Obama Didn't Want Kamala Harris as the Nominee and Argued for an Open Convention

mikegriffith1

Muse
M
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
787
Two liberal journalists, Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, have published a new book that reveals that Barack Obama did not want Kamala Harris as the Democrat nominee and that Obama argued behind the scenes for an open convention.

www.foxnews.com

Obama was working against Kamala Harris behind the scenes, didn't think she could win, new book reveals

Reporter Jonathan Allen said Tuesday that former President Obama worked against VP Kamala Harris as she sought to replace President Biden on the top of the Democratic ticket.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
EXCERPT:

"President Obama absolutely did not think that Joe Biden should continue, according to our sources close to President Obama," Allen told MSNBC. "And he also didn’t want Kamala Harris to be the replacement for Biden. He didn’t think that she was the best choice for Democrats, and he worked really behind the scenes for a long time to try to have a mini-primary, or an open convention, or a mini-primary leading to an open convention, did not have faith in her ability to win the election."

Allen, a senior politics reporter at NBC News, and Amie Parnes, a senior political correspondent for The Hill, joined MSNBC to discuss their new book set to be released this month, titled, "FIGHT: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House."
 
Why are you linking to a FOX News article about an interview on MSNBC?
 
I'll ask what I always ask when people rabbit on about how Harris was a terrible choice:

Who else could it have been? Was there a more viable alternative? Name them, and explain why they would have succeeded where Harris failed.
 
theprestige said:
Because if you go to the MSNBC version, it reveals that the book is a hoax and everything in it is lies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and if it's the one news source we can trust it's the one that had to pay a billion dollars because they blatantly lied to the public with no remorse. Skepticism at its finest.
 
Mistakes were made but not by Obama. Sheesh that mini-primary/open convention idea was absurd. Biden put the Democrats in an impossible situation; the idea that things would have been better if they had gone with (say) Buttigieg or Newsom ignores that skipping over Kamala would have been a slap in the face to women, Blacks and Asians. Kamala may not have been a perfect candidate (she should have broken with Biden over the border), but going with one of the other guys because they were perceived as more "electable" is like marrying a gal because you've heard she's a good cook--you won't really know until it's too late to back out.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
I'll ask what I always ask when people rabbit on about how Harris was a terrible choice:

Who else could it have been? Was there a more viable alternative? Name them, and explain why they would have succeeded where Harris failed.
Click to expand...
The obvious answer to that, which I'm sure you've heard, is that if they'd had a competitive primary we would have found out.
 
Brainster said:
Mistakes were made but not by Obama. Sheesh that mini-primary/open convention idea was absurd. B
iden put the Democrats in an impossible situation;the idea that things would have been better if they had gone with (say) Buttigieg or Newsom ignores that skipping over Kamala would have been a slap in the face to women, Blacks and Asians. Kamala may not have been a perfect candidate (she should have broken with Biden over the border), but going with one of the other guys because they were perceived as more "electable" is like marrying a gal because you've heard she's a good cook--you won't really know until it's too late to back out.
Click to expand...
Yes, that. Biden screwed the party, the US, and the world. Granted, the GOP nominated trump so, yes they are worse but that doesn't exonerate Biden.
 
ahhell said:
Yes, that. Biden screwed the party, the US, and the world. Granted, the GOP nominated trump so, yes they are worse but that doesn't exonerate Biden.
Click to expand...

Trump, the Republican establishment and right wing propaganda machine that props him up, and the millions of people stupid and gullible enough to fall for an obvious con screwed the U.S. and the world.

Stop bending over backwards to take agency and personal responsibility from these people just because you're on the same team with them.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Mistakes were made but not by Obama. Sheesh that mini-primary/open convention idea was absurd. Biden put the Democrats in an impossible situation; the idea that things would have been better if they had gone with (say) Buttigieg or Newsom ignores that skipping over Kamala would have been a slap in the face to women, Blacks and Asians. Kamala may not have been a perfect candidate (she should have broken with Biden over the border), but going with one of the other guys because they were perceived as more "electable" is like marrying a gal because you've heard she's a good cook--you won't really know until it's too late to back out.
Click to expand...
That's not nearly as stupid as voting for a guy who already had one failed tenure even before his disastrous handling of the pandemic, who promised to only be more bigoted, stupid, and unhinged and then being surprised he is again doing a crappy job.
 
ahhell said:
Yes, that. Biden screwed the party, the US, and the world.
Click to expand...
Its always easy to say "You screwed up because your party was defeated". But sometimes you can make decisions which at the time were reasonable.

Biden was an incumbent president, and that by itself provides a certain advantage when it comes to a presidential election. He defeated Trump in 2020, and he seemed to attract a significant number of minority voters. Prior to his bad debate performance (which may or may not be due to him being sick at the time) he seemed to be competent enough. So there were some valid reasons to stay in the 2024 election.
 
Donal said:
That's not nearly as stupid as voting for a guy who already had one failed tenure even before his disastrous handling of the pandemic, who promised to only be more bigoted, stupid, and unhinged and then being surprised he is again doing a crappy job.
Click to expand...
Tell me about it--I voted for Kamala.
 
ahhell said:
Yes, that. Biden screwed the party, the US, and the world. Granted, the GOP nominated trump so, yes they are worse but that doesn't exonerate Biden.
Click to expand...
Look they should have been able to make the skeleton of FDR the candidate, take a three month vacation up to election day and still have won. You can't shift the blame from the willful ignorance and stupidity of the US electorate who decided either that Donald Trump was fit to hold office or that Harris just wasn't exciting enough and stayed home.
 
theprestige said:
Getting Trump elected seems more than slightly ineffectual.
Click to expand...

This "Blame Democrats for Trump" schtick is as lame as it is counterfactual, especially coming from a Trump voter. Republicans had far more opportunities and power over the last decade to stop Trump and failed or chose not to over and over again. Like the people who recognized how terrible he was and voted for him anyway. Sound familiar?
 
johnny karate said:
This "Blame Democrats for Trump" schtick is as lame as it is counterfactual, especially coming from a Trump voter. Republicans had far more opportunities and power over the last decade to stop Trump and failed or chose not to over and over again. Like the people who recognized how terrible he was and voted for him anyway. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

It's the standard, "Why do you make me hit you?" rebuttal.
 
johnny karate said:
This "Blame Democrats for Trump" schtick is as lame as it is counterfactual, especially coming from a Trump voter. Republicans had far more opportunities and power over the last decade to stop Trump and failed or chose not to over and over again. Like the people who recognized how terrible he was and voted for him anyway. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
I'm not blaming Democrats for Trump. That would be calling them effectual. I think we can agree the Democrats were more than slightly ineffectual on this.
 
Darat said:
And?
Click to expand...

Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
 
Last edited:
mikegriffith1 said:
Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
Click to expand...

And that's why millions of people voted to tank the economy and bring back infectious diseases that we'd already eradicated. Makes perfect sense. No notes.
 
ahhell said:
The obvious answer to that, which I'm sure you've heard, is that if they'd had a competitive primary we would have found out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I couldn't think of anybody else, either. There were a couple that I would have liked to get the job years ago but I feel are too old now. Pity that wasn't a barrier of consideration for more voters!
 
The idea that there was some magically perfect Democratic candidate out there and if only that person had run everything would be fine now is laughably stupid. Trump stood on stage at a presidential debate and said to the whole world "They're eating the pets" and millions of people still voted for him. This was never about candidate quality.
 
johnny karate said:
You literally said they got Trump elected.
Click to expand...
Show me the post where I literally said that.

You can't, because I didn't say that. And I certainly didn't mean it. What I meant was, the Democrats were too ineffectual to prevent it. Which, given the enormity of what they failed to prevent, adds up to a lot more than "slightly" ineffectual in my book. "Colossally irrelevant" would be another way of putting it.

This claim has been belabored in the "what Democrats did wrong" thread. The consensus there seems to be that the Democrats were utterly powerless to change the outcome of the election. Now you're balking at me making the same characterization here?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Show me the post where I literally said that.

You can't, because I didn't say that. And I certainly didn't mean it. What I meant was, the Democrats were too ineffectual to prevent it. Which, given the enormity of what they failed to prevent, adds up to a lot more than "slightly" ineffectual in my book. "Colossally irrelevant" would be another way of putting it.
Click to expand...

Here you go:
theprestige said:
Getting Trump elected seems more than slightly ineffectual.
Click to expand...

Backpedal away from it now, but you very clearly said it.

And as far as being too ineffectual to stop Trump, Republicans absolutely win first prize. Just because they now hide their ineffectiveness with capitulation and obsequiousness doesn't change that.
 
Last edited:
mikegriffith1 said:
Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
Click to expand...
So what. None of them got elected as president. So this is all useless speculation, especially considering your guy is now in the process of actually crashing the US economy. That would seem to be a far worse outcome and a MUCH bigger problem than whatever Obama and Biden and Harris did or did not do prior to November last year. And you do know that none of them would not be tanking the USA right now, so any of them would have been a better choice than Trump.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Of course. Nothing to see here, right? The most successful Democratic presidential candidate in this century (and arguably since LBJ) didn't think Harris was a good candidate and wanted an open convention, and your response is "And?"? Funny, because during the campaign you guys swore up and down that Kamala was a "great candidate," a "superb candidate," etc., and that Walz was a "solid choice" for VP! And you guys scoffed at anyone who said otherwise and summarily dismissed the idea that the Dems should have at least had an open convention. Remember?

But, now, we find out that Obama could see that Kamala was a weak candidate and that the Dems needed to have an open convention. And we know that Obama was not the only leading Democrat saying these things. But cooler, more rational heads did not carry the day and Kamala got the nomination.

That's the "And" for you.
Click to expand...
You seem to be replying to "some guys" rather than to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Skeptic NewsSearch - 2/22/04
Replies
0
Views
3K
Agent13
A
A
Skeptic NewsSearch - 12/6/03
Replies
0
Views
1K
Agent13
A

Back
Top Bottom