The Funt Fights Back - Harris to Blast Biden's Re-Election Recklessness in New Memoir

OP just popping in for a sec, in between posting stories about crime on the nyc subway and the latest fight at Waffle House.

R1 No? I've posted on neither of those topics.

You must be thinking of the "Why do BLACKZ kill each other?!?!?" troll. He's been banned here, but he set up a DL in exile over at Reddit.

Funt?

She actually has more credibility admitting this then trying to deny reality.

I mean, she isn’t wrong. And they’ve been so unkind to her. I don’t begrudge her one whit telling us her perspective. It’ll only confirm what we all heartbreakingly know and are living through.

Also, fuck Merrick Garland.

Is she saying Joe was reckless or the WH staff? From an excerpt in The Atlantic:

“It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.” We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.

R6 Both. Joe and Jill waited too long and obsessed over the wrong shit, and the staff was too recklessly loyal to speak up.

I blame Jill more than Joe because people in cognitive decline don’t know they’re in cognitive decline. Jill knew.

Well, in the quote above she seems to include herself in the reckless camp. So I don't know about OP's headline.

Go fuck yourself!!!

Maybe her book will be good.

I don't necessarily think she's wrong and she certainly has the right to tell her version of events, but I don't see how this is helpful right now. The Monday morning quarterbacking should be done by now.

Kamala making stuff up because she was supposed to fail so that Trump would win. All of them are a part of the same shit.

She's running in 2028 and wants to have several rationalizations for the public on why she lost. That being said, she isn't wrong.

Eric Adams has a better chance at winning the mayor’s race in 2025 than she has at winning the presidential race in 2028.

I'm glad she's choosing the truthful path. It was a terrible mistake for him to run again and so many people close to him share the blame for it. I respect her deeply for the honesty. Can you imagine the current occupant of the WH admitting error for anything ever let alone something like this?

They're going to come after her.

[quote]They're going to come after her.

Indeed.

In that excerpt, all I read was whining and bragging. And I actually like the woman!

Not a good look.

She wouldn't make it past the primary. Just like last time. She needs [bold]not to run.[/bold]

R1 = "Mighty Joe" moron aka "Blue MAGA."

Funt?

Alan!

My $.02 is that he should've resigned after the midterms. Always thought he might do so in order to cement first female president status for her; we would've seen her in the job to make a decision, not focus on Biden's health.

NO!

All he had to do was declined to run—a simple LBJ speech and he would have been fine. We could have all moved on

Her failure in the general election is a reasonable reason for her not to run again. Failing in the primaries is not even though everyone mindlessly repeats it. The three most recent administrations have been led by men with primary histoires so embarrassing they would have envied Harris’.

I don't think she should run again. I think she's just a distraction from the rest of the likely field, and not a viable candidate.

I also don't think Biden should have run for a second term, and that he and his asvisors (including his family) are largely to blame for the 2024 election.

The reckless part isn't the main story she wants to tell. She is accusing the White House of not supporting her in her run, and offers several examples of their failure to correct or push back on attacks on her from the right. She says the administration's attitude seemed to be a zero sum game--if she looks good, Biden looks bad.

She's probably justified in believing the White House should have done more but she also wanted to appear like a vote for her wasn't a vote for Biden so the whole thing seems like a mug's game. I voted for her from the 'anyone but Trump' position but never thought she had much substance and frankly, can't stand her constant grinning and laughing. WTF is so funny these days?

FUNT = FUN AUNT

She's also the Cool Aunt.

“… never thought she had much substance and frankly, can't stand her constant grinning and laughing. WTF is so funny these days…”

R28 would have hated Al Smith, FDR, Harry Truman and Hubert Horatio Humphrey. Judas H Priest

I guess perceptions differ. I do recall her smiling a lot, which seems completely normal to me. She also did laugh a fair bit, but it hardly seemed constant to me. I think it is partly her natural personaliby, but she was also probably dealing with two considerations 1) she wanted to seem like a positive candidate and 2) she knows how tricky it is for a woman in politics and leadership. The preceding female nominee had been specifically ciriticized for not smiling enough and appearing strident. (There's a reason why resting bitch face is a cliche and why women feel they need to fight about it. If you don't laugh and smile, you're a bitch. If you do laugh and smile, you're a silly female. You're kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.) I certainly don't recall any instances where she was smiley or jokey inappropriate circumstances., and therefore what your raise is a largely irrelevant consideration. Certainly, she was almost entirely serious during her impressive debate performance.

The fact that you found this salient enough to criticize consider kind of proves the point that superficial and largely irrelevant personal characteristics loom large when a woman is vying for power. Why do you think this trait of hers was so important to you?

[quotebut I don't see how this is helpful right now. The Monday morning quarterbacking should be done by now.

She needs to make a living. She’s unemployed and needs $$$

R32 Yes, and there's SO MUCH WORK for former Biden Administration officials right now.

At least someone paid Kamala to write this book. What's Ron Klain doing these days? Hell, what's Joe himself doing these days? Will there even be time for him to write a memoir before the dementia takes him?

Uh, r29. This "FUNT" was getting ready to FORCE COVID SHOTS ON PEOPLE.

I refused to vote for her and the celebrities who capped for her are now UNfollowed by me everywhere. She's not innocent. She was supposed to lose to Trump. They are all on the same side.

[quote] The fact that you found this salient enough to criticize consider kind of proves the point that superficial and largely irrelevant personal characteristics loom large when a woman is vying for power. Why do you think this trait of hers was so important to you?

I know all about the different standards (prejudices) for women in groups and leadership roles. My problem with Harris was due to her being a mediocre politician and, as I said, lacking substance. Do you think she would have been the Democratic nominee without the unprecedented event of Biden's withdrawal?

I added the laughing lady comment because the Democrats seem to think they must be positive to confront Trump's fiendish negativity. Whether Harris thought she couldn't go for the jugular because she was a woman and it would look bad, or because she didn't know how, we'll never know, but the high road isn't working.

If there's no way Americans will accept a woman president because they don't see women as leaders, whether scowling or smiling too much, then let's make sure we have a man running in 2028. I 'm at the point where I don't look at life the way it should be, but the way it is.

"She smiles too much" is the new "she's so SHRILL."

Did anyone criticize Obama for smiling too much? Not counting proto-MAGAs.

Does she discuss why she believed Jussie Smollett?

There's a reason that she got exactly nowhere in 2020. Making her Veep for a term did nothing to improve her lack of political skills (beyond partisan Dems).

You answered ALL the questions!

She never translated beyond California.

She should have been AG in the Biden Administration. She was never a good VP choice.

It's all Jill Biden's fault. She tried to pull an Edith Wilson, but botched it like the Philly girl she is.

Both sides are right. Yes, the Biden team repeatedly abused her and said bad things about her to the press, but the Biden people are correct in calling her incompetent. Biden created the situation in the first place by selecting her to be VP. However, since he did, his people shouldn’t have done her so dirty. She’s also right in saying that Democrats shouldn’t have left Joe being the nominee completely up to him and Jill.

[quote]She also did laugh a fair bit, but it hardly seemed constant to me.

Chuckle-head Harris came across as a loon.

The Bidens never forgave her for calling out Biden at that first debate. Plus Biden said he would choose a Black VP and the media held him to his word and pushed Harris hard.. He pretty much had to take her. Honestly, She would have been an excellent attorney general.

I wonder if Harris secretly regrets accepting the position.

^ that was a clarion call for input from philly snoop and Phillywhore.

[quote]I know all about the different standards (prejudices) for women in groups and leadership roles. My problem with Harris was due to her being a mediocre politician and, as I said, lacking substance. Do you think she would have been the Democratic nominee without the unprecedented event of Biden's withdrawal?

I was able to read that you thought she lacked substance. But you chose to mention her personal affect on top of that. I still wonder why that is. And being aware of different standards for women doesn't mean you don't hold them. Are you seriously saying that she has less substance than Trump, the two Bushes, and Biden? Entire books were published compiling the incomprehensible idiocy that came out of the mouths of the two Bushes. And I don't need to say anything about Trump. Was she lacking in substance compared to the ideal presidential candidate? Perhaps. Was she lacking compared to those four men? No. The only reason I can think of why anyone would believe that is sexism.

I'm not sure if she would have been nominee. Being vice-president does often make you a presumptive front runner. In any event, she certainly didn't run a disastrous campaign and did not have a humiliating result. It is always hard for the incumbent party to win when the economy is bad and voters viewed the economy, pretty irrationally, as being bad.

I can say one thing I am absolutely certain of and that is, if Obama had not picked Biden as vice-president, he would never in a million years been president. When Obama chose him, he was known as one of the most gaffe-prone politicians in America with a long history of primary failures. He won because Obama chose him and because of COVID.

[quote]She should have been AG in the Biden Administration. She was never a good VP choice.

Please provide a list of the great VPs of American history.

You rang, R49?

[quote}]There's a reason that she got exactly nowhere in 2020. Making her Veep for a term did nothing to improve her lack of political skills (beyond partisan Dems).

She won only the votes of partisan democrats? That surprises me. Can you provide the numbers.

It is a shame she didn't develop into a political genius after prior humiliating primary failures, like Biden and Trump

Allen Funt wrote a book about Joe Biden? Candid Camera, indeed.

R50. That's remarkable. Truman was vice-president for only a few months. I had not heard of his achievement as vice-president. Can you please tell jus? There may be some others who are as unaware as I am. And I thought Johnson felt completely useless as vice-president. What were his signal achievements as vice-president?

Thanks, historian!

[quote]In any event, she certainly didn't run a disastrous campaign and did not have a humiliating result.

It was indeed a disastrous campaign with a humiliating result. Why are you trying to rewrite history?

Not re-writing history, just not joining in your idiocy. Obviously, it was an unsuccessful campaign. But her loss would never get her anywhere near the great popular vote losses of history. Given the overhang of Biden's idiocy, the very limited time she had to campaign, and the perception of a bad economy, it would be hard to argue it was a bad result. Her popular vote deficit was smaller than in Trump's in 2016.

I assume you consider any losing campaign disastrous?

I voted for her but saw her as a weak candidate.

American politics is so fucked up right now.

Jill Biden is to blame here. If Joe had any level of dementia, we might not have had the cognitive ability make the decision to drop out. Kamala had as good a chance as anyone to win the nomination via primaries.

[quote]She won only the votes of partisan democrats? That surprises me. Can you provide the numbers.

I’m not the person you’re replying to, but my impression is that she couldn’t convince any moderates or independents in the swing states to vote for her. She lost all of those states.

Dr. Jill should have stuck to seeing patients and stayed out of the Presidential campaign.

Biden bowed out far too late. But, this woman is a political charlatan who did not have the capabilities or the talents to be President. I have toenail clippers smarter than this woman. She had a cringe personality and interpersonal style that was so tiring. I was embarrassed for her EVERY time she spoke publicly. She needs to get out of the way, accept the data and facts that NO ONE has confidence in her, and let other reputable people steer the Democrat party. Enough with this woman, it's reaching utter hilarity at this point that she is even trying to stay public and relevant.

[quote]I’m not the person you’re replying to, but my impression is that she couldn’t convince any moderates or independents in the swing states to vote for her. She lost all of those states.

Ah, okay. Thanks. By the figures I have, only 23% of registered voters were registered democrats. I'm not sure how many of those qualify as partisan, but Harris won 49.8% of the vote. Do you see the gap there that was confusing? That's why I was asking for the data. Maybe you could step in again and help. Thanks!

[quote]I voted for her but saw her as a weak candidate.

Yeah. It wasn't one of those elections where we had someone on the level of the Bushes, Trump, McCain, Kerrey, Mondale, etc. How we have fallen.

She really couldn’t make a good argument at all. She’d give interviews and always sounded like she was in a courtroom talking to a judge. She’s couldn’t speak plainly or dumb it down enough to connect with the average voter. At least not enough to compete with Trump, who was a master at television soundbytes.

[quote]Biden bowed out far too late. But, this woman is a political charlatan who did not have the capabilities or the talents to be President. I have toenail clippers smarter than this woma

Agreed. That's why I have always found the debate performance so inscrutable. Here was this idiot, in the most exposed and high-risk even of her political career, and she sounded like on of the most competent candidates I ever heard. Was it drugs? Did she have inside help? What's your theory. She was also pretty good at the previous vice-presidential debate, so it may have been the same drugs then.

“It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.”

Sorry, but why the fuck was it Jill's decision? Sure, every politician consults with their family when they decide to run, but the actual decision is up to the candidate. No one ever said it was "Donald and Melania's decision" for Trump to run again or "Hillary and Bill's decision" for her to run in 2016. The fact that everyone keeps throwing Jill's name into this just further underlines that Biden wasn't all there.

Would we be better off with a continuation of the Biden policies under Harris - or the Dump policies we are currently living?

Look, I'm sure nearly all the posts here have a deep rational basis and are not in fact mindless cliches driven sexism, but it would help dispel that impression if you provided some basis for your judgments rather than stating them.

[quote]I assume you consider any losing campaign disastrous?

A losing campaign against Trump? Donald Trump? Yes, disastrous.

At least Hillary won the popular vote against him. (BTW, proof people will vote for a female Presidential candidate.)

Kamala's campaign was fine for a campaign circa the 2010s but not for the year 2024.

Knocking on doors? Ignoring the force of social media? Waiting around until September to finally do interviews? Telling a national audience that she would have done nothing different than Biden, one of the most unpopular President in history? Blowing through a billion dollars, spending it on celebrities that no one cares about?

Disastrous

"Donald Trump's October 2024 interview with Joe Rogan accumulated 26 million views on YouTube within the first 24 hours of its release. The interview was also available to Spotify subscribers, with that platform reporting 3.1 million views for the podcast by the end of October 2024."

Meanwhile Kamala Harris had her "ground game" like it was 2008.

It's nice that you think all we needed in order to win against Trump is a stronger candidate. I don't share that view. It is almost a rule that the opposition wins if the economy is bad. I don't think the economy was that bad, but most people believed it was bad. There just aren't that many elections I can think of when the incumbent party won despite a perception of a bad economy. When you add to that the rushed campaign and the embarrassment Biden, caused, the relatively close loss is certainly far from humiliation I'm not sure if Obama could have won against Trump. Of the mistakes you mention above, the only one that seems to be a real one is her remarks on the View, which was a real one. The others are either incomprehensible or trivial.

[quote]The others are either incomprehensible or trivial.

You really, really don't get it.

Nope, I don't get what you are offering.

She gave the best debate performance I've ever seen.

[quote]the relatively close loss ...

Lost the Electoral College, lost the popular vote, the senate, the house, all 7 swing states.

But sooo close. Oh so close.

If a democrat loses the popular vote, her or she is pretty much guaranteed to lose the electoral college. There is no pro-democrat bias in the electoral college. How long have you been alive?

R61: my point was that she benefited from significant anti-Trump votes, but relatively few non-Dem voters had much enthusiasm for her.

Okay - but that was not what I asked nor does it seem to be true.

I really didn’t understand the “no interviews until September” strategy.

She spent a lot of time in the swing states, especially PA and WI. She didn’t make Hillary’s mistake of avoiding those states. And she still lost all of them. That suggests a problem with her. Voters either just didn’t connect with her, or they weren’t buying what she was selling.

Or the states were just pissed because they thought the economy was bad

No one who refers to it as the "Democrat Party" actually voted for Kamala.

She still picked LOSER WALZ...That's on her...

R82 = Mrs. Buttigieg?

Jealous bitch!

[quote]Or the states were just pissed because they thought the economy was bad

The voters were pissed because they "thought" it was bad?

If the economy actually wasn't bad, and it was all a figment of their imagination, then it was up to Kamala to convince voters otherwise.

r79 " That suggests a problem with her"

Yeh, that whole "her" thing

[quote]No one who refers to it as the "Democrat Party" actually voted for Kamala.

That's right. The Dems have their rules about speech. If you leave out the "ic" you obviously voted for Trump..

[quote]Yeh, that whole "her" thing

What's the "her" thing?

[bold]ZERO......The number of Press Conferences Kamala did after becoming the nominee. [/bold] But she had plenty of time to invited Trans Binary weirdos to the White House to prance around. Trump is an idiot but at least he isn't scared to show his stupidity to reporters---even democratic reporters..

She lost a large part of BLM voters too. She was just a disaster.

[quote]The voters were pissed because they "thought" it was bad? If the economy actually wasn't bad, and it was all a figment of their imagination, then it was up to Kamala to convince voters otherwise.

Yeah - I'm sure lots of alternative candidates could have successfully done that. There is no gain for her in trying to argue that with voters. They thought it was bad even though it wasn't. If she had said it was actually a pretty good economy, you would be saying she lost the election for not respecting the voters and making light of their concerns. What you are expecting is ridiculous.

She refused to hold a press conference but she COULD prance around the White House with a man in a dress? This was a big deal at the time. It pissed reporters off who wanted her to do a press conference.. It pissed voters off. I don't understand the FEAR these Democratic politicians have of the Tranz Community. I honestly don't.

I just confirmed. Out of 60 presidential elections, only ten losing candidates have had smaller losing margins than Harris. So, the claim she obtained a disastrous result is, of course, stupid.

Is there [italic]anything[/italic] you guys won't blame on a woman?

In my experience, no woman can make a man do [italic]anything[/italic] he doesn't want to do already.

R92 = It was disastrous to DEMOCRATS who now have an Orange Emperor dragging down the United States.

R94 Keep up with the scatter shot of arguments! Something will eventually stick!

Blacks never really liked her. She polled as bad as Buttigieg back during the 2020 primaries. As soon as she became the nominee, there was this whole “Kamala is a black woman” narrative. I don’t think African-Americans ever really saw her as black. She looks Indian and presented that way for most of her life.

R66 I'm morbidly curious to hear you answer your own question.

R96. Yeah even in the 80s she was attending a historically Indian college and in the prior election she played being bused, along with other Indians. Thanks for the highly correct and unheard-of observation! Most of us heard it straight from Trump's mouth a year ago, but it never hurts to repeat!

If Kamala won the trans women (with dicks) would be getting Medicare government free tits and hormones while Seniors can't get coverage for dentures. Also, I PAID OFF my student loans. And Biden was paying off OTHER PEOPLES student loans. That was billions of dollars flushed down the toilet that only a small percentage got relief while everyone else picks up the tab. That didn't help Kamala either.

SHE HAD THREE FUCKING MONTHS

[bold] Kamala lost on Aug 6, 2024. The day she picked Walz. That's the truth. [/bold] I don't understand the fear elected Democrats have of the Tranz Community. I understand the GOP politicians fear of Trump = cause MAGA is nuts. But why do Dems cower to a group that costs them votes? I understand people like Walz and AOC = they lose their jobs the minute they turn on the tranz. But nationally it's just a losing issue.

The level of stupidity present in this thread should have been a clue that many were anti-trans loons.

R102 = Gay man here.. Tired of being lumped in with the trans and their endless demands of acceptance and endless gender pronouns and giving brats gender blocking meds---which is one of the reasons Kamala lost. We are going to lose again if we put up with this nonsense in 2028. You need to wake up...

Sorry. You misunderstand. I do think that Democrat's support for extreme trans positions do hurt them politically and that many trans positions are unacceptable. I merely meant to say how stupid the obsessive trans loons always all. That is all.

Sorry - I meant to type how stupid the anti-trans loons are.

[quote]SHE HAD THREE FUCKING MONTHS

THEN EXPLAIN TO US WHY SHE WAITING UNTIL SEPTEMBER TO GIVE A FUCKING INTERVIEW

They thought "the joy" would carry her through, completely misreading the country...

She should have come out as soon as she became the nominee and said “Joe is a senile old man. I’m not responsible for any of the decisions or policies he made.”

R108, that’s true that her saying on The View that she couldn’t think of even a single thing she would do differently than Biden was all on her.

I wonder if Harris will promote the book on The View, because Whoopi and Joy were clearly not happy that she chose to talk about this.

And fence sitting Sunny trying to make the case that Harris was sabotaged by Biden and his team, yet it was unfair that Biden was forced about by his own party. Pick a fucking lane.

No admitting that Harris appearance on the show helped tank her election chances of course.

[bold] Were they worth it Kamala? You lost voters with your pandering. [/bold]You have no job. You're political future is over, you certainly aren't going to be the nominee in 2028. Were they worth it? You can't complain about Trump without recognizing YOUR help in putting him back in office. Maybe if you had biological children you would understand straights don't want to be told how to raise their kids to use restrooms with transwomen. You deserved to lose.