truly humiliated Biden on a national stage during the primary, and that was Harris. This was so, even as, the day after Harris' personal attack on Biden about his refusal to support mandating bussing of African-American and other minority students to white dominated schools during the 1970s, that she would not mandate it, either. That is essentially Trumpian in accusing someone of a personal failing the accuser has as well.
News flash to Campos and anyone else who thinks as he does on this topic: The issue here is first and foremost money power and influence in the Democratic Party. The second issue is we see, once again, how Biden is telegraphing he does not want anyone who is not personally loyal to him, and not merely loyal to corporate Democratic Party priorities, which is a big overlap if plotted on a Venn Diagram.
As for Harris' ambition, let's put it this way: If Harris was given a test designed to expose narcissism and sociopathy, she would likely test hugely positive for both. Unfortunately, so would most people in office or who run for office in this modern era, especially. These people are monsters--and the irony is, Bernie showed he was not a monster when he refused to rip off Biden's face when he had the chance. I know, though. Bernie's supporters were so mean. Yeah, keep believing that.
As George Carlin famously said in a much larger context, it is called the "American Dream," "because you have to be asleep to believe it."
UPDATE: 8/12/2020: Funny how it is Harris who is chosen to be VP. That Politico article must have been the last gasp of the anti-Harris people on Biden's team. I believe the majority of the Democratic Party's big donors (Wall St., Silicon Valley, and Hollywood) pushed Harris on Biden, and Biden, ever so compliant to big donors--Biden's true base--chose Harris. I should have figured something was up when I read how the horrible corporate Democrat, Chris Dodd, Biden's leading adviser for his VP search, was being pushed to the side. And don't over interpret the 92% voting record in the past year with Bernie. It is not a meaningful metric, when there is no chance the legislation would be passed, and when Harris has already shown, when she awkwardly but strongly backed away from single payer health care, that she is nothing but a player for the big donor class. We also had the same figure back in 2015 about Senator Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I remember, nearly two decades ago, how Ralph Nader explained how that voting record metric did not mean anything in a time where corporatism is so pervasive in American society. And it still doesn't. Harris is a self-actualizing Indian-Jamaican female Senator Payne.
