Who did what?
The latest chatter in the digital verse is the question as to did Obama sabotage the Harris presidential campaign? Surely such a hot button political questions will draw stark opinions on both sides of the aisle. But as to Legalhotwater, the opinion is in the negative. It is highly unlikely that former President Obama acted with malicious intent in the background to keep former Vice President Harris out of the top slot in the White House.
What really happened?
Well perhaps the players in that game only know what really happened; but, here is what very likely contributed to VP Harris’ defeat by President Trump. Two key points. The first: Brand. And the second: Timing.
Brand is much about image as it is the person, in the political world. A look at Harris’s recent background shows a fighter quality, leadership, public appeal, very strong financial backing, and a background in the political world which certainly helped navigate during her term as VP. So the idea of hindering elements like gender, leadership, or softness are all off the table and played no part in the 2024 presidential race for Harris. To the contrary – Brand – however likely played a very critical role in Harris’ appeal to public. In this respect, brand has a lot to do with what Harris stood for as a candidate. In other words the public perception of who really is/was Kamala Harris. And if there are two situations that likely stuck with an influential segment of the public, during the presidential race. The first being Harris’ tenure in California as a San Francisco district attorney and then attorney general for California. And is wasn’t the ‘pot jokes and comments’ it was the use, misuse, or failure to use extraordinary power to allow injustice to prevail. This was extremely critical because the role of an attorney general or at a lower level being a district attorney is first and foremost having an utmost concern and interest for ensuring that justice is always preserved.
As attorney general of California from a public’s perspective it is not about conviction records, its about how justice was dispensed or not. To wit: what stuck with some and, also, came out during the presidential race was the death row case of a black man in California which apparently under Harris’ watch – her team knew they may have been in possession of exculpatory evidence; but, not only did not come forth with the same but, instead, actually tried to hide such exculpatory evidence. This was extremely damaging. The message the public received is that here is a politician that will do anything to [arrive and] stay and power and keep a government paycheck rolling in – not the message a person running for top office wants to have circulating in the digital verse.
Now while Harris apparently did not work on the specific death row case she was the big boss and everyone who did work on that case reported to her directly or indirectly. The public expects the top boss to know what her people are doing; to have integrity based people on her team, and the ability to take a firm stance against injustice if/when it rears its head. So when Harris became aware of the problem what she did not do is say: “Hey we may not like this guy, he is a scumbag, a loser, a pathological liar, and life long criminal but we do not prosecute innocent people for murder if we have evidence to prove his innocence or if we know we cannot prove his guilt per the requisite standard.” Harris did not take such a stance, although, speaking out against the exculpatory evidence issue: only after the press dropped the story, Harris came across as a bit defensive of herself and her department and in doing so failing to connect with the public’s expectations given the extraordinary level of power associate with attorney general. In other words, you don’t play political football with people’s lives for the sake or appearance of advancing your political career. Surely, Harris has changed a lot since those days, which would be expected (if not required) to be in the White House as VP, but not standing up and making it abundantly clear, at all times during her past tenure, ante, that: “I am all about justice and I never abuse power for political opportunity,” – that stuck with people – enough to make them doubt what Harris could or would have done with the extraordinary power of the top seat in the White House.
As to the second key issue with Harris’s campaign, that is much about timing. Again, Harris is a smart, well liked politician who raised more money than has ever been seen in a political campaign, in fact several times more than the current President Trump; but, the timing was not right for Harris to be on the center stage running for the top seat. Take for example Harris’ opponent across the aisle – Trump. From a public’s perspective, a lot of people claim to hate Trump for one reason or another but what virtually no one can question is Trump’s brand or at least his public brand image is that he is 100% all in for America. That was just too much for Harris to overcome for her first stint on the stage for the top job with a past record of doubt in the public’s eye as to whether or not Harris was/is all in for America as opposed to her own career.
For Harris’ part, if she truly is the person she presented during the presidential race, all is not lost. In that case, Harris would really need to double down on who she really is when the camera is not rolling and continue to make a genuine pitch to the public of who she is and why she is right for America at a later date. As the saying goes, “Good news travels slow, bad news travels [very] fast.” So in the case of Harris it will take time and a host of deeds consistent with who she is today to overcome yesterday. The public is generally forgiving at some point; but, it is not a science, it is an art -- very fickle and capricious. That is how politics works. It absolutely has no bearing on gender or race. So did Obama sabotage the Harris presidential campaign? The answer is No. And if Obama tried to do so, what ever efforts he may have put into play had very little affect on the key points mentioned herein.
And for President Obama’s part, he has a great deal of influence in the democrat part and in many ways is much like former Present Bill Clinton with respect to President Obama’s intelligence, oratory skills, public appeal, leadership style, and generally how he comes across to the public. In short, President Obama comes across to the public as a very respectable likable person. Now granted, Legalhotwater has been quite vocal in its dissent with President Obama’s politics; but, surely no one can question his personal attributes, ante. And based upon those personal attributes, it is highly unlikely that President Obama sought to sabotage VP Harris’ chances in the White House – it very likely came down to Harris’ brand and the not so optimal timing in 2024 to have sought the seat of top boss in the White House.