Harris is an empty suit candidate. She has no consistent policy positions. She has never stuck her neck out for anything. Harris has ever won a presidential primary and lost to Andrew Yang (lmao).

She was selected behind closed doors, presumably by donors and horse trading with party insiders. She is exactly the kind of candidate you would expect from that: someone that caters to donors, punches left, tries to embrace "never Trumpers" as the main campaign strategy. Left policies are directly against donors' interests.

She is not your friend and not a good person, and is definitely not on your team. These people don't care about you and they don't care about things like whether they "insult their boss". Also, the president is not the boss of the VP, the VP can do whatever they want and the only consequences would be partu fallout. Distancing herself from Biden, both around the Democrats' embrace of genocide and the objective degradation in conditions due to a reduction in real wages, was the obvious way to actually try to win. And to be clear, as empty suits serving donor interests, ahe could have done both of those things in eords only and then done their bidding once in office. That is how beholden she is to donor interesrs: she couldn't even play the false promise game that every Dem uses to get elected.

Harris has only ever indicated unwavering support for the genocide and the the wider ethnosupremacist apartheid settler colony that is Israel. This is entirely consistent with being a vehicle for donor interests, who are all wrapped up in the petrodollar and investments in Israel. There is no reason to think there was some kind of plan to hurt her election chances by demotivating the base and to then do the popular thing once in office. The tendency is to do the exact opposite of that.

And if they convinced you to tolerate genocide for this, take a real hard look at yourself.

Them she should have said that

I got the same vibe but it seems the ambiguity was a large enough liability.

Wishful thinking. Presidencies are always doing less than promised, never more.

Yes. It's a bit like interviewing for your boss's job while your boss still signs your checks. Your boss can still fire you or make your life miserable if you openly trash the job (s)he's doing.

People don't seem to understand that when you sign on to be someone's VP you sign on to support everything they do in public, even if you offer different advice in private. She's simply not in a position to call the shots, even if she thinks her boss is stupid. I have total confidence that in-office Harris would have made different decisions than on-campaign Harris.

Alaska.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that public statements by the VP that directly contradict the President could present very real national security risks and seriously undermine foreign policy and diplomacy.