We still think Kamala will be the next president but we are more concerned about our prediction than we were a few months ago. It seems more likely that the year will be 2024 rather than 2020 but time will tell. Instapundit cited a Jim Geraghty post in NRO’s Corner that caught our attention. Jim says and quotes:
The other day Wonkette offered an article with a headline that declares — cleaning it up for your sensitive eyes — “Kamala Harris Doesn’t Have To Explain Herself To Your Dumb [Tushes].”
Infuriated by headlines about a Harris speech declaring that she is defending her record as a prosecutor, Stephen Robinson writes:
Is Harris on trial here? Why is she “defending her record”? Did she lose all her cases like the prosecutor who faced off against Perry Mason each week? That guy needed to explain himself. Harris put [bad words] in prison. She imprisoned [bad words] so well she was the first woman elected district attorney of San Francisco and the first black woman to become attorney general of California. She’s the Serena Williams of law and order.
While she’s undoubtedly better than Hamilton Berger, Harris’s record is a little more complicated than that. [Emphasis added]
Jim concludes that candidates always need to defend their records. We agree but we have concerns. First, Stephen can’t be bothered to look up Hamilton Berger like Jim did. Really, this is not a tweet but Stephen’s article and he can’t be bothered to type in Perry Mason prosecutor. Go and try it. We will wait as it won’t take long. You won’t even need to finish typing prosecutor and you will find that Hamilton Burger has his own Wikipedia site!
Second, what is a good record for a prosecutor? We are not convinced that Jim is right that Kamala is better than Hamilton. Hamilton, on our small sample, never convicts the innocent or frees the guilty. Obviously, life is more complicated than a TV drama but convictions, as Scooter Libby could tell you, might not be the best measure of a prosecutor. Evaluating teachers and prosecutors involves problems because the goals, learning and justice, are hard to measure.
Third, Jim is worried about the need to serve a strong leader demonstrated in the tone of Stephen’s article. Instead, given the circumstances at Oberlin College, we find Jim’s parenthetical comment is more important:
(Whatever else you think of [Stephen]’s argument, he’s absolutely right when he declares, “it’s insulting to claim that black people can only have an adversarial relationship with the criminal justice system or that a black woman can’t prosecute crimes without betraying her community.”)
Kamala has a mixed heritage but we are not getting into the swamps of what is black in the quote. The important point is that protecting communities from bad actors is a good idea even if Oberlin disagrees.
Sidebar: We have already said that convictions are not necessarily justice and we would add that police do not always act properly. Protecting communities without harming them is a challenge and we agree with Jim that Kamala should explain how she did that. Perhaps she has examples of convicting cops. We just think that Stephen’s law and order message is the important one rather than the she doesn’t need to explain one. End Sidebar.
This is the first good news we have seen about a Democrat presidential candidate. Perhaps more is forthcoming but we are not holding our breath.