The Obama Leakers Are Back

Per the new York Post,

Former President Barack Obama hasn’t endorsed Kamala Harris’ presidential bid because he doesn’t think she can beat Donald Trump, according to a source close to the Biden family.

Following President Biden’s shocking exit from the race on Sunday, and his immediate endorsement of the vice president, most of the Democratic elite have been quick to rally behind Harris — but Obama is a notable exception.

“Obama’s very upset because he knows she can’t win,” the Biden family source told The Post.

But notice this comes from "a source close to the Biden family", when previous leaks from the Obama camp have come in the form of attributed attacks from David Axelrod and George Clooney that had Obama's tacit approval. The Biden family is leaking this now, because Joe seems still to believe he could have pulled out the November election, while Kamala can't. The story continhues,

“Wait until the debate . . . She can’t debate. She’s going to put her foot in her mouth about Israel, Palestine, Ukraine. She’s going to say something really stupid,” the source said.

. . . According to the source, Obama’s hope was to get Biden out of the way, and an op-ed written by George Clooney in the New York Times asking him to step aside was a part of that plan.

However, the higher-ups in the Democratic Party didn’t count on Biden endorsing Harris right away and “Obama was shocked” when the president endorsed her, according to the insider.

After Biden’s ouster, Obama — who did not return a request for comment Wednesday — wanted Arizona Sen. and former astronaut Mark Kelly “at the top of the ticket” when the Democratic National Convention is held next month, the source said.

Obama is “furious” that things haven’t gone his way, “which is why he is not joining in the Democratic Party’s support of Harris,” the Biden source added.

So in this reading, Joe's final revenge is to thwart the Democrats' plan to swap him out for a younger white guy who might have won, when now they're stuck with Kamala. The Biden camp may have a point, but this isn't the conventional wisdom -- for that, we go to one of the paradigmatic dullards of our time, Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics:

[I]rrespective of [Harris's] abilities as a politician, the 2024 presidential race has probably returned to a toss-up. Perhaps Trump has an edge, but it is not an overwhelming one.

. . . Even if Harris has limitations on the stump, this isn’t your typical campaign. There are roughly 100 days until Election Day, and about five weeks until early voting starts. Her public appearances are likely limited until the convention, which will be well-scripted. Presumably, she’ll deliver a well-received acceptance speech in Chicago. From there, she heads into a post-convention tour, basking in what both sides assume will be with doting media coverage.

. . . Democrats were understandably concerned that Biden wouldn’t be able to stay out of his own way while pressing the case against Trump. Instead, his rallies, press conferences, and interviews would inevitably focus on his gaffes, misstatements, and memory lapses. In short, Biden’s debate performance transformed the election irrevocably into a pure referendum on his presidency. Presumably, Harris will be more effective at focusing undecided voters’ minds on Trump’s shortcomings and creating more of a choice narrative.

. . . What’s changed is that Harris has an upside that post-debate Biden no longer possessed. This was a close race, even with a diminished Biden running, and it will likely finish up even closer.

Harris's "upside" is that she isn't 81, but that's about it, even in Trende's calculation. Yes, if Harris is able to stay in a bubble and avoid unscripted encounters with the press, she might be able to turn the race into a tossup, but that was the hope all along with Biden, and even he had to face problems with inappropriate behavior, with the press nevertheless kept many yards away. But Kamala has exactly Joe's same problem with gaffes, misstatements, and memory lapses -- she's a poor study; by accounts, she resists staff briefing, and she's a poor public speaker.

The YouTube psychologist Dr Todd Grande, who has posted at various times on many political figures, gives some insight into Kamala's pattern of speech in a recent post:

At 3:47, he starts,

A major concern with Kamala Harris, at least for those who value clear communication, is her tendency to use "word salad". Over the years, she has made many statements that are nonsensical, disjointed, and incoherent. Her opponents have latched onto these statements as evidence that Kamala is disrespectful, disorganized, and lazy. Her supporters have argued that Kamala's critics are simply functioning as the grammar police. Let's take a look at 12 examples of "word salad" statements made by Kamala Harris.

When talking about COVID, Kamala said, "it is time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day." In a talk about banking, she stated, "We invested an additional $12 billion into community banks, because we know community banks are in the community and understand the needs and desires of that community, as well as the talent and capacity of community." On another occasion, Kamala mentioned the word "community" when she said, "When we talk about the children of the community, they are the children of the community."

When referring to a Supreme Court decision, Kamala said, "I think of this moment as a moment that is great momentum." Offering words of wisdom about high speed internet, she stated, "The governor and I, we were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time, right, the significance of the passage of time, so when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs, and there is such great significance to the passage of time when we think about a day in the life of our children."

. . . A few patterns are evident in the speaking style of Kamala Harris. She appears to have a fascination with the words "time", "moment", "community", "work", and "together"; she rarely answers the original question or makes any type of point. Kamala is frequently repetitive, but delivers her speeches as if she is saying something profound. Maybe she believes that by being the vice president, anything that she says is automatically amazing -- people should be dazzled by her statements, like there is no actual work necessary.

Other politicians throughout history who have delivered memorable quotes must have done so simply because they were politicians. Kamala doesn't understand how thought leads to coherent statements. Thinking is actually important and, one could argue, necessary. Even though many of her statements are nonsensical, simplistic, and confusing, Kamala has never apologized. She appears to have a lack of insight.

. . . The problem with Kamala's speaking style is significant. It's not like her critics are pointing out something common, like dysfluencies or occasinally losing a train of thought. Kamala is speaking in circles and then expecting people to understand what she is saying.

In other words, Kamala lacks insight, but she thinks she's entitled to the job despite glaring defects in her public performance, which means we're simply back to Joe, who still lacks insight and still feels he should have had the job despite glaring defects in his public performance. But his assessment of Kamala is correct: she's going to have to do interviews sooner rather than later, and she's ultimately going to have to debate.