A couple of years ago, I watched briefly a video on NPR of a room full of feminists bemoaning the fact that Hillary Clinton — who was there — lost an election “she would have won were it not for a flaw in our Constitution, the Electoral College,” or words to that effect. Clinton won the popular vote, they claimed, and that’s what counts, right? Applause all around. Clinton smiled obligingly and nodded in agreement.
Needless to say, liberals would have had no problem at all with a converse scenario, one under which Clinton won the electoral vote, and the election, but lost the popular vote to Trump. That’s too bad, they would have said; “that’s our system.” It’s our system when it suits liberals; if not, it must be changed. Anyone who expects liberal consistency, on just about anything, may be interested in a bridge in Brooklyn on sale.
There’s a different kind of consistency, however, having nothing to do with logic that liberals practice, and it comes from advertising — namely, brand consistency, exemplified by soda pop, cereal, and shelf products generally. Brand X customers expect the contents of every bottle, can or package to stay the same and will desert the brand, temporarily, at least, if the company decides to experiment with a new formula, as did Coke.
So it was brand consistency that prompted the selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s running mate. Thus, it is fiction to claim, as I have seen in some reporting, that Joe was “stuck” with Kamala because his handlers couldn’t figure out how to let him off the hook once he committed to “a woman of color.” That was the plan all along. To mollify the Clintonistas, young and old, male and female, only a Hillary approximation would do.
But maybe Harris got the job because the seemingly preferable alternative, Michelle Obama, made it clear she would pass. It would have meant giving up an $11-million estate on Martha’s Vineyard and millions from books and speaking engagements. It would also have meant playing second fiddle to a former second fiddle. Michelle’s ego couldn’t have handled it, even temporarily until Joe’s dementia forced him out.https://lockerdome.com/lad/9371484590420070?pubid=ld-8832-1542&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com&rid=www.americanthinker.com&width=692
Michelle Obama is not a Hillary clone because key attributes are missing. Yes, Michelle is also ambitious, which is not surprising, but her public persona, at least what’s been carefully groomed by expert handlers, does not exemplify being arrogant and heartless, and certainly not nasty. Her husband, whether you agree with his politics or not, came across as an amiable, laid-back fellow — as does Trump. Being likable is important in politics.
Speaking of nasty, this is an attribute I left out of my characterization of Kamala Harris as “an ambitious, heartless, corrupt, arrogant harpy.” I could justifiably have included “nasty” based on her behavior toward Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. President Trump remembers all too well:
She was extraordinarily nasty to Kavanaugh, Judge Kavanaugh, now Justice Kavanaugh. She was nasty to a level that was just a horrible thing the way she was, the way she treated now-Justice Kavanaugh. And I won’t forget that soon.
“I won’t forget that soon” was most likely a prompt to Vice President Mike Pence, who will be debating Harris if the debates come off — also to his campaign staff to make sure Americans are reminded time and again who would be sitting in the Oval Office after Biden succumbs to dementia: a nasty, ill tempered harpy with her finger on the nuclear button? God forbid.