75
Not Now, Kamala
(www.thecut.com)
Is this the sort of thing that’s going to get Gen Z excited about progressive politics? I doubt it. I’m no 17-year-old, but when social media is filled with videos of masked immigration officers indiscriminately attacking protesters and separating children from their families, I don’t think what young people want is a “progressive content hub.” I might be going out on a limb here, but I think what Gen Z wants is for their elected officials to do something that actually helps their constituents. Does this feel like the right time for a Substack essay?
It's starting to feel like whoever is behind her political planning is the same person behind Hillary Clinton's and now I'm wondering if that person is getting their ideas from someone determined to torpedo the U.S. political landscape with constant cringe and feelings of helplessness.
Remember this? Ugh...
It's still probably David Brock/Media Matters, the one that helped give us Clarence Thomas by smearing Anita Hill and smeared Bernie in 2016.
It's either that or the way people perceive female politicians is slanted.
Would that be an excuse if it was true? You knew everyone hated a candidate, but nominated them anyway?
The logic involved is beyond stupid, and flat out wrong, and everyone knows it. Justifying nominated someone that can't win is not excused by their minority status, no matter why people rejected them. And given that Hillary was rejected by white woman, and kamala by blacks, and woman, it makes the argument even dumber.
Or, you know, neoliberal ghouls are unpopular no matter their gender. Have you considered that possibility?
Sure, it's possible you didn't like either woman who gained the Democratic nomination for President both times it happened, but you'll give the third a fair shake. Anything is possible.
As an outsider with high vested interest in American politics, without a doubt both Kamala and Hillary were better than the Republican alternative in 2016 and 2020, but I would hope they were not the best the Democrats have to offer (which could very well be a woman), and they were rather forced onto the electorate which has the air of unearned inevitability, to say the least.
The country still should have voted for them.
Obama was a better choice than Hillary for the Dem nomination though.
Would you say they were ghouls?
Uhhh no.
Again outsider perspective: I think Hillary is perhaps the most representative of American pragmatism, and probably a ball buster in her interactions. Kamala seems a bit gentle, I guess, for lack of a better word.
As is typical of American politics and in particular Democrats, it's difficult to pin down beliefs or predict what they will actually do in office, and it always looked like status quo based on corporate donors. But status quo is still better than fascism.
In the end I don't think Obama performed much better than Hillary would have. He had a lot of promise but for whatever reason - constraints, his real personality, whatever - he let a lot of people down as well.
Why do you think I liked the men that got the Democratic nomination for president?
Probably because of their balls.*
*You set yourself up for that one.
For the love of cod...Kamala Harris is not a "progressive". These fucks just keep pretending to be something they're not, and then can't understand why people aren't buying it. Either walk the talk, or shut the fuck up.
Oh my god the username literally has “67” in it to try and be hip
Fuck alllllll the way off you unserious ghoul
69 > 67
/facepalm
I don't know if she's gonna run, but unless someone like a Mamdani shows up at the national level, it's likely we will be stuck with the usual suspects, her included.
Sigh.
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
75 points (95.2% liked)
politics
28197 readers
3274 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS