Kamala Harris can't keep staff

American Thinker ^ | 19 May, 2021 | Monica Showalter

[MtnClimber]

Not exactly what anyone would call a leader.

Steven Hayward at Power Line has a prescient observation about the unflattering exposé of Kamala Harris that ran in The Atlantic two days ago:

[P]erhaps the most revealing tidbit in the whole article, though it may not be evident to the casual reader:

Harris has been an elected official for 18 years straight, but she has only a few senior aides on staff who have worked for her for more than a few months. Turf battles have been a recurring feature of Harris offices over the years, but her newest circle believes it is finally getting her on track after years of past staffers not serving her well. Some have been surprised at how much work there is to be done, whether that's briefing her on certain policy issues or helping her improve her sparring-with-journalists skills.

The problem isn't "turf battles." It is always a bad sign when a politician can't good keep staff (or any staff), and Harris has long been known for being a terrible boss, going back to her time as California Attorney General. When you can't keep eager political staff ...

Briefing her on policy issues? Hard to do when she's such a lazy person, interested only in wokester posturing, talking about her "story," posing for Vogue photo spreads, thrilling the crochet circles, or whining about her home decorating dilemmas. Policy to Kamala is for the birds.

Hayward is right about politicians who can't keep good staff on hand and that being a bad reflection on their capacity to lead. Eric Hoffer once noted that the reason Stalin was able to best Trotsky for the supreme leadership of the Soviet dictatorship was because of his capacity to retain the loyalty of a group of able lieutenants.

[Valpal1]

You are not wrong.

[Honorary Serb]

Neither biden nor harris is fit to lead!!!!

And they got their positions via a stolen election!!!

Away with them!!!!

[Carriage Hill]

She isn’t known as “Willie Brown’s Mattress”, for nothing.

[JonPreston]

Bobbing for Willie.

[LizzieD]

In 2016, Kamala Harris was running against Loretta Sanchez for Barbara Boxer’s senate seat - thanks to the jungle primary, there was not a Republican on the ballot. Took a cruise in September that year, and happened to be seated for dinner one night with a group from San Diego that included a recently retired state DA. Though I would ordinarily avoid politics under the circumstances, the fact that both candidates were Dems opened it up for discussion. When I asked him who he would support, he said - point blank - that Kamala Harris was THE REASON he retired.

[Ann Archy]

She’s Willie Brown’s CHEW TOY!

[blackdog]

The bloom is certainly off of that rose.

[george76]

Kamala’s own party did not want her.. she received 2% of the vote.

[NEMDF]

I sort of agree with you, but also think that she has been surprised and frustrated, that those who are running the country, leave her completely out of the process. She probably is smart enough to see the writing on the wall, that they will make sure she never serves as President, no matter how inept Joe becomes. She must know that, even if she ends up holding the title for a few days, she will be no more in charge of anything than Joe is.