And more importantly Arun, when she loses (and I suspect she will given this is 'too little too late' as you've also pointed out), it will be a clear indicator that her unequivocal support for the Gaza genocide was the driving factor behind her defeat. It could be a watershed moment in terms of loosening the grip that AIPAC et al have on the duopoly, as for the first time a presidential candidate would've failed to win the Oval Office despite backing Israel unconditionally. Of course a stronger indicator of this would be Harris' failure coupled with the Greens breaking the five percent threshold.
That said, I don't expect the Dems to attribute such an outcome to Gaza, so it will be crucial to vocalise the direct causal relationship post November 5th as voting data becomes available.
Kamala and Biden have been saying this since the war began. All they need to do is stop funding and sending weapons to Israel. Her statements today ring hollow and will likely not sway a single voter.
Since Harris became the nominee, when has she previously said, "I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza"? There is no reason to trust her. It is short of endorsing an arms embargo. But this is a clearly a concession, even if it is half-hearted and likely a lie.
If it was hollow, then why didn't she say this months ago when such a statement might have prevented most Muslim and Arab voters turning against her campaign?
Additionally, this puts her on the hook for explaining "how" she will end the war. If she wins, it allows the Palestine solidarity movement to hold her to account. Either she uses her power or people take to the streets.
Power is a lot messier than people on the internet think it is.
Humphrey waited until September before coming out for ending the Vietnam war. And he was considered a liberal that caused to the Dixiecrats to switch alliance. His polling improved after that but he still lost by the narrowest margins because the war remained unpopular. The war was a political football, Nixon going into the election sabotaged the peace talks to prevent Humphrey from winning, once in he would escalate into Laos and Cambodia. Muslim voters have their eye on history, on “the largest purveyor of violence in the world”, lead by the lying duopoly.
Thanks--I'd missed that. Even I, who has repeatedly described Kamala as an empty vessel forever ready to be filled with whatever her donors want her to say--am taken aback by the transparent stupidity of the timing.
After months of towing the line that anything negative said about Israel is anti-Semitic, now Harris is promising to end the "war" that Israel refuses to end, two DAYS ahead of the election? She only would have said that if someone told her to, and that someone had probably just seen an internal Michigan poll showing Stein doing rather well.
Almost certainly a lie. But she was still forced to say it. If it means nothing then she would have said it months ago. As such, this is a concession even if a half-hearted and probably duplicitous one. The ruling class does not roll over. We have to fight them tooth and nail for every concession.
Is it a dumb move timing-wise? Or, is it proof that the DNC believes that the voters are really that dumb to believe this fable? The "leaked" letter to Israel stating they had 30 days (way past election day) to allow aide into Northern Gaza was the first ploy and people saw through that at the outset. Why do they think (after Clinton's disastrous Michigan anti-Palestinian racist speech) that people would believe this crap? Her two-faced ads saying the complete opposite in Michigan trying to win back the Muslim vote vs the Pennsylvanian ad touting her unconditional support for Zionist terrorism has shown that world that words mean nothing to her. Actual acts are what needs to be seen and taking ALL the AIPAC money, touring with neoliberal war criminals tell you who she is.
I don't really disagree with anything you say. Trying to determine motives by prominent political figures is almost impossible. I think the effects I describe indicate it was a dumb move. I think you are right that the Dems think voters are dumb enough to believe it. (But the ones they are trying to win over are smarter than that.)
In the end, I think we can say this was an act of desperation. No one should trust Harris at all. But the fact they did this at the last moment shows they were under pressure to concede something, even if they are just lying. If her statement meant nothing, she would have said it months ago.
“END THE WAR N GHAZZA” AFTER PALESTINAIN HAVE BEEN EXTERMINATED OR EXPELLED, and build sea resorts for Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Satanyahu, Satanyahu Trump, and their likes!
And more importantly Arun, when she loses (and I suspect she will given this is 'too little too late' as you've also pointed out), it will be a clear indicator that her unequivocal support for the Gaza genocide was the driving factor behind her defeat. It could be a watershed moment in terms of loosening the grip that AIPAC et al have on the duopoly, as for the first time a presidential candidate would've failed to win the Oval Office despite backing Israel unconditionally. Of course a stronger indicator of this would be Harris' failure coupled with the Greens breaking the five percent threshold.
That said, I don't expect the Dems to attribute such an outcome to Gaza, so it will be crucial to vocalise the direct causal relationship post November 5th as voting data becomes available.
Kamala and Biden have been saying this since the war began. All they need to do is stop funding and sending weapons to Israel. Her statements today ring hollow and will likely not sway a single voter.
Since Harris became the nominee, when has she previously said, "I will do everything in my power to end the war in Gaza"? There is no reason to trust her. It is short of endorsing an arms embargo. But this is a clearly a concession, even if it is half-hearted and likely a lie.
If it was hollow, then why didn't she say this months ago when such a statement might have prevented most Muslim and Arab voters turning against her campaign?
Additionally, this puts her on the hook for explaining "how" she will end the war. If she wins, it allows the Palestine solidarity movement to hold her to account. Either she uses her power or people take to the streets.
Power is a lot messier than people on the internet think it is.
Humphrey waited until September before coming out for ending the Vietnam war. And he was considered a liberal that caused to the Dixiecrats to switch alliance. His polling improved after that but he still lost by the narrowest margins because the war remained unpopular. The war was a political football, Nixon going into the election sabotaged the peace talks to prevent Humphrey from winning, once in he would escalate into Laos and Cambodia. Muslim voters have their eye on history, on “the largest purveyor of violence in the world”, lead by the lying duopoly.
Thanks--I'd missed that. Even I, who has repeatedly described Kamala as an empty vessel forever ready to be filled with whatever her donors want her to say--am taken aback by the transparent stupidity of the timing.
After months of towing the line that anything negative said about Israel is anti-Semitic, now Harris is promising to end the "war" that Israel refuses to end, two DAYS ahead of the election? She only would have said that if someone told her to, and that someone had probably just seen an internal Michigan poll showing Stein doing rather well.
Harris is lying.
Almost certainly a lie. But she was still forced to say it. If it means nothing then she would have said it months ago. As such, this is a concession even if a half-hearted and probably duplicitous one. The ruling class does not roll over. We have to fight them tooth and nail for every concession.
I know. I think we need a better tool😈
_______
|| . ' |
|| ,` |
| |
|_____|
_|_( )_|_
Is it a dumb move timing-wise? Or, is it proof that the DNC believes that the voters are really that dumb to believe this fable? The "leaked" letter to Israel stating they had 30 days (way past election day) to allow aide into Northern Gaza was the first ploy and people saw through that at the outset. Why do they think (after Clinton's disastrous Michigan anti-Palestinian racist speech) that people would believe this crap? Her two-faced ads saying the complete opposite in Michigan trying to win back the Muslim vote vs the Pennsylvanian ad touting her unconditional support for Zionist terrorism has shown that world that words mean nothing to her. Actual acts are what needs to be seen and taking ALL the AIPAC money, touring with neoliberal war criminals tell you who she is.
I don't really disagree with anything you say. Trying to determine motives by prominent political figures is almost impossible. I think the effects I describe indicate it was a dumb move. I think you are right that the Dems think voters are dumb enough to believe it. (But the ones they are trying to win over are smarter than that.)
In the end, I think we can say this was an act of desperation. No one should trust Harris at all. But the fact they did this at the last moment shows they were under pressure to concede something, even if they are just lying. If her statement meant nothing, she would have said it months ago.
Sadly, it IS an act a desperation.
She needs to say she’ll stop sending dollars and bombs to Israel.
And you believe her? Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
“END THE WAR N GHAZZA” AFTER PALESTINAIN HAVE BEEN EXTERMINATED OR EXPELLED, and build sea resorts for Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Satanyahu, Satanyahu Trump, and their likes!
Get back to me after watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_heq6CkeMH8