performance this primary. Bc, as you rightfully mention, she has a lot of strengths.

>what made you whatabout kamala because i brought up warren?
>lol.

Lol! She's leading in this post's poll and on twitter, and I like her personality but just don't think it's warranted given how poorly she did this cycle.


>to be fair to kamala...
>
>aside from being the 1st black da of san fran, the 1st woman
>da of san fran, the 1st black attorney general of ca, the 1st
>woman attorney general of ca, the 1st black woman senator from
>ca, the 2nd black woman senator period, with the 2nd most
>progressive voting record in the senate...
>
>she ran the largest litigant/justice administration in the
>country (2nd only to the federal doj) in a state of 40 million
>people. overseeing a sprawling bureaucracy with a workforce
>managing large complex investigations, prosecutions, civil
>litigations, public advisories, assistance to other
>state/local/federal agencies, corporate oversight, etc.
>
>so if you wanna go that route instead of 'box-checking'...the
>most competent executive of the women in the race was the
>actual competent executive. she is far more qualified in that
>regard compared to warren and abrams.

Oh no doubt Kamala is super *accomplished*...but so, too, would somebody like John Kerry or Robert Mueller. Does that automatically translate to votes and infrastructure tho. I think I even said up top, if Kamala's short-listed for Biden's black female SC justice pick that actually strikes me as a better fit bc maybe national electoral politics is not her strength, given how spectacularly her presidential campaign imploded.

Other thing I should note is I have a very strong personal bias: I judge presidential candidates *super* hard on the campaign organization they're able to build. I basically see it as a metric for readiness, and a bare minimum. Like, if you can't even competently build an organization to get you elected, why should you be elected? Lol.

For example, people often mention how Obama was this once-in-a-lifetime candidate in terms of how he resonated and the historic precedent. But it's also important to note that he simply built out a fucking incredible campaign, and that he probably would have been competitive even if he was more of a dud candidate. The messaging, the fundraising, the digitial, the volunteer base, the BRANDING (eg. that sheppard fairey Obama portrait is like Warhol level iconic now, right?) I mean people may talk about experience and how at least he was in Congress before running blazay blah but imho it was his background as an organizer that lent a special vision to how his campaign sought to connect to people, which he then backed up with superior executive skills by lining up the right people, functions, and resources to execute his vision. Superior executive skills which then scaled well to governing.

I think one could even argue that 45 ran a similarly strong campaign, despite how many people feel about his victory. But Kamala's campaign was amateur hour, comparatively (and I'd argue Biden's is barely better lol), and if we were to compare her and Warren on this metric, Warren hits far closer to the necessary performace level imho.