Re: [OT] What's next for Kamala Harris?

On 2024-11-16 01:11:31 +0000, shawn said:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:34:44 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2024-11-15 6:15 PM, shawn wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 18:02:34 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On 11/15/2024 5:00 PM, Rhino wrote:

On 2024-11-15 4:07 PM, moviePig wrote:

On 11/15/2024 3:59 PM, Rhino wrote:

Has anyone heard anything about what Harris is going to be doing
after January 20, 2025?
 She's going to be out of a job. I know her husband is a successful
lawyer so I'm sure they're not going to be homeless but I can't see
her retiring either. That would be too much like an admission of
failure or irrelevance.
 One commentator raised the possibility of her running AGAIN in 2028
but that seems improbable in the extreme. She'd need a makeover of a lifetime to make her a viable candidate or even just a likeable non-viable candidate.
 I've heard that both MSNBC and CNN are for sale - or at least
implementing severe salary cutbacks - so that lessens her chance of
getting a lucrative gig there as a host or co-host. Besides, those
would be something of a step down in status from having been VP and a presidential candidate of a major party. But maybe she'd swallow her pride and take a gig at ABC, CBS or NBC.
 I'm going to be VERY surprised if she doesn't get a book deal of some kind for her memoirs. I'm going to be astonished if it sells a lot of copies.
 I'm thinking the ideal job for her would be to be the host of a
series of educational videos for elementary school age children. She is a master of talking to everyone as if they are 4 years old but she couldn't possibly teach at any level because she can't think on her feet or adapt to changing situations, which are common in teaching, so giving her hosting duties where every word is scripted would seem right up her alley.
 Failing that, maybe her old McDonalds could give her some shifts?

 Part of the reason Harris lost is that she's not interesting enough to warrant even this sort of grave-dancing, much less a book or TV slot.
 

 A bit of sour grapes? You guys chose her! Maybe you should pick your
next candidate with criteria other than skin colour and gender....

 'Sour grapes'?  I think the applicable vernacular is 'dead horse'...

 Given the situation I'm not sure who would have been a better
candidate. There wasn't time for the full on campaign that one would
normally have if an incumbent isn't running. So falling back to the VP
seems an obvious choice. It's not to do with her skin color or gender
but her position as being the closest to the President.

 It's been well-established that the only reason she was the VP is her
gender and skin colour: competence didn't figure into it all apparently.
 For the record, I feel strongly that she did NOT lose because of her
gender and skin colour: not by a long shot. I think she might well have
won handily if she'd demonstrated any competence as VP, let alone the
Presidential candidate. But her unwillingness - or inability - to answer
any of the questions put to her along with her inability to articulate
policies or even specify anything she would do different to Biden soured
a LOT of people on her, people who would normally have voted for her
party. Add in the ludicrous demonization of Trump as a fascist and the
embodiment of Hitler and you've got more than enough to turn off a lot
of potential voters for the Democrats.

 The only calling Trump Hitler was J.D. Vance. So that should have
turned off the Republicans if they really didn't want someone calling
Trump Hitler or at least much like Hitler.

Hilter as least had the decency to kill himself, eventually ... Trump the Chumnp doesn't even reach those "heights" of "intelligence".