The media is slobbering all over Kamala Harris’ mediocre debate performance, which did nothing to change the state of the race. Yet, I like what The Washington Post’s David Ignatius did here regarding a potential Harris presidency. He asked, "How is this woman in the Situation Room?" It was likely going to be fluff, and it was—it paints a picture of someone who would execute her duties with competency when we know she’s anything but that. The media knows she’s viewed as a cackling idiot. Even they admitted as much when they pushed for her to be dropped from the ticket before the Great Pelosi Coup of 2024.
'Harris is engaging and methodical, and she goes through a complex thought process'—that’s what various officials who have witnessed her in action inside the room have said about her. Yet, it’s this part that exposes the whole astroturfing exercise: she was triggered that one of her intelligence briefers, a woman, used gender-biased language. It was so jarring for Harris that she ordered an internal review [emphasis mine]:
They all expressed versions of the same basic theme: Harris behaves like the prosecutor she was for much of her career. She’s skeptical, probing, sometimes querulous. She can be impatient and demanding. But she asks good questions. And if she’s convinced of the need, she’s not afraid to act. “She’s more hard-line than most people think,” said one retired four-star general who has briefed her many times.
One top member of her staff put it this way: “She’s always the same person, pushing for information, making sure people aren’t bulls----ing her.” Having watched her often in discussions about using military force, he concluded: “Her approach is to measure twice, cut once. But she’s not afraid to take the shot.”
[…]
Harris got off to what her aides agree was a bumpy start with her intelligence briefer. During the administration’s first year, the briefer was presenting a classified personality profile of a female foreign leader Harris would be meeting. The briefer was a woman, but Harris thought some of the language she was using was gender-biased. Rather than just voicing her discomfort, Harris requested an intelligence community internal review.
The result, never previously reported, was an internal assessment by the intelligence community of whether analysts had routinely used gender-biased language in intelligence reports. The review examined several years of analytical reports, comparing how often certain words had been used about women and men. Harris was so concerned that she asked intelligence agencies to train their analysts to avoid any such bias in the future. She also requested more reporting from the intelligence community on gender issues and sexual violence around the world.
Though she is said to have been pleased by the agency’s responsiveness to her concerns, after that first year she dropped the personal, one-to-one briefing.
A spokesman for Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines declined to comment on the gender-bias review.
That’s the ballgame. She couldn’t process the information and look past the silliness of the woke paradigm. She was a bad candidate in 2020. She’s a lousy candidate now. Harris is woefully unprepared, unqualified, and laughably shallow on the issues. It was the same then as it is now. Enough with the prosecutor bit, too. Being a lawyer doesn’t mean she can handle the job. Also, it’s not the same as being the leader of the free world. It’s part of the Left’s addiction to credentialism, which blinds them to the fact that many politicians with elite degrees are outright horrible at their jobs. It’s a buffer to prop up a candidacy that, like Biden, is milquetoast.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member