Minus the obvious perks of working in the White House and living in a grand home on the grounds of the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C., being vice president has got to be one of the worst jobs ever. Not only are you condemned by the nature of the job to live in the shadow of whoever sits in the Oval Office, your second fiddle status plays out in the obsessive coverage of all-things-Washington in public for all to see. If you’re not in attendance at an allegedly important meeting, it’s noticed. If who you’re seated with at a State Dinner isn’t of sufficient importance, it’s talked about. If you open your mouth and something other than near perfection escapes your lips, comments are made about your unease in front of whatever group you were speaking to, as well as the flaws in your speaking style.
I love what you have written about our Vice President. She does, indeed, deserve more kudos than she was getting. She was such a fiery Senator and then was relegated almost mute by the office she occupied. I am glad she is coming of her own and agree with you that she is making a difference wherever she goes.
The GOP now has a problem-they can't legislate Kamala Harris out of office because she's earned the right to be there, and while she's there, she's making their petty little lies appear as awful as they are.
Being the first woman VP isn't hard enough-no, she has to be black, 'mouthy' and smart all at the same time, and the GOP can't stand it.
Because (heaven forbid) if anything happens to Joe Biden, she'll be in the big seat and I don't know about you but I think the GOP would probably faint dead away in fear.
Because right now, they're legislating against blacks and women in so many ways that if she were to become POTUS tomorrow, they'd have no fight left.
I hope she runs on her own if she has the chance, and I'll vote for her.
It was part of the reason I voted for them in the first place.
To show the Republicans I'm not afraid of having a woman, black or not, in the highest office in the land.
Because if Trump hadn't had Comey to step into it so close to the election in 2016, we would have had a woman POTUS by now.
Yes.I will never forgive Comey for that screw job so close to the election.Thanks,James( not!) for delivering TFG to the horror of a majority of the American people.
I have to dissent on blaming Comey's difficult decision to announce still more emails had been found for the loss by Hillary Clinton. The Clinton campaign was not exactly agile and able to confront Trump with a response that resonated in the crucial swing states, where
less than 80,000 votes total let Trump win the our obsolete and absurdly anti-democratic Electoral College system. The only possible way to learn from this in the future, and the future is now, is to review what actually happened.
No way did James Comey's decision move enough votes in Pennyslvania, Michigan and
"In October 2017, a team of progressive researchers published “Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis,” which probed the causes of the disastrous 2016 election defeat. The report came in the wake of the party leadership’s failure to do its own autopsy.
In a cover story for The Nation, William Greider wrote that the Autopsy is “an unemotional dissection of why the Democrats failed so miserably, and it warns that the party must change profoundly or else remain a loser.” La Opinión reporter María Peña summed up the findings this way: “To revitalize its base for future elections, the Democratic Party has to clean up the rubble of its defeat in 2016 and develop a strategy beyond condemning the actions of President Donald Trump.”
Now, “Democratic Autopsy: One Year Later” evaluates how well the Democratic Party has done in charting a new course since the autumn of 2017. This report rates developments in each of the seven categories that the original Autopsy assessed -- corporate power, race, young people, voter participation, social movements, war and party democracy.
The upsurge of progressive activism and electoral victories during the last year has created momentum that could lead to historic breakthroughs in the midterm elections and far beyond. Realizing such potential will require transforming and energizing the Democratic Party.
The Autopsy task force:
KAREN BERNAL
Karen Bernal is a three-term Chair of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus, as well as a member of the CDP's Executive Board. She served as Co-Chair of California's Bernie Sanders delegation to the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
PIA GALLEGOS
Pia Gallegos is Chair of the Adelante Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party of New Mexico.
SAM MCCANN
Sam McCann is a writer and researcher whose recent projects include Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/9.
NORMAN SOLOMON
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org, an online activist group with 1.3 million active supporters in the United States. He was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 and 2016, and was the national coordinator of the Bernie Delegates Network in 2016."
I was struck immediately after your point about Clinton's prospective Veep, that I had to pause to try to even remember Senator Tim Kaine's name and that he was in the senate from Virginia!
The thing is, I "grew up on Henry Wallace's farm," that is, FDR's vice-president's former land holdings in Iowa, and can recall veeps going back for many decades, but anyway, however all that may bear on failing to even place the guy for a few seconds, you nailed it: Kaine was almost a complete nonentity as a campaigner, as a presence, a terrible choice, really.
So how on earth do you manage to lose to Trump-Pence?
Has Clinton campaign maven Robby Mook EVER tried to supply any credible reasons for that, which don't simply blame, I don't know, Bernie?
Or blamet the FBI-Comey-Mass Media biases against a woman candidate (there's SOME truth in the misogynist biases across the board claim, of course, but knowing that as a background already, how do you overcome that?) "She was too competent and too prepared," ok, maybe it would have been a case of too little, too late, but for #@!%^! sakes, this is the U.S. presidency you're running for, why not follow the advice to "loosen up and meet the hoi polloi" (!) or whatever.
It beats piling up massive vote margins over Trump in California and New York as far as the electoral college is concerned!
Hillary’s moment was 2004. She and Bill deliberately waited to run against an outgoing two term Bush. They did nothing to help Kerrey who (Wisely) didn’t trust them. Had she run in the 2004 primary I believe she would have won the nomination and probably made W a one term president. But, political caution and calculus kept it from happening. It was consistent with the Clinton’s narcissistic self interest above the good of the country. Just my opinion
Although with one caveat: it's a WIDELY SHARED OPINION, no just your opinion,
based on decades of available data, data that remains relevant even when you remove every last lying spin added to it by the right-wing zanies, who demonized the Clintons far more than they deserved.
The fact they WERE demonized by fiendish quasi-fascist nitwits in no way, as if by some occult process (?!) alters the remaining problems with their approach to politics.
The NY Times review of Comey's book actually posits as a viable FBI option --- before Comey's July 6, 2016 news conference stating that, yes, as there was by now world-wide publicity about the leaked Clinton emails (which was so obvious it hardly required to be explicitly stated) we can verify that there was an FBI investigation into it, which concluded her handling of classified documents via a private server was "reckless," but didn't reach the requisite standard under 18 U.S.C. 793 to indict; instead, the NY TIMES suggests, the FBI could have misled the citizenry, and all the journalists who already knew otherwise, based on their own "inside sources" --- that there was no investigation into Clinton's emails, nothing.
How would that have worked out once it was absolutely clear there WAS an investigation, and the FBI had decided it "cleared Hillary Clinton" from being charged with a crime?
That's right, Comey and the FBI would have been accused of intentionally hiding
the investigation --- even with their final decision, based on the info they had uncovered by then, to recommend the DOJ not file charges -- in order to harm Trump's chances, and to aid Clinton's prospects.
Trying to reduce Clinton's November, [EDIT!, not 2026, of course!!] 2016 loss in the electoral college to one "October Surprise," blaming the possibility of that happening at all solely on James Comey and the FBI, as if Clinton was entirely detached from any responsibility for her "reckless but not criminal" handling of the documents, is very shaky indeed.
"I think the most telling line in Hillary Clinton’s book on the 2016 election, What Happened, is the following: “That was my problem with many voters: I skipped the venting and went straight to the solving.”
In this very personal and honest book we see Hillary’s strength and weakness; she is someone so interested in solving problems that she skips right past the emotion that drives so many voters. In one very interesting passage on her primary challenge from Bernie Sanders she writes, “He [Bernie] didn’t seem to mind if his math didn’t add up or if his plans had no prayer of passing Congress and becoming law.[…]That left me to play the unenviable role of spoilsport schoolmarm.” She is clearly angry that people criticized her for being too prepared for the debates, since she is a person who sees virtue in careful preparation. She admits to being “… a lifelong fan of school supplies, [who] fussed over the tabs and dividers and armed myself with a bouquet of highlighters in every color.”
I'm 100% behind President Biden running for re-election, but his age does train the spotlight on his VP, not just as a balance-the-ticket running mate but as a possible successor not in the distant future but before the end of the term. In the 2016 Dem primary Harris was pretty far down in my personal preference pack, one step ahead of Biden and two steps ahead of Sanders. I attributed her pick as VP candidate to pragmatism: Biden had promised to choose a female running mate, and the Democratic Party has notoriously ignored the most loyal and most active portion of its base, Black women.
I didn't see Harris as presidential material in 2016, but now? Yeah, I can definitely see a President Harris, and it's a good thing, because I think replacing her on the ticket would be disastrous for the re-election campaign and for the Democratic Party, which can go schismatic at the drop of a hat. Besides, we've got a tradition of vice presidents rising to the occasion and getting the job done. Did anyone consider Harry Truman presidential material? LBJ had been angling for the White House, but who expected that he would become the great civil rights president of the 20th century? Gerald Ford didn't set the world on fire (come to think of it, that's a plus), but thank the gods and those assistant US attorneys from Baltimore for getting Spiro Agnew out of the way before Nixon resigned.
Short version: She's up to it, and it's very possible that Joe Biden was crazy like a fox when he picked Kamala Harris for a running mate.
I’m happy she’s coming into her own. The punditrocracy were ignoring her, and seemingly setting a narrative for her to be dropped from the ticket. That would have been a huge mistake especially after Dobbs. She really has to make it clear that she’s ready for the #1 spot at any time. The racist misogynists will continue to hate her, but this election may well be decided by women. It’s about time.
Much to be done and much to keep going toward 2024. Harris is just fine. Reactionaries will never accept her. Finally most voters will see her honest value. It’s been there all along.
I like her, and definitely want her to succeed. Glad to read that perhaps the tide has turned for her.
But please - can she just dispense with the false eyelashes? It’s tacky and superficial that as a serious politician she is taking the time to apply them. Especially in Africa, where she was visiting the former slave market - it detracts from the seriousness of the situation.
I generally don’t comment on a women’s appearance but don’t understand why wearing false eyelashes would be controversial. Never heard criticism of Joe Biden’s hair plugs. Double standard?
No, not a double standard at all. Biden’s hair transplant was done years ago, it is done with. And I certainly don’t object to “normal” makeup or even having to spend some time on hairdos (for black women I understand that can sometimes be timeconsuming). But fake eyelashes IMHO is taking it to a rather frivolous level. Just not necessary….
Sorry. Your criticism of her is textbook double standard and gratuitous. It is is also disappointing that you would raise this negative issue about another woman at all especially following Lucian’s supportive and compassionate essay. And thank you for explaining the time required for black women to maintain their hair. Poor Kamala has to waste all this time on her hair and eyelashes. Amazing she accomplishes anything.
If I remember correctly, it was John Nance Garner, FDR’s VP for two terms, who compared the vice- presidency to “a bucket of warm piss.” But then his nickname was Cactus Jack…
Thanks for this good essay on Vice President Harris. She has taken some big steps (not always easy, as you point out, in the shoes of the V-P. A good time for her to be moving into focus more--the people are stirring in a good way......
Maybe it comes down to gravitas. Ms. Harris had it, I thought, as a Senator. I found her quite impressive questioning bad guys at a Senate hearing. At that point I could have supported her for president.
The only vice president I have known was Hubert Humphrey, for whom I was an intern. He's kind of a one-off, however, in terms of eloquence and heart, so I won't make a comparison there.
When Ms. Harris took her seat she fumbled, time after time. Strangely enough, her husband, an entertainment lawyer (!) was very effective and appealing when they went abroad. And I disagree with Mr. T., for the first time, actually, in the matter of staff turnover. A little is par for the course on the Hill, and even in the White House, but, as reported, staff rolling in and out says something -- and not about the people doing the coming and going.
It was incumbent on her to shine from the beginning, due to Biden's age and its attendant deficits. She didn't. I would find it hard to be in favor of her being potus. Actually, I think she'd be a disaster, good performance in Africa notwithstanding.
Thank you Margot. My opinion exactly. If Biden does not run God forbid she gets the nomination. It would be a disaster. Yes she is doing better lately, but a terrible gamble for the Dems.
I love what you have written about our Vice President. She does, indeed, deserve more kudos than she was getting. She was such a fiery Senator and then was relegated almost mute by the office she occupied. I am glad she is coming of her own and agree with you that she is making a difference wherever she goes.
The GOP now has a problem-they can't legislate Kamala Harris out of office because she's earned the right to be there, and while she's there, she's making their petty little lies appear as awful as they are.
Being the first woman VP isn't hard enough-no, she has to be black, 'mouthy' and smart all at the same time, and the GOP can't stand it.
Because (heaven forbid) if anything happens to Joe Biden, she'll be in the big seat and I don't know about you but I think the GOP would probably faint dead away in fear.
Because right now, they're legislating against blacks and women in so many ways that if she were to become POTUS tomorrow, they'd have no fight left.
I hope she runs on her own if she has the chance, and I'll vote for her.
It was part of the reason I voted for them in the first place.
To show the Republicans I'm not afraid of having a woman, black or not, in the highest office in the land.
Because if Trump hadn't had Comey to step into it so close to the election in 2016, we would have had a woman POTUS by now.
Go, Kamala, indeed!
Yes.I will never forgive Comey for that screw job so close to the election.Thanks,James( not!) for delivering TFG to the horror of a majority of the American people.
I have to dissent on blaming Comey's difficult decision to announce still more emails had been found for the loss by Hillary Clinton. The Clinton campaign was not exactly agile and able to confront Trump with a response that resonated in the crucial swing states, where
less than 80,000 votes total let Trump win the our obsolete and absurdly anti-democratic Electoral College system. The only possible way to learn from this in the future, and the future is now, is to review what actually happened.
No way did James Comey's decision move enough votes in Pennyslvania, Michigan and
Wisconsin to alter that result.
democraticautopsy.org
"In October 2017, a team of progressive researchers published “Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis,” which probed the causes of the disastrous 2016 election defeat. The report came in the wake of the party leadership’s failure to do its own autopsy.
In a cover story for The Nation, William Greider wrote that the Autopsy is “an unemotional dissection of why the Democrats failed so miserably, and it warns that the party must change profoundly or else remain a loser.” La Opinión reporter María Peña summed up the findings this way: “To revitalize its base for future elections, the Democratic Party has to clean up the rubble of its defeat in 2016 and develop a strategy beyond condemning the actions of President Donald Trump.”
Now, “Democratic Autopsy: One Year Later” evaluates how well the Democratic Party has done in charting a new course since the autumn of 2017. This report rates developments in each of the seven categories that the original Autopsy assessed -- corporate power, race, young people, voter participation, social movements, war and party democracy.
The upsurge of progressive activism and electoral victories during the last year has created momentum that could lead to historic breakthroughs in the midterm elections and far beyond. Realizing such potential will require transforming and energizing the Democratic Party.
The Autopsy task force:
KAREN BERNAL
Karen Bernal is a three-term Chair of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus, as well as a member of the CDP's Executive Board. She served as Co-Chair of California's Bernie Sanders delegation to the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
PIA GALLEGOS
Pia Gallegos is Chair of the Adelante Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party of New Mexico.
SAM MCCANN
Sam McCann is a writer and researcher whose recent projects include Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 11/9.
NORMAN SOLOMON
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org, an online activist group with 1.3 million active supporters in the United States. He was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2008 and 2016, and was the national coordinator of the Bernie Delegates Network in 2016."
See also:
www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/books/review/james-comey-a-higher-loyalty.html
\
Would have been nice if she visited Wisconsin. Or put someone other than a jar of mayonnaise as her Veep
I was struck immediately after your point about Clinton's prospective Veep, that I had to pause to try to even remember Senator Tim Kaine's name and that he was in the senate from Virginia!
The thing is, I "grew up on Henry Wallace's farm," that is, FDR's vice-president's former land holdings in Iowa, and can recall veeps going back for many decades, but anyway, however all that may bear on failing to even place the guy for a few seconds, you nailed it: Kaine was almost a complete nonentity as a campaigner, as a presence, a terrible choice, really.
So how on earth do you manage to lose to Trump-Pence?
Has Clinton campaign maven Robby Mook EVER tried to supply any credible reasons for that, which don't simply blame, I don't know, Bernie?
Or blamet the FBI-Comey-Mass Media biases against a woman candidate (there's SOME truth in the misogynist biases across the board claim, of course, but knowing that as a background already, how do you overcome that?) "She was too competent and too prepared," ok, maybe it would have been a case of too little, too late, but for #@!%^! sakes, this is the U.S. presidency you're running for, why not follow the advice to "loosen up and meet the hoi polloi" (!) or whatever.
It beats piling up massive vote margins over Trump in California and New York as far as the electoral college is concerned!
Hillary’s moment was 2004. She and Bill deliberately waited to run against an outgoing two term Bush. They did nothing to help Kerrey who (Wisely) didn’t trust them. Had she run in the 2004 primary I believe she would have won the nomination and probably made W a one term president. But, political caution and calculus kept it from happening. It was consistent with the Clinton’s narcissistic self interest above the good of the country. Just my opinion
Yeah, Michael that about sums it up!
Although with one caveat: it's a WIDELY SHARED OPINION, no just your opinion,
based on decades of available data, data that remains relevant even when you remove every last lying spin added to it by the right-wing zanies, who demonized the Clintons far more than they deserved.
The fact they WERE demonized by fiendish quasi-fascist nitwits in no way, as if by some occult process (?!) alters the remaining problems with their approach to politics.
The NY Times review of Comey's book actually posits as a viable FBI option --- before Comey's July 6, 2016 news conference stating that, yes, as there was by now world-wide publicity about the leaked Clinton emails (which was so obvious it hardly required to be explicitly stated) we can verify that there was an FBI investigation into it, which concluded her handling of classified documents via a private server was "reckless," but didn't reach the requisite standard under 18 U.S.C. 793 to indict; instead, the NY TIMES suggests, the FBI could have misled the citizenry, and all the journalists who already knew otherwise, based on their own "inside sources" --- that there was no investigation into Clinton's emails, nothing.
How would that have worked out once it was absolutely clear there WAS an investigation, and the FBI had decided it "cleared Hillary Clinton" from being charged with a crime?
That's right, Comey and the FBI would have been accused of intentionally hiding
the investigation --- even with their final decision, based on the info they had uncovered by then, to recommend the DOJ not file charges -- in order to harm Trump's chances, and to aid Clinton's prospects.
Trying to reduce Clinton's November, [EDIT!, not 2026, of course!!] 2016 loss in the electoral college to one "October Surprise," blaming the possibility of that happening at all solely on James Comey and the FBI, as if Clinton was entirely detached from any responsibility for her "reckless but not criminal" handling of the documents, is very shaky indeed.
www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/20/why-hillary-clinton-lost/
"I think the most telling line in Hillary Clinton’s book on the 2016 election, What Happened, is the following: “That was my problem with many voters: I skipped the venting and went straight to the solving.”
In this very personal and honest book we see Hillary’s strength and weakness; she is someone so interested in solving problems that she skips right past the emotion that drives so many voters. In one very interesting passage on her primary challenge from Bernie Sanders she writes, “He [Bernie] didn’t seem to mind if his math didn’t add up or if his plans had no prayer of passing Congress and becoming law.[…]That left me to play the unenviable role of spoilsport schoolmarm.” She is clearly angry that people criticized her for being too prepared for the debates, since she is a person who sees virtue in careful preparation. She admits to being “… a lifelong fan of school supplies, [who] fussed over the tabs and dividers and armed myself with a bouquet of highlighters in every color.”
Das stimmt, Herr Weiskopf. Gegen Donald "Herr Gropenfuehrer," und Sie is verloren, wirklich?
Quatsch und mehr Quatsch, Unsinn und mehr Unsinn!
Thanks for this positive story. She deserves some praise.
A good report on Kamala Harris, and one we can all appreciate. She has not had much of a break and this is certainly deserving.
About time someone noticed..go Mamala!
This is my hope for how it goes:
Biden runs for reelection with Harris and trounces tfg or Florida Man.
If Joe makes it through his second term, great! Kamala is the D front runner in 2028.
If Joe does not complete his second term, Kamala takes over and has major momentum for '28.
First woman President - it's really hers to lose
I'm 100% behind President Biden running for re-election, but his age does train the spotlight on his VP, not just as a balance-the-ticket running mate but as a possible successor not in the distant future but before the end of the term. In the 2016 Dem primary Harris was pretty far down in my personal preference pack, one step ahead of Biden and two steps ahead of Sanders. I attributed her pick as VP candidate to pragmatism: Biden had promised to choose a female running mate, and the Democratic Party has notoriously ignored the most loyal and most active portion of its base, Black women.
I didn't see Harris as presidential material in 2016, but now? Yeah, I can definitely see a President Harris, and it's a good thing, because I think replacing her on the ticket would be disastrous for the re-election campaign and for the Democratic Party, which can go schismatic at the drop of a hat. Besides, we've got a tradition of vice presidents rising to the occasion and getting the job done. Did anyone consider Harry Truman presidential material? LBJ had been angling for the White House, but who expected that he would become the great civil rights president of the 20th century? Gerald Ford didn't set the world on fire (come to think of it, that's a plus), but thank the gods and those assistant US attorneys from Baltimore for getting Spiro Agnew out of the way before Nixon resigned.
Short version: She's up to it, and it's very possible that Joe Biden was crazy like a fox when he picked Kamala Harris for a running mate.
GO KAMALA‼️
Hi Roland, it’s good to see you! I agree Go Kamala!
I’m happy she’s coming into her own. The punditrocracy were ignoring her, and seemingly setting a narrative for her to be dropped from the ticket. That would have been a huge mistake especially after Dobbs. She really has to make it clear that she’s ready for the #1 spot at any time. The racist misogynists will continue to hate her, but this election may well be decided by women. It’s about time.
Much to be done and much to keep going toward 2024. Harris is just fine. Reactionaries will never accept her. Finally most voters will see her honest value. It’s been there all along.
Go, Kamala 💪🏽❗️
I like her, and definitely want her to succeed. Glad to read that perhaps the tide has turned for her.
But please - can she just dispense with the false eyelashes? It’s tacky and superficial that as a serious politician she is taking the time to apply them. Especially in Africa, where she was visiting the former slave market - it detracts from the seriousness of the situation.
Wow. I never noticed she was wearing false eyelashes. My bad. Maybe I should take myself off the voting rolls.
I would rather focus on what she does and believes in, not her physical appearance. Fake eyelashes do not a politician make.
I generally don’t comment on a women’s appearance but don’t understand why wearing false eyelashes would be controversial. Never heard criticism of Joe Biden’s hair plugs. Double standard?
No, not a double standard at all. Biden’s hair transplant was done years ago, it is done with. And I certainly don’t object to “normal” makeup or even having to spend some time on hairdos (for black women I understand that can sometimes be timeconsuming). But fake eyelashes IMHO is taking it to a rather frivolous level. Just not necessary….
Sorry. Your criticism of her is textbook double standard and gratuitous. It is is also disappointing that you would raise this negative issue about another woman at all especially following Lucian’s supportive and compassionate essay. And thank you for explaining the time required for black women to maintain their hair. Poor Kamala has to waste all this time on her hair and eyelashes. Amazing she accomplishes anything.
I agree completely.
If I remember correctly, it was John Nance Garner, FDR’s VP for two terms, who compared the vice- presidency to “a bucket of warm piss.” But then his nickname was Cactus Jack…
Thank you for your post LT
Thanks for this good essay on Vice President Harris. She has taken some big steps (not always easy, as you point out, in the shoes of the V-P. A good time for her to be moving into focus more--the people are stirring in a good way......
Maybe it comes down to gravitas. Ms. Harris had it, I thought, as a Senator. I found her quite impressive questioning bad guys at a Senate hearing. At that point I could have supported her for president.
The only vice president I have known was Hubert Humphrey, for whom I was an intern. He's kind of a one-off, however, in terms of eloquence and heart, so I won't make a comparison there.
When Ms. Harris took her seat she fumbled, time after time. Strangely enough, her husband, an entertainment lawyer (!) was very effective and appealing when they went abroad. And I disagree with Mr. T., for the first time, actually, in the matter of staff turnover. A little is par for the course on the Hill, and even in the White House, but, as reported, staff rolling in and out says something -- and not about the people doing the coming and going.
It was incumbent on her to shine from the beginning, due to Biden's age and its attendant deficits. She didn't. I would find it hard to be in favor of her being potus. Actually, I think she'd be a disaster, good performance in Africa notwithstanding.
Thank you Margot. My opinion exactly. If Biden does not run God forbid she gets the nomination. It would be a disaster. Yes she is doing better lately, but a terrible gamble for the Dems.