Kamala Harris Meets With Clinton Donors

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Ok a few things:

1. I don't love the idea of going to the donors first
2. Why is this a "Clinton donors" story. Did they not also give money to Obama, Warren, Feingold, etc? It's absurd that Clinton is the tag given to everybody.

Kempner is an honest to goodness Clinton loyalist. He was a bundler for Bill, a bundler for HRC '08 and 16. He organized this meet.

He also bundled for Obama '12, but that was about the Clinton machine coming onside and securing her position as the heir apparent.

[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.

[Beet]

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.

[McGovernForPrez]

Kamala Harris is the Democrats Marco Rubio

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

People that Michael Kempner also donated *large* amounts of money to last cycle:

Jason Kander
Tim Kaine
Amy Klobuchar
Chuck Schumer
#ClimbingMaggie
Ann Kirkpatrick
Michael Bennett
DWS
Richard Blumenthal

And his local Congressman, Josh Gottheimer


Make of that what you will.

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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I think it's entirely fair to describe Kempner as a Clinton donor. The amount that he donated to HFA and the Hillary Victory Fund far outclassed whatever he donated to anyone else.

This is also not confirmation that Harris is running for President, or that if she does it's with the full backing of the Clinton network.

These views are not mutually exclusive.

[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.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Can we please stop comparing Harris to Clinton and Rubio? Kamala is far more competent and left-wing than Hillary, and has bigger brains and balls than lil Marco. Comparing a candidate to Marco Rubio is just Atlas' way of saying they have an irrational hatred of them.

[McGovernForPrez]

Can we please stop comparing Harris to Clinton and Rubio? Kamala is far more competent and left-wing than Hillary, and has bigger brains and balls than lil Marco. Comparing a candidate to Marco Rubio is just Atlas' way of saying they have an irrational hatred of them.

No it's Atlas' way of saying they're a paper tiger. I like Harris and think she's a great fit for the California electorate. However, I think that if she runs she'll fall flat on her face despite all the hype surrounding her.

[Beet]

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.

Sorry, she was a nobody in the Obama wing. It wasn't until after she started hiring Clinton staffers (in mid-'08) that her career took off. As of today, she's firmly in the Clinton wing, as this news article shows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Her spokesman and press secretaries are both Clinton former HRC '16 staffers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hillary officially stayed neutral in that race because her opponent, Sanchez, had House Dems supporting her who she would need if elected. But Feinstein and Boxer both endorsed Harris; it's clear Hillary wanted Harris. Sanchez didn't even endorse Clinton!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Before Maya Harris worked on the Clinton campaign, she worked at the Center for American Progress, John Podesta and Neera Tanden's shop. Anyway, it seems you have an axe to grind... trying to make me dislike Harris even more? Why? Absurd.

[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.

[Higgins]

My issue with Harris is she strikes me as a light weight ala Rubio. A great candidate on paper. Good speeches, good looking, but lacking that "it" factor. Lacking a certain charisma and substance to her that great candidates and Presidential electees have. Trump, whether one supports or hates him, had that it factor. She would make a good cabinet secretary, or a good Veep, but if she runs, we'll lose again. There's something fake about her.

[Jeppe]

My issue with Harris is she strikes me as a light weight ala Rubio. A great candidate on paper. Good speeches, good looking, but lacking that "it" factor. Lacking a certain charisma and substance to her that great candidates and Presidential electees have. Trump, whether one supports or hates him, had that it factor. She would make a good cabinet secretary, or a good Veep, but if she runs, we'll lose again. There's something fake about her.

I completely disagree. I think she's the strongest candidate we have. She has a presidential quality that only Obama has had in recent times. I think if she runs, she'd probably win the Democratic primary pretty easily unless a party elder like Biden ran, which is unlikely.

[Beet]

@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.

[Higgins]

Can we please stop comparing Harris to Clinton and Rubio? Kamala is far more competent and left-wing than Hillary, and has bigger brains and balls than lil Marco. Comparing a candidate to Marco Rubio is just Atlas' way of saying they have an irrational hatred of them.

No it's Atlas' way of saying they're a paper tiger. I like Harris and think she's a great fit for the California electorate. However, I think that if she runs she'll fall flat on her face despite all the hype surrounding her.

This. I don't hate her, I just don't see any substance. I see hype and a candidate who is perfect on paper, but little else.

[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

[Da2017]

@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.
[/quote]


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
[/quote]

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.

[Beet]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[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. 

[Mr. Morden]

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.

It depends on how you’re defining the divisions within the party.  I’d say there are three main things that differentiated Sanders from Clinton:

1) Position on the ideological spectrum.  Clinton and Sanders disagreed on a number of policy positions, which (at least on economics and foreign policy) largely put Sanders to the left of Clinton.

2) Issue emphasis.  Sanders focused heavily on economic issues, whereas Clinton’s policy focus was more diffuse, with her spending more time (at least compared to Sanders) talking about social issues and foreign policy issues.

3) Establishment vs. anti-establishment (or partisanship vs. ideology).  Clinton was more establishmentarian and more of a supporter of the Democratic Party as an institution.  (I mean, Sanders even identifies as an Indy rather than a Dem.)

Not all of these three things necessarily have to go together.  In 2020, we’ll presumably see many more permutations along these three axes.  E.g., on domestic policy at least, Sanders and Warren agree on almost everything, and, at least recently, Gillibrand also agrees with them on almost everything.  (She’s co-sponsoring practically every bill that Sanders has his name on.)  If the three of them were to debate, what would they even disagree on?

So on the ideological axis, at least if you believe what they’re saying today, there’s very little difference.  But Sanders and Warren put far more emphasis on economic issues, while Gillibrand is the uber-feminist SJW.  (Though she has recently spent more time trying to tie this feminism into bread and butter economic issues.)

Gillibrand’s also a lot more “partisan” and “establishmentarian” than Sanders is, while Warren is perhaps somewhere in between.

[Beet]

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. 
[/quote]

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.

[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.

[TheLeftwardTide]

Kamala Harris is the Democrats Marco Rubio

A young, relatively attractive minority with the establishment's blessing, who the majority of America doesn't care about?

That's actully a really good point. Main difference is that Harris is a woman and isn't from a swing state.