Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog
After blowing through $1.5 billion to lose an election, Kamala is back. And wants to run again.
“I
am not done,” Kamala Harris declared. “I have lived my entire career as
a life of service and it’s in my bones.” The terrible polls won’t be
stopping her because “if I listened to polls I would have not run for my
first office, or my second office – and I certainly wouldn’t be sitting
here.”
Kamala’s previous presidential campaign foundered when
she couldn’t explain what the Harris-Walz administration would do
differently than the Biden-Harris administration. This time around she
can’t explain how she would run any differently in 2028 than she did in
2024.
107 Days, her campaign book, blames everybody and
everything else for her defeat, including the Biden team, racism, sexism
and only having 107 days in which to figure out who she was.
470
days later and counting, Kamala Harris is still claiming that Biden was
“competent to serve” and couldn’t explain what she would have done
differently except that we have to “do better”.
The only notable difference a year later is that Kamala has taken to swearing on camera.
The 2024 version of Kamala pitched “joy” while the 2025 one has taken to saying “F__” a lot.
“Are
you f_____ kidding me? This guy wants to create a ballroom for his rich
friends while completely turning a blind eye to the fact that babies
are going to starve when the SNAP benefits end in just hours from now!”
Kamala ranted on
Jon Stewart’s podcast. “I’m not going to be distracted by, ‘Oh, does
the guy have a big f_____ hammer!?’ What about those babies?”
While Kamala appeared somewhat inebriated in that podcast, this seems to be her new brand.
On her book tour for 107 Days, she screamed that
“to have some level of concern and care, if not basic f____ curiosity
for other people” only to have her audience break into wild hoots and
applause at the F-word.
“Right. I’m just like, ‘f___ it!'” Kamala showed off on another podcast.
At
a Hollywood event about ‘misinformation’, Kamala claimed that “we are
living history right now” and then shouted, “these m______” are crazy.”
The
old Kamala used word salads, the new Kamala uses obscenity salads. She
nerves herself up, shouts an obscenity into the microphone and then
starts laughing at her perceived naughtiness, like discussing a sex
scene in an Oprah book club, as the audience cheers.
Adding an
F___ here or there doesn’t actually make Kamala any more coherent, but
it distracts the audience from the senselessness of what she’s saying.
The more she swears, the less you notice the random non-swear words that
she arranges into a sentence like a broken chatbot.
But the
carefully calculated Fs are another symptom of her hollowness. Rather
than figuring out how to talk about the issues voters care about, Kamala
tinkered with her personality again.
Voters, she has been told,
are angry and value authenticity, they’re drawn to outsiders, and Kamala
Harris decided to give them authenticity in spades by sounding angry
and throwing out occasional curses. “’Oh, does the guy have a big f_____
hammer!?’ What about those babies?”
The voters wanted authenticity, but she misheard that as obscenity.
This
is what Kamala was doing during those 107 days. Rather than
understanding voters, she went into a hall of mirrors, played with her
hair, adjusted her personality and then brought out celebrity guests.
When that personality didn’t work, she tried on another one and another
one. Elections are a costume party in which she dresses the part in the
hopes of getting the job. That’s why we met Kamala the prosecutor,
Kamala the social justice advocate, Kamala the wine aunt and Kamala the
party girl, the one person we never met and never will is the real
Kamala.
And there may not be a real Kamala. While we know there
is a real Obama, the one we only occasionally see peeking through the
angry cracks in his studied routine, there’s every reason to think that
she’s all surface, a living hall of mirrors with no self deeper than the
one we see. Kamala can’t relate to voters except by shapeshifting into
another ‘relatable’ version. If you don’t like Kamala 3.0, try Kamala
4.0 who drinks on camera and says “F____” sometimes.
And if that one doesn’t work, well there’s at least 1,000 more days to go until 2028.
The
new F___ Kamala isn’t any more appealing than the old one, but she is
tapping into the fury of her base, the Hillary base, of upper middle
class liberal women who hate Trump, but have no real strong political
views beyond imitating whatever is popular on their social media feeds.
They
instinctively recognize that Kamala, like Hillary, is one of them,
having long ago sacrificed any hope for a normal life on the altar of
ambition, who also tries to keep up with a pop culture that she’s too
old for and who are frustrated that their non-existent talents are never
sufficiently recognized after being promoted several levels above their
actual competence and usefulness.
Kamala is relatable to them,
but to no one else, and to a party whose base is already sliced so
microscopically thin that it hardly exists outside of a few downtowns,
bedroom communities and college towns, that’s not the best strategy. The
only reason that Kamala, like her old peer and rival Gavin Newsom, got
anywhere, was the willingness of some very rich people in the Bay Area
to fund their ambitions. But $1.5 billion later, the Bank of Kamala is
permanently closed.
And so Kamala is angry. The anger is slopped
all over 107 Days: a book so toxic that it made a candidate that
everyone in her party already hated that much more unelectable because
it revealed that she’s not really angry at Trump, but at everyone in the
party who didn’t do enough for her. Kamala resents Biden, his inner
circle, Obama, and just about everyone in her party.
Democrats
hate their party also and that gives them a limited common ground with
Kamala. It allows her to go on tour while blaming some nebulous group of
insiders for not propping her up and that’s where the relatability
falls apart. Dems are angry because they believe that their party didn’t
fight hard enough while Kamala is angry that they didn’t pander to her
hard enough.
When Kamala shouts “F____”, she’s mirroring their
anger, but not the real reason for the anger, and yet she’d like to
harness that anger all the way through the primaries and to the
nomination.
Gov. Gavin Newsom, even more of a chameleon than
Kamala, who got started in politics by watching VHS tapes of Bill
Clinton speeches and adopting his mannerisms (right down to chewing his
lip during times of emotion) and then adding obvious echoes of Obama and
Trump into the mix for a shapeshifting goulash, has now also started
trying to sound very angry.
Unusually, Gavin’s got a point.
By
2028, Dem voters will be up to a boiling pitch of fury. Every nominee
will be raging, throwing out “F____”s like the vulgarity store was
having a Black Friday sale and trying to mirror their rage. Kamala,
Newsom, Buttigieg and AOC, their faces red, their fists clenched, their
feeds emojied will bestride the stages of New Hampshire and the caucasus
of Iowa and scream.
As Joe Biden, who by then may well be dead or institutionalized, once told Obama, “it’s a big F____ deal.”
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.
.png)
After WWII the real powers behind this movement didn't need religion any longer and kicked them to the curb. After that the driving force was psychology. If you disagreed with what they promoted, you were not only morally inadequate, you were insane, which is the same clabber they're promoting now.
After over 125 years of religious and social corruption condemning western civilization's moral and mental foundations it's a wonder we're now finally coming out of that miasma, and truth is coming to the fore.
Truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality. Everything we're told has a historical foundation and context, and everything we're told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality. If it doesn't, it's wrong, and all that's left to do is develop the intellectual response to explain why it's wrong. And that's what's finally happening, and why the Pravda media is collapsing and swirling down the drain.