‘There was always a “but” ‘: How Kamala Harris’s staff and supporters see her exit from the presidential race – The Washington Post
Amittedly, as a self-avowed criminal justice voter(s) who is less than in love with Kamala’s record in Law Enforment the Senator had a tough road to haul if she was ever going to earn the Peanut Gallery’s primary vote. …But for many reasons (liking her as a person, not to mention how important it is that our representative government actually looks likes our population) the Peanut Gallery was really rooting for her to go further into the process than she did. I think that’s why the Peanut Gallery was so pissed about about how awful her campaign was. Her ground staff deserved better, she deserved better, and the public deserved a better chance to get to know her than any of us got.
#1 – There never is a “next” anybody. Never ever ever. It’s just not real. Plus, it hampers the new persons ability to define themselves.
#2 – If they were better than what came before, attacking previous administrations of ones own party will always come back to bite you or the party i the ass. (Like say, a bruising primary that labelled a candidate destined to become the nominee in following contests as untrustworthy and dishonest. Ahem) Every. Single. Time.
#3 – There is no denying the difficulties presented to a candidate who is a woman or a POC. There is also no other way to surmount those challenges than a good organization. She had some good people but her organization was amateur-ish, unrealistic, and generally ill-suited to run for anything anywhere but California.
She. Never. Had. A. Shot. A better organization, one that was realistic about the different ways one must campaign in different parts of the country, could have given her one but in the absence of that? She never had a shot.
And quite frankly? If one can’t even field an organization that is able to speak to people in different regions, how could one ever hope to carrying on foreign affairs?