The Obamas Endorse Harris: 'This Is Going to Be Historic'
The former president and first lady threw their weight behind the presumptive Democratic nominee
Barack and Michelle Obama have endorsed Kamala Harris for the Democratic nomination for president, sharing the news in a joint phone call.
A video released by the campaign suggests the former president and first lady called Harris on Thursday while the vice president was in Houston, where she addressed the American Federation of Teachers and received a briefing on recovery efforts following Hurricane Beryl.
“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office,” Barack Obama is heard telling Harris in a 55-second video of the call.
“This is going to be historic,” Michelle Obama tells Harris.
This is frustrating. She couldn't handle a primary run 5 years ago. Now the entire Party is just lining up as if she's unquestionably the greatest candidate the world has to offer.
Prior to this, the only Democrat less popular than her, was Biden.
Nobody knows what she'll actually do in office because she's only ever said or supported whatever will help her at the moment.
EDIT: Thank you all. I had a good time today debating, discussing, reading, even occasionally learning.
Some of you engaged well, I upvoted. Some of you didn't. I rarely downvote though, and never did here.
I appreciate you all, and hope you all have a good one.
Even Kamala Harris. I hope to see her succeed beyond all our expectations. Even if mine are quite low.
She isn’t on death’s door, she doesn’t want to jail people for pronouns, she supports a woman’s right to choose, the list goes on. The election is months away and it’s likely her vs trump.
Consider rolling up your sleeves and working on social and political causes to help see people and policies you like make it to the top. I have personally found it very fulfilling to volunteer at the local and state level in particular.
Love her or hate her, she is better than Trump in literally every way. The decision is obvious and complaining won’t put someone you like more on the ballot.
Is that really the best we can hope for? Or ask for? Someone who's better than Trump?
Got any actual suggestions, or are you only here to complain that any candidate isn't a 100% perfect match for everything you want in the world?
I'd be thrilled for someone who isn't an obvious self centered opertunist. Someone with principals that aren't power for its own sake. I thought that was Obama. Honestly I still believe he has that in him. I know it's Bernie, and Yang. I'm sure there are more out there. But our system itself keeps them from getting to the top.
So, no.
Feel free to fund an entirely new party or even a new constitution, in the meantime you just need to take 2 hours off your massive, world changing project and vote for Kamala Harris.
If people are only ever given the choice between a terrible option and a mediocre option, they will start to question the system which gives them these choices.
Apparently not.
I've been donating monthly to the Forward Party since it started. I could work on a new constitution.
Great, please do.
I hear you, but it's also fun to see how excited Democrats are right now. It's partly shock and relief at Biden dropping out, but I think there's also real excitement in the mix!
My wife and I have never been the biggest fans of Harris. We said the night Biden stepped down that she was the natural pick, but not the best pick.
She and her team have changed our minds. Harris actually attacking Trump and the right, embracing a younger crowd, along with some policies that she has mentioned, have us on board. Give her some time to lay out HER platform, not just Biden 2.0, and I think she's going to surprise a lot of people. I am one of those excited.
If anything, it will be stuff from California that she has to worry about. Always been clouds around her but nothing specific i can recall.
That's true. Even I've felt a couple times.
I'm skeptical but giving her a chance. Apparently her voting record in the Senate wasnt that far off from Bernies general position (although not "statistically closest to Bernie" like this circulated meme was saying)
At least she seems like she's got some good energy and getting people engaged to vote and participate.
In July, of an election year, in the US? Yes, that's the best you get.
Make a time machine, convince Biden to drop out 8-12 months ago, then you can have your open primary season.
That's a plan, I can get behind.
But I would go to 5 years ago.
Why go 5 years when you could go back and ensure the convicted felon loses to Hilary.
That's a good point. And a better plan.
I thought you were going to say:
"Is that really the best we can hope for? 'Working on social and political causes to help see people and policies you like make it to the top'?"
And I was like "yeah, it is the best we can hope for".
That is what I'm asking for. Everyone else seems content with backing a "winner".
I don't know if you understand. People are donating and volunteering, for Kamala Harris. You don't want more participation, You just want people to support your personally chosen candidate (who remains nameless).
I haven't seen one I like this cycle. Neither major party has nominated one I really liked in 40 years. The Dems came close a couple times.
Not one person? Really? You want people to satisfy you with a good candidate this November and you can’t even name one you like?
This is why people ready to vote blue this November get annoyed at these conversations. You aren’t serious people.
This sentiment is really impractical in a functional democracy of over 300 million people, if you can't find anyone in 20 candidates that have run over the past 40 years from the two major parties you were willing to vote for.
Your perfect candidate that you hold out for isn't going to be the perfect candidate for a lot of people. Part of the whole give and take is building consensus around most broadly acceptable candidates, rather than just taking your ball and going home when none of the viable candidates perfectly suite you.
Oh I voted in every election since I could. Just never for someone I believed in. It was only ever hope.
No one alive is probably fit to do the job, it’s an impossible task. Those who may come close, would probably never actually want it. And of those who remain who do want it ( which already might make them not worthy for the position) are probably not electable due to the forces of capitalism preventing such a candidate from getting elected.
So what is left is simply a pragmatic choice of the lesser evil. Many people are acutely aware of this and have gotten over it. I suggest until you manage to enact some sort of drastic systemic change you get it over it as well.
I'm working on it.
The drastic systemic change part.
I absolutely agree with your assessment of the problem. I've often thought of dividing The Executive Branch into at least two leadership roles. One of foreign responsibility, one of domestic. Though it may make sense to keep the roll as a single office, where teams of self determined size can divide responsibilities however they choose. Then it starts looks something like a parliamentary system. But I imagine the membership would be fixed somehow. I don't know. Still working on it.
Ah, well that's reasonable sounding. Perhaps the burden of understanding nuance of candidates is that you'll always be disappointed when it comes time to reconcile with millions of others.
It really is amazing how poor our choices are. There are many competent humans out there, but it's not obvious from our options. Seems like a direct result of the 2 party winner-takes-all political system.
I don't expect the human world to meet my moral standards. That might sound sad, but it preserves my sanity.
It is sad, and it makes me depressed.
My moral standards are special because I hold myself to them, regardless of whether anyone else cares.
Honestly, it looks like it.
Biden couldn't handle a primary run in 2008, but he killed in 2020.
Times change. Circumstances change. People change. And if the enthusiasm that has come out over the past week, both from her and from the party base, is any indication, Harris in 2024 is in a much better place than she was in 2020.
Honestly, after his failed 1987 primary challenge, I'm surprised he ever got back on his feet in terms of politics at all.
He plagiarized a speech by a British politician and got caught, he was involved in a scandal involving his law school grades and he lied about his participation in the civil rights movement (or at least greatly exaggerated it).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_1988_presidential_campaign#Summer_1987
On top of that, after dropping out, he had two brain aneurysms.
It's pretty amazing he got elected president in 2020.
America is a country where some areas have such high rates of diabetes, people fully expect to lose limbs due to circulation issues.
It seems that you can simply train many people to expect their options to limited.
Biden didn't kill it in 2020. Bernie won the first few states, so the DNC freaked out and pushed the other candidates to drop out and endorse Joe. After that, the media lined up to declare him the presumptive nominee. The DNC hates progressives.
Kamala was a better speaker than Joe in 2020. Her comments about being one of the black kids on the busses aimed at Biden was accurate and scathing. But she followed the party mandate and bowed out.
Why is everyone's memory so short about these things?
She's a far sight better than Trump or Biden.
Bernie won a couple states that never help determine the election. Then Biden won by a lot in swing states. If Bernie won swing states it would be different. He didn't. His appeal isn't and wasn't as good in the specific places the Presidency is won.
It sucks because I picked him in both primaries. But the reality is Biden had broader appeal where it mattered. Any Dem candidate is going get 170 EC votes along the coasts. It's between the coasts where the election is won. And Biden did better in all those places.
To my point, he was doing better until the others started to drop out. But that's all academic now. My opinion hardly matters, but I stand by my belief that the DNC hates progressive politics and would rather lose than support a populist progressive.
Kamala is apparently more progressive than we knew, her voting record was pretty close to Bernie's in the Senate. By being the vp and then Biden dropping out we seem to have gotten a more prog candidate than we could have otherwise?
Pete won Iowa, Bernie won New Hampshire and Nevada. Everyone (6 total candidates) was still in for South Carolina which Biden dominated. Pete and Amy dropped out at that point. But Bloomberg joined and Warren was still in. Gabbard was too but we all know was a joke candidate.
Biden was against 4 options going into Super Tuesday. Biden won 10 of the 15 primaries on Super Tuesday. Came in 2nd for the couple he didn't win. After that is when Bloomberg got chased back out, and Warren dropped out realizing she was stripping votes from Bernie.
Bernie was ahead for all of 3 weeks. And at that point only 3 states were in. What truly happened in that time is a lot of media spin. Because they had nothing much to report on and kept belaboring over almost nothing of consequence. By the time my chance landed here in Illinois it was obvious Biden had it in the bag. Bernie dropped out himself only a couple weeks after.
It's interesting to see the consequences of a two-party system so clearly here. Only focusing on the voters in the middle because the others are secure, it's exactly what the maths predict.
she was in a primary with biden in the center and about 15 other progressives on the left. she was always popular; it's just bernie occupied the left flank of the primary and everyone else was crumbs.
Oh. Look. It's the exact message we all knew was coming. "Good thing we got rid of Biden, but now we have another terrible candidate."
Yes! Exactly!
All the Democrats seem capable of, are terrible presidential candates. Obama seemed like a great candate for a ... Change. But turned out to be quite mid.
You know, obviously I disagree with you. But I respect you for not deleting your comments and for continuing to engage earnestly with people who were upset by it. I understand your disappointment with not ever getting a president who really moves the ball forward.
Until a progressive candidate can get elected in the swing states or there is a massive shift in the Overton window, I don't think you're going to get what you want. I'd like the world to be a better place, too. Shit, depending on the next 4 years, it's likely I won't live to see a liberal Supreme Court again, let alone tear down the corporate capture of our government.
Kamala has proven she can inspire people and that she can win. And I said before Biden even stepped down, if he goes, it has to be her or we risk losing black voters whom we can't win without. Now she's bringing them in droves. And the more registered Democrats, the greater our chances of really moving the country left in a meaningful way. She's the right choice, whether she's the best choice or not.
Anyway, be well.
She was in the Senate. She has a voting record. Go look at it.
You know who else couldn't handle a primary run (twice) before they were elected president? Joe Biden.
Yah. I don't know why anyone thought he was a good option either.
And yet he won despite you not knowing why.
Is winning the only hurdle? That's so depressing.
When it comes to stopping Project 2025? Yes, that is the only hurdle. Work on the rest after that.
That's not something we'll ever "stop". That's an ongoing eternal fight. And you don't win by only playing defense. You need to try to score also.
We will never stop a specific agenda that has been laid out in great detail in a plan Americans are souring to the more they hear about it?
The sounds like what some people told me about Biden in 2020. Why vote for him? He's the same as Trump.
Except he isn't. By most measures.
Who said that? Did I? I never said any of that. Read my previous comment again.
Your previous comment:
My response:
Then I told you a different claim that your comment sounded like.
So yes, you did say that it is not something that we will never stop.
Did the agenda get stopped? Project 2025 exists. So the right wing religous agenda is ongoing, is it not?
What a strange question. The agenda didn't get stopped because the election hasn't happened yet. Which is why they need to be beaten first so it can be stopped.
You do understand that it's called "Project 2025" because they want to implement it in 2025, right?
Project 2025 exists because electing Biden didnt stop anything. P25 is simply the latest label for the same agenda that's been going on since forever. That's what never ends.
The conservative religious right has waxed and waned for millennia. But it never stops.
You're missing the forest to the trees.
It is very depressing, yes. But a candidate that is 10/10 on every possible good measure that loses to Trump due to Democratic infighting, will be a worse outcome to someone that is mediocre in some respects but can win. It is the most important hurdle, and at the very least I can say the Democrats have some semblance of a strategy now that they didn't have before, and that's reason for hope.
I'd be happy for 5/10
I'll believe it when I see it.
Yah. That's fair.
I'm not sure I've even been truly happy since I was a child who didn't know anything.
Not an attack - but it definitely shows.
I hope things get better for you.
Then vote for that candidate
They've been asked to name such a candidate and admitted they can't. And also that they didn't canvass for anyone. So basically they want an imaginary person to magically pop into our reality and be the nominee. But not Kamala Harris.
You know she was a Senator, right? You know those votes are public record, right?
Biden was in several primaries. Only recently did he get enough traction. Just Obama was more popular. That's actually a common pattern, that eventual Presidents had to lose a few primaries to get where they are today.
Alright. Here's your chance:
Who would you choose?
Be prepared to defend your answer.
No idea.
The party never presented any real chance to compare options. That's the problem. We could've had a dozen debates with anyone polling over 0.1%. Like the Republicans. But that never happened.
If we had, maybe it'd be clear she's the best choice.
You know these things about Harris and yet can't supply us with a single potential alternative? Now I am aware you're likely no expert. Though to have a fair opinion one must be able to account at least somewhat for both sides of the equation.
Please stop dismissing Harris if you can't make even the smallest argument for why someone else may be better. It's potentially damaging and right now, as much as I wish we could debate about it for hours, we need to stop fascism first.
edit: By the way, thank you for admitting you don't know. That alone is something we should all respect.
Who dismissed Harris?
Is Fascism the one where leaders are chosen by an elite few, without the input of the public?
Edit: Thank you. I do try to be a honest as I can. Even when I know my ideas are very... Uncommon I guess.
You should read the essay "Ur-fascism" by Umberto Eco. It's an 8 or 9 page PDF, and it does a really good job explaining fascism (including it's seemingly inability to be defined - which to them is a feature).
This should be a PDF of it so you don't even need to Google. Everyone should read this
https://sites.evergreen.edu/politicalshakespeares/wp-content/uploads/sites/226/2015/12/Eco-urfascism.pdf
If you've ever heard of the 14 defining features of fascism, they come from this essay. And he does an excellent job explaining them all and relating them to his life growing up in fascist Italy.
Fascism exists to first justify and in the endgame solidify the tyrannical desire of the elite. Choosing to displace our fears and concerns by undermining, even indirectly, the person we ultimately must support, we do damage to that cause. So while we are not a true Democracy, we have in our laps a chance to stop a slide into something worse.
I feel strongly that despite the many differences we all have, and the discourse those differences often bring, we should seek to put them aside for now. Not forever. Just for now, to work for a better country and a government that exists more for us all. It is optimistic, though I know deep down that those of us not worshipping Trump want for a better life and outnumber the brainwashed and poorly educated red masses by a magnitude. We just have to come together.
Harris is not the country's leader yet. She is likely to be selected as the candidate by the Democratic party, but ultimately the party is a private organization that can do basically whatever it wants to select that candidate. That's not fascism. That's freedom of association. In the end, nobody has to vote for the Democrats nor the Republicans. Anybody can be on the ballot with enough popular support, no party needed.
Parties hold primaries because, ultimately, they need votes to win an election and primaries help gauge the people who will be voting. At the time of the primaries, the voters still overwhelmingly selected Biden. But in the time since, polls show large majorities of those voters support both Biden's departure and Harris as the replacement. So this is still likely the right move if the party is trying to appeal to the public.
All of that is entirely true.
And ultimately entirely undemocratic.
And that's the biggest problem I have with the party at the moment.
The Republicans, who are sooo shitty in most every other respect, held an actual primary process. While they're exactly the same kind private company the Democrats are, and could've simply gone with Trump.
All for debate, but maybe don't go around devaluing the term fascism for fake internet points?
You mean all those points I'm losing with every comment?
Just because you're bad at it doesn't mean you're not doing it.
I wasn't commenting on your assessment of what I was doing, just your assessment for the reason I was doing it.
You're not obliged to respond if you don't have anything meaningful or interesting to add to this discussion.
Well. Yah. That's kind of a universal principal.
People aren't even obliged if they do have something meaningful or interesting to say.
It's their right to keep it to themselves, if they wish.
By all means, continue to be vapid.
There are a number if accurate insults you could use. Verbose may be what you're thinking of. I can't deny that.
But vapid seems more like projecting.
Well at least she's more popular than Biden then.
Yes. That's our great hope. Someone slightly better than the worst option.
I mean, it is what it is, sadly. It's basically impossible to get good candidates in a flawed first past the post system where there are only two realistic parties and both are controlled by the corporate elite that benefit from the status quo. Good candidates get squashed.
I don't have any reason to believe Harris would do anything radically different than what Biden would have done. That makes her far from ideal, in my opinion, but nonetheless still much better than Trump. That's the only thing the Democrats really have going for them at this point: they remain better than the only other viable political alternative. Admittedly, that is a LOW bar, in my opinion, but that's where we are in America right now. I have given up trying to make America the way I want to be, and am instead focused primarily on harm reduction.
Agreed. Just kind of more of the same seems likely. I just think we could use and deserve better.
Other than his stance on Palestine, I think Joe (and his administration) did an excellent job under the circumstances. He was the right man at the right time
His domestic work was acceptable. My only gripe there is not pushing harder on the minimum wage. He could've replace the parliamentarian.
What difference would replacing the parliamentarian make? the minimum wage increase lost the vote.
Why blame the Executive branch for something that happened in the Legislative branch?