We are all distraught by the outcome. Searching for the place to lay blame is normal (see every post on Substack since Wednesday.) Calling out the women on the campaign and other extremely influential women as useless, at fault, and clearly not anywhere close to the value of men like Rogan (insert whatever brocast here) is just not it. If TS chose to invest her considerable fortune or influence in a future democratic candidate or creation of a better messaging/media program, no doubt she would be tremendously valuable. I’m guessing you will be spared the agony of seeing Katy Perry again. Would seeing Bruce Springsteen, Willy Nelson or any of the many other male celebrities been equally offensive? The misogyny is part of the problem.
Kamala Harris had 107 days to mount a campaign. She was regularly traveling between 2-3 states and doing 15 to 16 hour days. Since Biden’s fundraising had been so dismal, the VP also had to do extensive fundraising. She also had to revamp Biden’s campaign infrastructure, hire new people, vet a running mate, and help run the country. The Call Me Daddy interview was literally taped during the same week that the VP was juggling the response to Hurricane Helene and acting in her official capacity. She went to North Carolina almost immediately afterwards to survey the damage and to help with relief efforts. That’s part of the reason why the interview was so short. The VP was not asking for special treatment - she was trying to do everything as best as she could on a very compressed time schedule.
Donald Trump has been running for President for 9 years, does not have a day job, and could waste a whole day with Joe Rogan. The VP did not have that luxury. The expectations for male and female politicians are also completely different, and Harris would have been lambasted by the media if she showed up without makeup and in her pajamas (as you suggest).
I’m usually a fan of yours, Keith, but the optics of this post (i.e., you, a white gay man telling a woman of color how to present herself), are incredibly problematic. In fact, any critique of this election that does not acknowledge the reality of misogyny and white supremacy misses the mark.
I had similar thoughts while reading Keith's post. While, I agree with a lot of your points, especially the pajama one, I am hoping that this is just one point of many that will be made in the future. While I agree that misogyny and racism are the largest factors that determined this election, I think it is okay to step back and look at other problems, because there were quite a few.
Now is not the time to make excuses for why certain things, such as the Call Me Daddy podcast, were executed the way they were. As a leader, you should be able to do your day job as well as campaign without special treatment or restrictions, especially if the opposing candidate, regardless of the reason, is doing so. This was not demonstrated as well as it should have been by the Harris campaign and conjecture about why this was the case is not important. It still happened.
Also, out of all of the celebrities that could have been at the rally in Pittsburgh the day before the election, Katy Perry was not the choice that should have been made. You made a point about misogyny and Katy Perry basically has been "cancelled" because she had no qualms about working with an alleged rapist with very credible allegations against him and who very purposefully ruined another woman's career. Whoever it was on Harris's team that thought it was a good idea for her to appear really didn't care about misogyny or the message having Perry on stage might send. Or, at best, did not do their research.
Regardless, this was Keith's first post and while I think it could have been worded differently, I am sure he will get to the heart of the issues surrounding the current political situation. Not every post needs to focus on the same factor when there are so many to cover.
Respectfully: No modern presidential candidate in recent history has ever put together a campaign from start to finish in 107 days while simultaneously doing their day job. It is likely that no other presidential candidate *will* ever have to do what the VP did. I don't think it's "making excuses," or asking for special treatment to acknowledge this as a fact. The VP's daily schedule is/was posted publicly every day. When I said that the logistics for the Call Her Daddy podcast were complicated by hurricane relief efforts, it's because I remember reading her daily schedule briefings and seeing that she was going from the podcast to hurricane briefings. The VP was also getting pushback from folks in the media (including Bethenny Frankel) for even doing the podcast at all that week, because they thought the "optics" of having the VP do the show while people were suffering looked insensitive. If the VP had traveled to do the interview and sat there for multiple hours, people would have complained about *that.*
That being said, I think it's fair to critique whether certain celebrities (i.e., Katy Perry) should have been asked for endorsements. But I think at this point, we're all just arguing about the placement of deck chairs on the Titanic. The *real* issue here is that Joe Biden probably shouldn't have run for re-election, or he should have dropped out sooner than he did (so we could have an actual primary). Racism and sexism aside, I think the VP just didn't have enough time to define herself with low-information voters in swing states.
There is no need to use the word "respectfully." I 100% respect your comments and respect your reply to my reply. I have not been able to to communicate about this election and have avoided the news since Wednesday morning. My reply to you was basically my first time expressing any thoughts and feelings towards this whole mess. Also, reading Keith's post was the first thing I've read about the election since Wednesday as well. I allowed myself to watch John Oliver tonight and it was rough to do, however, I am thinking a little clearer now and he said a lot of what you are saying. I'm not sure if you are into his show, but I definitely recommend tonight's episode. It was nice to hear someone talking instead of having to have a back and forth conversation.
Also, I do agree with what you are saying about Harris not having enough time. The point I was trying to make is that, sadly, that didn't matter because of the optics, right or wrong, that came from giving parameters to the brocast people or to Call Her Daddy, etc. and of course, the fact that she was a woman of color also played into this. I know the issues are intertwined, but I think dissecting them separately and then thinking about them as a whole will be helpful, because 107 days was not enough time to do so.
What you say makes lot of sense. In retrospect, though I thought Kamala's campaign was great, I can see the problems as you point them out.
At the same time, I don't believe the vote totals. I think there was some funny business with recording the votes accurately. It was supposed to be a close race. Not only the polls said so but a lot of election experts. The vote totals should have been much closer. Even if Trump won he should not have won by 4 million votes.
It’s not either/or. You could actually do both. I do not see any evidence here or anyway that Taylor took away votes. And I can imagine the blow back if Taylor endorsed someone and they said, No thanks. Plus, I’m not claiming cause and effect, but Beyonce endorsed Harris and black women held strong.
We are all distraught by the outcome. Searching for the place to lay blame is normal (see every post on Substack since Wednesday.) Calling out the women on the campaign and other extremely influential women as useless, at fault, and clearly not anywhere close to the value of men like Rogan (insert whatever brocast here) is just not it. If TS chose to invest her considerable fortune or influence in a future democratic candidate or creation of a better messaging/media program, no doubt she would be tremendously valuable. I’m guessing you will be spared the agony of seeing Katy Perry again. Would seeing Bruce Springsteen, Willy Nelson or any of the many other male celebrities been equally offensive? The misogyny is part of the problem.
I agree 💯
Kamala Harris had 107 days to mount a campaign. She was regularly traveling between 2-3 states and doing 15 to 16 hour days. Since Biden’s fundraising had been so dismal, the VP also had to do extensive fundraising. She also had to revamp Biden’s campaign infrastructure, hire new people, vet a running mate, and help run the country. The Call Me Daddy interview was literally taped during the same week that the VP was juggling the response to Hurricane Helene and acting in her official capacity. She went to North Carolina almost immediately afterwards to survey the damage and to help with relief efforts. That’s part of the reason why the interview was so short. The VP was not asking for special treatment - she was trying to do everything as best as she could on a very compressed time schedule.
Donald Trump has been running for President for 9 years, does not have a day job, and could waste a whole day with Joe Rogan. The VP did not have that luxury. The expectations for male and female politicians are also completely different, and Harris would have been lambasted by the media if she showed up without makeup and in her pajamas (as you suggest).
I’m usually a fan of yours, Keith, but the optics of this post (i.e., you, a white gay man telling a woman of color how to present herself), are incredibly problematic. In fact, any critique of this election that does not acknowledge the reality of misogyny and white supremacy misses the mark.
Excellent points.
I had similar thoughts while reading Keith's post. While, I agree with a lot of your points, especially the pajama one, I am hoping that this is just one point of many that will be made in the future. While I agree that misogyny and racism are the largest factors that determined this election, I think it is okay to step back and look at other problems, because there were quite a few.
Now is not the time to make excuses for why certain things, such as the Call Me Daddy podcast, were executed the way they were. As a leader, you should be able to do your day job as well as campaign without special treatment or restrictions, especially if the opposing candidate, regardless of the reason, is doing so. This was not demonstrated as well as it should have been by the Harris campaign and conjecture about why this was the case is not important. It still happened.
Also, out of all of the celebrities that could have been at the rally in Pittsburgh the day before the election, Katy Perry was not the choice that should have been made. You made a point about misogyny and Katy Perry basically has been "cancelled" because she had no qualms about working with an alleged rapist with very credible allegations against him and who very purposefully ruined another woman's career. Whoever it was on Harris's team that thought it was a good idea for her to appear really didn't care about misogyny or the message having Perry on stage might send. Or, at best, did not do their research.
Regardless, this was Keith's first post and while I think it could have been worded differently, I am sure he will get to the heart of the issues surrounding the current political situation. Not every post needs to focus on the same factor when there are so many to cover.
Respectfully: No modern presidential candidate in recent history has ever put together a campaign from start to finish in 107 days while simultaneously doing their day job. It is likely that no other presidential candidate *will* ever have to do what the VP did. I don't think it's "making excuses," or asking for special treatment to acknowledge this as a fact. The VP's daily schedule is/was posted publicly every day. When I said that the logistics for the Call Her Daddy podcast were complicated by hurricane relief efforts, it's because I remember reading her daily schedule briefings and seeing that she was going from the podcast to hurricane briefings. The VP was also getting pushback from folks in the media (including Bethenny Frankel) for even doing the podcast at all that week, because they thought the "optics" of having the VP do the show while people were suffering looked insensitive. If the VP had traveled to do the interview and sat there for multiple hours, people would have complained about *that.*
That being said, I think it's fair to critique whether certain celebrities (i.e., Katy Perry) should have been asked for endorsements. But I think at this point, we're all just arguing about the placement of deck chairs on the Titanic. The *real* issue here is that Joe Biden probably shouldn't have run for re-election, or he should have dropped out sooner than he did (so we could have an actual primary). Racism and sexism aside, I think the VP just didn't have enough time to define herself with low-information voters in swing states.
There is no need to use the word "respectfully." I 100% respect your comments and respect your reply to my reply. I have not been able to to communicate about this election and have avoided the news since Wednesday morning. My reply to you was basically my first time expressing any thoughts and feelings towards this whole mess. Also, reading Keith's post was the first thing I've read about the election since Wednesday as well. I allowed myself to watch John Oliver tonight and it was rough to do, however, I am thinking a little clearer now and he said a lot of what you are saying. I'm not sure if you are into his show, but I definitely recommend tonight's episode. It was nice to hear someone talking instead of having to have a back and forth conversation.
Also, I do agree with what you are saying about Harris not having enough time. The point I was trying to make is that, sadly, that didn't matter because of the optics, right or wrong, that came from giving parameters to the brocast people or to Call Her Daddy, etc. and of course, the fact that she was a woman of color also played into this. I know the issues are intertwined, but I think dissecting them separately and then thinking about them as a whole will be helpful, because 107 days was not enough time to do so.
Are we elitists? Establishment? If you look at incumbents around the world - it was a horrible year. A year of introspection is much needed.
We select a new party leader in March. I think we should be introspective and forward looking until then.
Atlantan here - let us show the DNC how by selecting a new state party chair that can fundraise and lead full time and not juggle a congressional seat
What you say makes lot of sense. In retrospect, though I thought Kamala's campaign was great, I can see the problems as you point them out.
At the same time, I don't believe the vote totals. I think there was some funny business with recording the votes accurately. It was supposed to be a close race. Not only the polls said so but a lot of election experts. The vote totals should have been much closer. Even if Trump won he should not have won by 4 million votes.
It’s not either/or. You could actually do both. I do not see any evidence here or anyway that Taylor took away votes. And I can imagine the blow back if Taylor endorsed someone and they said, No thanks. Plus, I’m not claiming cause and effect, but Beyonce endorsed Harris and black women held strong.
Celebrities dont win races. All celebrities are there for is self promotion.
Testimonials from actual citizens from labor unions, working class folks will go along way.
Yes it doesnt hurt for a little promotion for GOTV efforts on social media but for rallies NO.
We are really at terrible odds with these guys.