This is exactly, EXACTLY the tone and the vocabulary that the Soviet press used to write about the Secretary General of the Communist Party:
The only difference is that the Soviet journalists who wrote like this didn’t have a choice. The whole weight of a totalitarian regime pushed them to do it. Americans, on the other hand, gave away their free press completely willingly.
Also, Harris can’t even find a non-fake pose for a staged photoshoot. Look at the hands. Whoever sits like this in real life?
What an incredibly fake, vapid person. This fawning over her is especially galling given what an utter non-entity she is.
Clarissa's Blog 
The more non-entity the candidate, the better the candidate for election purposes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Absolutely, if she’s an empty vessel, people fill it with their own meaning, seeing all sorts of their fantasies come true on that blank screen. This is a great failing of democracy. Politicians have to make themselves attractive to dumb people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m all for limiting the franchise again, for this reason.
Not confident what the limitation should be. The Founders made it property ownership, which at the time, was as good a proxy as any, for shrewdness. Vapid idjits could own property, but found it difficult to hold onto… so the percentage of voters who had some idea how things worked was much higher, through that expedient.
Not sure if it would work now.
Literacy tests are subject to corruption in those doing the administering.
Land ownership is, of course, not the best metric in an environment where non-citizens and corporations can own land, but if those things were made illegal… maybe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In your effort to sound non-partisan, your recent posts are focusing on non-issues like postures, appearance and slogans — things which you have denounced stridently (and correctly) in the past.
LikeLike
There’s no effort. I’m very sincere when I say I don’t like either candidate. I don’t know why people find it so hard to believe. Millions of people will not vote for this exact reason. There are so many of us. Why is it hard to believe in our existence?
As for Harris, I’d love to criticize her on substance but I haven’t been able to find out what it is. In a couple of recent interviews (The View and Colbert, for example), she was asked which of the Biden policies she supports and which she would change. No answer was forthcoming. There’s nothing to address because she’s not saying anything.
Harris seems to be suggesting that she changed her mind completely on pretty much everything except abortion. Or maybe she didn’t because it’s unclear. Has anybody been able to figure it out? I honestly haven’t.
LikeLike
It isn’t about not believing in non-partishanship, it’s about demonstrating and articulating it with cogent reasons instead of objecting to Trump saying “America is failing” or how Harris is posing for photographs. Appealing to such non-issues sounds like contrived neutrality not non-bipartisanship.
Also, I don’t quite agree that there is no avenue to judge her take/view on crucial issues OR do a a direct comparison of the two candidates on common ground. For instance, Harris has been consistently emptyheaded or misguided in her pronouncements on Israel-Gaza conflict. From foreign diplomacy point of view, she says banalities such as “Israel-Gaza is not binary issue”. This lack of clarity in a candidate aiming for the top job to lead a world superpoweror like the US in these difficult times is egregious and concerning! In contrast, Trump administration has the record of pulling off a seminal breakthrough in terms of brokering peace in the Middle East with Abraham Accords . I am not saying hence one should vote for Trump or not (I cannot!) but at least it is a concrete point of comparison and discussion.
It maybe more worthwhile to discuss points you raise about Kamala in your comment above than her photo ops! There are anyway very few avenues for coherent political discourse on the web, your blog being one of them — hence the comment, no offense intended.
LikeLike
You think these journalists have a choice? Not if they want to continue working in journalism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s not a large, impersonal power that will punish them if they don’t participate. It’s their own colleagues. We are seeing it right now with the journalist who asked a couple of pointed questions of Ta-Nehisi Coates. His colleagues are attacking him and trying to destroy him. The results are on them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True. But Americans are soft. They view loss of career as death.
That’ll change, hopefully, but… journalism is for spineless bootlickers right now. At least in the MSM. Everyone who wants to do real journalism has already decamped for the indie market.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look no further than the socialist Sanders!
LikeLike