“…there will be no “President Kamala”—Kamala herself has taken that option completely off the table.”
Which is interesting, because the blatant symbolism at Biden’s inauguration ceremony indicted that she would become president. Either the controllers changed their mind, or they were just messing with us.
Given the extent to which her tenure as VP has been a complete disaster, I can quite easily see the puppet masters having changed their minds about her. When even corporate media can't engineer a change in the favorability poll numbers, you know the person is a complete train wreck of a public figure, and Harris has worse poll numbers than Biden (which is saying something).
Michelle said publicly, about a month ago, that she would definitely NOT accept the nomination. Maybe it was just posturing. But my immediate reaction was that powerful people must have political dirt on her (or hubby). Or maybe she was bought off - didn’t she and hubby recently buy a $12 million+ seaside mansion? If she was going to successfully run for President, she should have started well before now, right?
This reminds me, the Vigilant Fox had a hilarious piece on his Substack a few months ago. He ran video clips of several politicians - John Kerry, Barack Obama, etc. - each giving a speech about the very dangerous, imminent rising sea levels due to climate change - and next to each clip he showed a picture of the mansion each politician had recently bought - all of them by the sea, AT SEA LEVEL. Who spends millions on a mansion that is soon to be ten feet under water? He included enough sale documentation to prove that they were real transactions. Amazing!
Presumably, no one who wants to be President starts off by saying they don't want to be President.
However, one way to overcome the lack of campaigning and other hurdles presented by entering the fray at the last minute is to have one's candidacy develop as part of a "draft" movement. Michelle Obama could, in theory, strike a pose today of "I don't want to be President" and say without hypocrisy tomorrow that "I will run for President because my country is calling on me to do so."
Does this mean that Michelle WILL run? No. It does mean that we should not take anything Michelle Obama says on the topic in isolation. It's not just what she says, it's what she does, and it's what people do around her that are going to tell the tale.
I am mystified as to who, exactly, the Democratic Party could put forth as a viable candidate. Dementia Joe is not likely to be coherent enough for this year’s campaign, much less four more years of doddering. I think Kamala is mostly regarded with disdain by the voters. And Gavin’s record in California is a nightmare- who on earth would want more of his policies after the results in San Francisco? I am very interested in hearing anyone’s speculations on who could now be successfully marketed to the voters, with so few months remaining before November.
They have been quietly building Jimmy Panetta’s resume. I am sure they have others ready, but he’s one I would keep an eye on.
The method being, if you want a rabbit, ask for a pony. So they push all the horrible, far, far left people out front, then backtrack to somebody who looks a lot less threatening (but is still a deep state character).
I don't see Panetta as a prospect for 2024. If he wants to be a prospect in 2028 he needs to get a much higher national profile, and maybe move into the House leadership for the Dems. Either that or make a run for California governor--that would give him a nice high-profile position that would springboard him into the White House.
If the Democrats do a last minute reshuffling of the ticket, they will need high-profile names to make up for the lack of available campaign time. I don't see Panetta as being one of those names, at least not yet.
Not sure how far that credibility goes. Even G W Bush needed a successful tenure as Texas Governor to launch his bid for the White House, and Bush Senior was, if anything, more of an insider than Leon Panetta.
Yes, I thought about the Bush example, but my premise is based on the idea that people are weary of politics, and desire a fresh face, someone who appears reasonable. Anyway, it’s just an idea. He is a Senator though, so that counts for something. His wife is a judge. He’s a family guy from a small town and made good. Military.
The challenge is to remember that the DNC is going to consider first and foremost the Democrat base, should a replacement for Biden be necessary. People who are opposed to the Democratic Party platform are going to be opposed to whomever the Democratic Presidential nominee is no matter who it is. Among Republicans neither Gavin Newsom nor Michelle Obama can be regarded as "viable"--yet these are probably the names at the top of any short list that might be circulating at the DNC.
Perhaps the Dems will pull a coup to replace Kamala at this Summer’s convention. A repeat of the playbook from 80 y ago, when Dem delegates ousted the odd & unpopular VP Henry Wallace in favor of Harry Truman to be FDR’s No. 2 in the event of something happening...
But Biden is no FDR, even though his mental state is arguably poorer. It’s difficult at this stage to envisage a victory for Biden in November.
That is a very plausible scenario. One of the challenges to that scenario comes from the perception--at least among the chattering class--that Kamala Harris was selected in no small part to nail down support among key Democrat constituencies, minorities in particular. However good or bad her track record as VP has been, if one ascribes to a theory of Democrat politics as being beholden to identity politics, then the DNC has to figure out how to manage such a transition and not alienate those same constituencies.
(This could, perhaps, be the avenue for a "draft Michelle" movement at the convention).
But while FDR was known by his inner circle to be in extremely poor health and unlikely to survive another term in the Oval Office, he had the advantage of being the Commander In Chief in time of war, and by 1944 WW2 was indisputably going well for the Allies. Biden does not have that advantage.
In order for the Democrats to bounce Kamala from the ticket, they need political cover--even without a presumed genuflection to identity politics, there needs to be a reason why she gets thrown overboard. Right now, the media messaging is going in the polar opposite direction.
The Democrats could easily throw her overboard at the election--but they need to trash her in the media first. Without some scandal the Democrats can comfortably attach to Kamala, it's an uphill battle to remove her from the ticket.
Nothing looks good for the Democrats this year: the economy, the border, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, the grifting scandal by the Biden family, Biden’s incoherent mumbling, Kamala’s penchant for word salads and cringeworthy laughter,...
But at least they have ballot-harvesting, Soros-appointed DAs, the MSM and Big Social Media on their side. Oh yeah, with the CIA & FBI controlling the misinformation campaign, too. And half the country has been brainwashed into thinking Trump is Hitler reincarnated. Nevertheless, I predict they’ll lose both the White House and the Senate.
Hopefully we’ll be spending a good chunk of it boondock camping in Wyoming. I can barely consider watching or listening to any of this dangerous charade of fools.
I’m with you, Janet. The problem with politics is that it attracts psychopaths who will stop at nothing - and I mean nothing- to get power over other peoples’ lives. So you have to think very cynically to prevent yourself from being played. And who wants to pollute your mind with those thoughts? So I pay enough attention to not be fooled (if I’m lucky), but then I need to go walk around the lake and get some fresh air!
“…there will be no “President Kamala”—Kamala herself has taken that option completely off the table.”
Which is interesting, because the blatant symbolism at Biden’s inauguration ceremony indicted that she would become president. Either the controllers changed their mind, or they were just messing with us.
Given the extent to which her tenure as VP has been a complete disaster, I can quite easily see the puppet masters having changed their minds about her. When even corporate media can't engineer a change in the favorability poll numbers, you know the person is a complete train wreck of a public figure, and Harris has worse poll numbers than Biden (which is saying something).
Has Harris ever had 'brain surgery'?
Asking for a friend.
You know, the doctor that operated on Biden's brain declared it 'functional'!
Thanks for the humor!
Much needed these days.
First things first: has Harris ever had a brain?
That's my point.
Michelle said publicly, about a month ago, that she would definitely NOT accept the nomination. Maybe it was just posturing. But my immediate reaction was that powerful people must have political dirt on her (or hubby). Or maybe she was bought off - didn’t she and hubby recently buy a $12 million+ seaside mansion? If she was going to successfully run for President, she should have started well before now, right?
This reminds me, the Vigilant Fox had a hilarious piece on his Substack a few months ago. He ran video clips of several politicians - John Kerry, Barack Obama, etc. - each giving a speech about the very dangerous, imminent rising sea levels due to climate change - and next to each clip he showed a picture of the mansion each politician had recently bought - all of them by the sea, AT SEA LEVEL. Who spends millions on a mansion that is soon to be ten feet under water? He included enough sale documentation to prove that they were real transactions. Amazing!
Presumably, no one who wants to be President starts off by saying they don't want to be President.
However, one way to overcome the lack of campaigning and other hurdles presented by entering the fray at the last minute is to have one's candidacy develop as part of a "draft" movement. Michelle Obama could, in theory, strike a pose today of "I don't want to be President" and say without hypocrisy tomorrow that "I will run for President because my country is calling on me to do so."
Does this mean that Michelle WILL run? No. It does mean that we should not take anything Michelle Obama says on the topic in isolation. It's not just what she says, it's what she does, and it's what people do around her that are going to tell the tale.
Yes, posturing. Maybe she was holding out for better terms. We’ll see. (Nightmares!)
Good article…although the headline sent me scrambling to check if today’s date was April 1.
Well, they say a good headline is meant to be an attention getter....so....mission accomplished? :D
Agreed.
I am mystified as to who, exactly, the Democratic Party could put forth as a viable candidate. Dementia Joe is not likely to be coherent enough for this year’s campaign, much less four more years of doddering. I think Kamala is mostly regarded with disdain by the voters. And Gavin’s record in California is a nightmare- who on earth would want more of his policies after the results in San Francisco? I am very interested in hearing anyone’s speculations on who could now be successfully marketed to the voters, with so few months remaining before November.
They have been quietly building Jimmy Panetta’s resume. I am sure they have others ready, but he’s one I would keep an eye on.
The method being, if you want a rabbit, ask for a pony. So they push all the horrible, far, far left people out front, then backtrack to somebody who looks a lot less threatening (but is still a deep state character).
I don't see Panetta as a prospect for 2024. If he wants to be a prospect in 2028 he needs to get a much higher national profile, and maybe move into the House leadership for the Dems. Either that or make a run for California governor--that would give him a nice high-profile position that would springboard him into the White House.
If the Democrats do a last minute reshuffling of the ticket, they will need high-profile names to make up for the lack of available campaign time. I don't see Panetta as being one of those names, at least not yet.
I think the genius of it is him trading in his father’s “credibility”.
Not sure how far that credibility goes. Even G W Bush needed a successful tenure as Texas Governor to launch his bid for the White House, and Bush Senior was, if anything, more of an insider than Leon Panetta.
Yes, I thought about the Bush example, but my premise is based on the idea that people are weary of politics, and desire a fresh face, someone who appears reasonable. Anyway, it’s just an idea. He is a Senator though, so that counts for something. His wife is a judge. He’s a family guy from a small town and made good. Military.
Jimmy Panetta is a Congressman, not a Senator.
https://panetta.house.gov/
Ok, still a prominent position.
There are a number of presumed "viable" candidates, and they include Gavin Newsom.
Probably at the top of that list is Michelle Obama, which I touched on last week.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/president-michelle-obama
The challenge is to remember that the DNC is going to consider first and foremost the Democrat base, should a replacement for Biden be necessary. People who are opposed to the Democratic Party platform are going to be opposed to whomever the Democratic Presidential nominee is no matter who it is. Among Republicans neither Gavin Newsom nor Michelle Obama can be regarded as "viable"--yet these are probably the names at the top of any short list that might be circulating at the DNC.
The stuff of nightmares!
Yeah, it would be rather scarring to see Gavin Newsom trot out a campaign slogan like "Make America California Again".
MACA for sure ain't MAGA!
That's good!
Perhaps the Dems will pull a coup to replace Kamala at this Summer’s convention. A repeat of the playbook from 80 y ago, when Dem delegates ousted the odd & unpopular VP Henry Wallace in favor of Harry Truman to be FDR’s No. 2 in the event of something happening...
But Biden is no FDR, even though his mental state is arguably poorer. It’s difficult at this stage to envisage a victory for Biden in November.
That is a very plausible scenario. One of the challenges to that scenario comes from the perception--at least among the chattering class--that Kamala Harris was selected in no small part to nail down support among key Democrat constituencies, minorities in particular. However good or bad her track record as VP has been, if one ascribes to a theory of Democrat politics as being beholden to identity politics, then the DNC has to figure out how to manage such a transition and not alienate those same constituencies.
(This could, perhaps, be the avenue for a "draft Michelle" movement at the convention).
But while FDR was known by his inner circle to be in extremely poor health and unlikely to survive another term in the Oval Office, he had the advantage of being the Commander In Chief in time of war, and by 1944 WW2 was indisputably going well for the Allies. Biden does not have that advantage.
In order for the Democrats to bounce Kamala from the ticket, they need political cover--even without a presumed genuflection to identity politics, there needs to be a reason why she gets thrown overboard. Right now, the media messaging is going in the polar opposite direction.
The Democrats could easily throw her overboard at the election--but they need to trash her in the media first. Without some scandal the Democrats can comfortably attach to Kamala, it's an uphill battle to remove her from the ticket.
Nothing looks good for the Democrats this year: the economy, the border, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, the grifting scandal by the Biden family, Biden’s incoherent mumbling, Kamala’s penchant for word salads and cringeworthy laughter,...
But at least they have ballot-harvesting, Soros-appointed DAs, the MSM and Big Social Media on their side. Oh yeah, with the CIA & FBI controlling the misinformation campaign, too. And half the country has been brainwashed into thinking Trump is Hitler reincarnated. Nevertheless, I predict they’ll lose both the White House and the Senate.
This summer will not be boring.
The Congress is definitely in play, and that may dampen Democrat enthusiasm for their ballot harvesting tactics of 2020.
I hope and pray you’re right about ballot harvesting. Censorship is bad enough.
Hopefully we’ll be spending a good chunk of it boondock camping in Wyoming. I can barely consider watching or listening to any of this dangerous charade of fools.
I’m with you, Janet. The problem with politics is that it attracts psychopaths who will stop at nothing - and I mean nothing- to get power over other peoples’ lives. So you have to think very cynically to prevent yourself from being played. And who wants to pollute your mind with those thoughts? So I pay enough attention to not be fooled (if I’m lucky), but then I need to go walk around the lake and get some fresh air!