Kamala Harris Meets With Clinton Donors

[Possiblymaybe]

It's the NY post ... I am seeing all these think pieces about how she's definetly been chosen by Clinton backers- based on this story- and I wonder when did political commentators start taking page six seriously?

Well apparently she had never met them before this weekend and they are doing events for several other democrats. It doesn't seem to as be as big a deal as the post made it seem.. As usual


“Senator Harris has made a strong impression in her first months as senator,” Kempner, who runs MWW, told InsiderNJ. “So, I’m excited to host her and see firsthand why so many people I respect are fans of hers. I also look forward to hosting many other prominent Democrats over the coming months.

“As for me, I believe it is way too early to be speculating about 2020,” added Kempner. “I am staying focused on the 2018 House and Senate races, key Governors races in 2017 and 2018 and critical legislative races across the country where we can defend or flip legislatures. Right now, there are few things more important than stopping the rampant voter suppression and gerrymandering being orchestrated by Republicans coast to coast.”

source is insidernj.com ( not allowed to post links yet)

[Possiblymaybe]

It's the NY post ... I am seeing all these think pieces about how she's definetly been chosen by Clinton backers- based on this story- and I wonder when did political commentators start taking page six seriously?

I’m not sure what you mean about taking Page Six seriously.  Harris’s meeting with these folks definitely happened.  Page Six broke the story (I think), but other outlets have now reported it too.  E.g.:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that’s a misreading of the significance of the event.  There’s nothing to indicate that this meeting means that Harris is now the favorite of Democratic donors.  The Post didn’t say that, and if others are inferring that from this story, then they’re wrong.  The significance of the story is that it’s a signal of Harris’s own ambitions: That she’s looking towards national office.

I was really referring to all the think pieces a result of this story- the notion that "the establishment has united behind her". Well there's more to the establishment than these individuals. We got the biggest democratic donor out there saying people should back Sanders for instance.
I don't doubt her ambition but keep in mind she's a west coast politician.When Gillibrand or Booker attends a fundraiser in Hollywood, sure it means they are expanding their network but I don't think you can instantly conclude they are definitely running in 2020.

As for those Clinton donors there was a story in the NY post awhile back that Gillibrand had reached out to them for support implied  she was testing the waters for 2020.

[Possiblymaybe]

Kempner may be a Clinton loyalist but he's given money to everyone from Warren to Kander to Klobuchar and Gillibrand and a whole bunch of others.There is certainly no reason to think he's gonna throw all his money at Harris just because he hosted her once.

The reality is that even the most progressive politicans have attended fundraisers with wealthy individuals. Bernie has certainly attended fundraisers in Martha's Vineyard with the majority trust for instance. To a lesser and bigger degree every single politican at that level does this. So its more a question of the extent to which its happening than expecting these people to never attend fundraisers. And Harris is certainly not steeped in Wall Street and big Pharma money like a few others I can think of.

If it's the Clinton association that sets people off, then well, the clintons themselves have given money to tons of campaigns even progressives (Nina Turner) and if I am not mistaken they gave money to Bernie at some point as well. This donor thing is a lot more nuanced then people make it.

Also according to the link Mr Morden posted she was raising money for 2018 and the people who are up for reelection.

[Possiblymaybe]

Harris is really testing me. On the one hand, I detest her personally. On the other hand, her connections to Clinton donors, endorsement of Hillary last year, support from the Democratic establishment, and closeness to the Clinton machine (her sister Maya being a top level Clinton campaign official) would be a mitigating factor if she were to win the nod. Sort of a vindication for the Clinton wing after all the "Sanders woulda won" BS.

If Harris got the nod it would be a win for the Obama wing so its probably safe to go back to detesting her.

She's not really close to the Clinton machine to my knowledge, her meeting with Clintons circle was described as a first. Harris didnt endorse Clinton in 08. I'd say she's probably closer to Warren than Clinton. Warren along with Obama was her big name endorsement for senate. I dont think Hillary even endorsed her?  I know her sister maya worked the clinton campaign but she isn't a long time enployee like most of the people Clinton surrounds herself with. Mayas husband was associate attorney general under Obama.

[Possiblymaybe]

@Beet

I am not trying to make you dislike anyone, it was a joke.
I can't say I agree that one meeting with clintons circle means she is firmly in the Clinton wing or that they will definitely back her. It means she's expanding her network.
She definitely has strong connections to the Obama wing, as a personal friend and as co chair on obamas 2008 election campaign, and as one of the first democrats to endorse Obama, when Pelosi, Brown, Boxer,Feinstein, Newsomeand all other California democrats endorsed Hillary.
She also helped Warren on her election campaign back in 2012.
She's not a Clinton surrogate like Booker who publicly called for Sanders to concede. Harris, when asked,said, that's for Sanders to decide.
Meeting with the Clinton wing is nothing more than coalition building at this point.
Let me put it this way, if Harris, Booker and Gillibrand all run I am pretty sure the Obama wing would endorse Harris ( he's already name droppped her as one of the party's future leaders) I am not entirely sure that the Hillary wing would back Harris, they could easily go for Booker or Gillibrand.

[Possiblymaybe]

@Beet
I am not trying to make you dislike anyone, it was a joke.
I can't say I agree that one meeting with clintons circle means she is firmly in the Clinton wing or that they will definitely back her. It means she's expanding her network.
She definitely has strong connections to the Obama wing, as a personal friend and as co chair on obamas 2008 election campaign, and as one of the first democrats to endorse Obama, when Pelosi, Brown, Boxer,Feinstein, Newsomeand all other California democrats endorsed Hillary.
She also helped Warren on her election campaign back in 2012.
She's not a Clinton surrogate like Booker who publicly called for Sanders to concede. Harris, when asked,said, that's for Sanders to decide.
Meeting with the Clinton wing is nothing more than coalition building at this point.
Let me put it this way, if Harris, Booker and Gillibrand all run I am pretty sure the Obama wing would endorse Harris ( he's already name droppped her as one of the party's future leaders) I am not entirely sure that the Hillary wing would back Harris, they could easily go for Booker or Gillibrand.

No one except Booker and a very few called for Sanders to drop out. Even Clinton wasn't calling for Sanders to drop out. In 2008 her endorsement can't be compared to party elders because she was a no-name, whereas they had to balance competing relationships. The main divide in the party now is between the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing. The 2008 divisions are irrelevant. The Obama wing is a part of the Clinton wing now. Harris clearly endorsed Clinton, very early in the primaries. Most of her supporters were Clinton backers in the CA primary, Sanders backers favored Sanchez. Clinton's connections with Harris through staffers are more solid than to Booker or Gillibrand. Gillibrand endorsed single-payer, which Clinton said would "never happen". As for Booker, he was close to Clinton last year, but I'm not sure how he feels after she snubbed him for VP.

Look I am not saying she doesn't have some connections just that it's way premature to say she has the backing or is firmly in the Clinton wing.
The thing about staffers is sort of irrelevant there are plenty of former Clinton staffers who works for other democrats too.
Sanders didn't endorse anyone in California. Sanchez was a terrible candidate nobody in their right mind would have wanted her to win the senate seat. Gillibrand and Booker have a long history with Clinton, she's been a mentor to Gillibrand.
Yes, Harris met with the Clinton wing at this recent event but one of the first things she did as a senator was host an event with Bernie. She's also tweeted something to the effect of Bernie being an important voice.  So my reading is she's trying to stay out of that power struggle. Theres also the fact that she would probably run a fair bit to the left of the Clinton lane

[Possiblymaybe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one except Booker and a very few called for Sanders to drop out. Even Clinton wasn't calling for Sanders to drop out. In 2008 her endorsement can't be compared to party elders because she was a no-name, whereas they had to balance competing relationships. The main divide in the party now is between the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing. The 2008 divisions are irrelevant. The Obama wing is a part of the Clinton wing now. Harris clearly endorsed Clinton, very early in the primaries. Most of her supporters were Clinton backers in the CA primary, Sanders backers favored Sanchez. Clinton's connections with Harris through staffers are more solid than to Booker or Gillibrand. Gillibrand endorsed single-payer, which Clinton said would "never happen". As for Booker, he was close to Clinton last year, but I'm not sure how he feels after she snubbed him for VP.

Look I am not saying she doesn't have some connections just that it's way premature to say she has the backing or is firmly in the Clinton wing.
The thing about staffers is sort of irrelevant there are plenty of former Clinton staffers who works for other democrats too.
Sanders didn't endorse anyone in California. Sanchez was a terrible candidate nobody in their right mind would have wanted her to win the senate seat. Gillibrand and Booker have a long history with Clinton, she's been a mentor to Gillibrand.
Yes, Harris met with the Clinton wing at this recent event but one of the first things she did as a senator was host an event with Bernie. She's also tweeted something to the effect of Bernie being an important voice.  So my reading is she's trying to stay out of that power struggle. Theres also the fact that she would probably run a fair bit to the left of the Clinton lane

That's why I think Harris would be one of the better candidates. She will get the Clinton and Sanders wing to come together. She has more charisma than Hillary.

All of them are pandering to Sanders now, but only Warren is arguably in the Sanders wing. Maybe Gillibrand due to her position on health care. Merkley would be there if he ran, as he's the only one who actually endorsed Sanders in the primary. The others are all Clinton wing. Of course the Clinton wing is being nice to Sanders now as he represents a large chunk of the party.
[/quote]

I don't think she's in the sanders wing because of single payer. She's basically been backed by the Clinton wing financially and otherwise since she ran for senate almost a decade ago. Harris also supports single payer. Bernie and Warren have put it firmly on the agenda again but to be fair democrats have been trying to push through single payer for decades.  It's shouldn't be credited to any wing in my opinion. 

[Possiblymaybe]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one except Booker and a very few called for Sanders to drop out. Even Clinton wasn't calling for Sanders to drop out. In 2008 her endorsement can't be compared to party elders because she was a no-name, whereas they had to balance competing relationships. The main divide in the party now is between the Clinton wing and the Sanders wing. The 2008 divisions are irrelevant. The Obama wing is a part of the Clinton wing now. Harris clearly endorsed Clinton, very early in the primaries. Most of her supporters were Clinton backers in the CA primary, Sanders backers favored Sanchez. Clinton's connections with Harris through staffers are more solid than to Booker or Gillibrand. Gillibrand endorsed single-payer, which Clinton said would "never happen". As for Booker, he was close to Clinton last year, but I'm not sure how he feels after she snubbed him for VP.

Look I am not saying she doesn't have some connections just that it's way premature to say she has the backing or is firmly in the Clinton wing.
The thing about staffers is sort of irrelevant there are plenty of former Clinton staffers who works for other democrats too.
Sanders didn't endorse anyone in California. Sanchez was a terrible candidate nobody in their right mind would have wanted her to win the senate seat. Gillibrand and Booker have a long history with Clinton, she's been a mentor to Gillibrand.
Yes, Harris met with the Clinton wing at this recent event but one of the first things she did as a senator was host an event with Bernie. She's also tweeted something to the effect of Bernie being an important voice.  So my reading is she's trying to stay out of that power struggle. Theres also the fact that she would probably run a fair bit to the left of the Clinton lane

That's why I think Harris would be one of the better candidates. She will get the Clinton and Sanders wing to come together. She has more charisma than Hillary.

All of them are pandering to Sanders now, but only Warren is arguably in the Sanders wing. Maybe Gillibrand due to her position on health care. Merkley would be there if he ran, as he's the only one who actually endorsed Sanders in the primary. The others are all Clinton wing. Of course the Clinton wing is being nice to Sanders now as he represents a large chunk of the party.

I don't think she's in the sanders wing because of single payer. She's basically been backed by the Clinton wing financially and otherwise since she ran for senate almost a decade ago. Harris also supports single payer. Bernie and Warren have put it firmly on the agenda again but to be fair democrats have been trying to push through single payer for decades.  It's shouldn't be credited to any wing in my opinion. 

Harris didn't support it in her home state when the chips were down. She could have used her clout to help get it passed but didn't. A bigger tell for Harris as a Clintonite politician may be that her message is complex. While she can be prodded into endorsing Medicare for All as a long term solution, it sounds like she gets dragged into it rather than something she really believes in; she is much more comfortable talking about expanding coverage and protecting Obamacare. That is quite the contrast from Sanders/Warren type politicians. I don't see how a Harris primary win in 2020 could be seen as anything but a vindication for Clinton-style politics, and Clinton-style politicians, after all the sturm and drang of 2016/17 with Sanders.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, which is one of Gillibrand's biggest problems.
[/quote


The stuff about the single payer bill was said on some podcast, pod save America if I am not mistaken - before single payer was killed in California.She was pretty enthusiastic about Medicare for all so I don't get the sense that she was dragged into it. The Atlantic did an article a few days ago and mentioned her and Gillibrand and it seems more people picked up on it after that.
My reading of Harris is she has position herself somewhere in between Clinton and Sanders. I don't see many similarities with Clinton. I would say Klobuchar gives me more of a clintonesque vibe.