It looks like Willie Brown’s former mistress may be getting ready for Biden to pick her as real presidential nominee vice president nominee.
The Wikipedia page for Sen. Kamala Harris has been placed under “discretionary sanctions” after administrators discovered that the article had been edited over 500 times since early May — mostly by one user.
According to Harris’ “talk” page, where editors could discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles, the page “must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons.”
“Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous.”
The edits were first noticed by The Intercept, which reported last week on the revision history of the California Democrat’s page and the dispute between editors on the content.
After the updates from the sole user, who goes by Bnguyen1114, another editor wrote on the talk page, “You seem to have gone through a database of press releases from Harris’s office, cataloging every single one and adding it to the article. That is not how we write encyclopedic articles.”
Bnguyen1114 also removed information in Harris’ article that appeared to be critical of her record, specifically content relating to her relationship with former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.
Go here to read the rest. If this all seems Orwellian, well, that is only because it is. I did think however that the whole purpose of the Veep nomination this year was to pick someone more intelligent than Biden. In Harris they managed the difficult task of finding a politician who is on a Biden level of sheer cluelessness, as the ham-fisted attempted manipulation of Wikipedia demonstrates. I detect the hand of Doctor Jill Biden in this, she likely not wanting anyone who could stand in her way of running the country next year as Mrs. President.
I am a fan of alternate history.
This year, we are living out a version of a scenario where a post-stroke Woodrow Wilson insisted on running in 1920. And Mrs. Biden is a most eager Edith.
But I doubt Senator Harris will be the nominee, or if she is, it will be a own-goal. Tulsi Gabbard’s attacks left a permanent impression.
Probably looking at Susan Rice.
Susan Price has her own problems. She has never run for public office, and she was neck deep in the machinations of the Obama administration against President Trump. Biden backed himself in a corner with his pledge that his Veep would be a woman of color. (That formulation is amusing. Using the term colored was the polite formulation from the Civil War to World War II. Then negro came in briefly in the fifties to the mid sixties. Then blacks, Afro-Americans, African Americans and then people of color to include Hispanics and muslims who are frequently lighter in shade than I am. How long before coloreds makes a return?) Live by Identity Politics, die by Identity Politics!
This year, we are living out a version of a scenario where a post-stroke Woodrow Wilson insisted on running in 1920. And Mrs. Biden is a most eager Edith.
Yep, except that Woodrow Wilson was far brighter than Biden has ever demonstrated himself to be. I do agree the parallels with 1918-1920 and this year of punishment are a bit unnerving.
Of all the potential candidates being discussed, bad as Harris is, I don’t think she’ the worst. That honor belongs to Abrams.
woman of color
That would leave Tulsi Gabbard as an option, and probably the best of the lot. But they’ll be playing ice hockey in hell before that happens.
“Coloured” is still the legal and socially-acceptable term for people of mixed African and non-African ancestry in South Africa.
As a school teacher (and so a man in a woman’s world) I’ve had wonderful female colleagues and principals, but also met more than my share of people like Harris, Abrams and Warren: entitled scolds with delusions of significance, convinced against the evidence of their job performance that they know better than you (and you’re a male chauvinist if you won’t concede their greatness). We are always happy when they leave.
Yeah, they don’t trust her, and I think with good reason. I doubt if she believes the Leftist bilge she had to mouth in Hawaii to get elected. I suspect she is closer to Ron Paul than Nancy Pelosi.
That honor belongs to Abrams.
Now don’t be badmouthing the Governor of Georgia that way!
🙂
I have a hard time imagining Harris getting the nod precisely because of that debate video you’ve linked.
I would guess the Trump people would be giddy at the prospect. I mean, why attack Biden when his own running mate will do it for you?
He may be senile, but his people aren’t.
Best thing for Biden to do would be to break his promise and announce a running mate that adds to the ticket, not detract from it.
Best thing for Biden to do would be to break his promise and announce a running mate that adds to the ticket, not detract from it.
He won’t do that. The Democrats now believe only in two things: abortion and identity politics.
Mr. McClarey,
Correction. Demoncrats believe in four things: abortion, identity politics, I-Hate-Trump, and I-Hate-America.
A dark horse might be Lisa Jackson, the quondam EPA administrator. Don’t think she has the dirt on her that Rice and Harris do and she’s run a federal agency.
BTW, Jackson’s an engineering school graduate, and not an affirmative action project in that venue. She’s got the ‘g’. The question is, how well adapted would she be to electoral politics.
“How long before coloreds makes a return?”
I also remember the days when Negro was pushed instead of colored and then black etc.
I don’t know about “coloreds” but now the preferred term we are to use seems to be moving to “people of color.” Its alright as long as we don’t say colored people.
My bias is that the continual fiddling with nomenclature is a power move by gentry liberals and black chauvinists.
Russell Baker once recalled that when he was a youngster in Baltimore (ca. 1937), calling a man ‘black’ was fighting words. Cycle forward about 35 years, and it was standard vernacular, with ‘negro’ being somewhat stilted and found in newspaper style books only (and ‘colored’ a term you seldom heard from people born after the 1st World War). “People of color” appeared around 1984 among the SJWs of that era and “African-American” appeared rather abruptly in 1989, promoted by Jesse Jackson. I remember a newspaper op-ed exchange at the time between Edmund Morris and Roger Wilkins on the subject. Morris offered that he was born and raised in Kenya and went to school in South Africa, so he actually was an ‘African-American’ and he didn’t think much of the term. Roger Wilkins yammers about how he’d seen this and that in Africa and how when he heard this and that ‘I knew I’d come home’. It never occurred to Wilkins that if Ronald Reagan visited some random location between Tipperary and Vladivostok and later announced he’d ‘come home’, it would be dismissed as a silly remark. Now the latest power move is to start capitalizing ‘black’. Screw them all.
Its alright as long as we don’t say colored people.
The subject of a Bloom County cartoon a generation ago.
About 98% of the racial conflict in this country is generated by (1) lawyers, (2) politicians, (3) school administrators, (4) faculty members, (5) freelance boors, and (6) hoodlums. These people are a cancer, and they don’t make up even 2% of the population. The solution is to load them all on barges and point the barges in the general direction of Western Europe.
“Woman of color” lots of wiggle room there. In other words any woman who is not Caucasian aka white.
Tulsi is part Samoan though her father. Born in American Samoa. She is a smart gal. Drawbacks for Dem VP: somewhat pro-life and worked for her father’s organization promoting Marriage (1 man 1 woman) and family. Her father was a Republican but realized he had to be a Democrat to get elected to any office in Hawaii.