We heard, loud and clear, that there was an
enthusiasm gap and that the vast majority
of them wanted to see a woman of color on
the ticket, and that the conversations and
the engagement in the middle of a pandemic,
with voter suppression alive and well in those
states, and the fact that we have a economic
crisis where actually people are not able
to afford their rent as of this month — all
of those calamities, we’re basically going
to have to crawl through glass to be able
to vote and get our votes counted.
And having a woman of color on the ticket
was part of that, but it wasn’t the only
thing.
You know, the world doesn’t rise and — the
sun doesn’t rise and set on one candidate.
Much of the excitement right now and how we
translate the movement that we’ve been seeing,
calling for Black Lives Matter and justice
and a lot of the changes in policing that
we’ve been in conversation with, are local
issues.
And what I’m hearing from battleground state
folks is, it isn’t just the top of the ticket,
it’s also down-ballot races.
There are three women who are running for
— who are Democratic nominees for Senate.
There’s an historic number of women of color
running for Congress.
But it’s those local, the state legislative,
city council races where the call to defund
police will be translated into policy and
budgets.
That’s where the fight is.
And so, it’s not an either/or.
It’s that we continue to push.
My final point is, you know, Kamala Harris
is not the same person as she was in 2011.
She has a very progressive voting record as
a senator.
It’s 2020.
She showed up in this historic pandemic time
as an advocate for economic justice and for
racial justice in the ways that are very promising.
The movement has strength, and this is an
indication of its influence.
And, Briahna Gray, what about this issue,
one, that Kamala Harris has evolved as a political
leader?
The issue of the down-ballot impact of this
choice?
And also, the senator that you worked for,
Senator Bernie Sanders, his adviser, Chuck
Rocha, responded to Biden’s pick by saying,
quote, “She is a good pick.
A safe pick.”
Your response to that?
I think that it’s — I would agree with
the fact that it’s a safe pick.
But I’m a little confused by the argument
that this is the pick that’s going to turn
out Black women in particular, for two reasons.
One, because the reason that Black women are
characterized as the base is because of our
commitment to voting for the Democratic ticket
kind of regardless of who is on it.
And that is, of course, a blessing and a curse.
It is a blessing for the Democratic Party,
because there are all of these instances historically
in which Black women have been the “but
for” factor to Democratic candidates being
able to pull through against oftentimes truly
heinous Republican alternatives.
At the same time, it means that very little
has to be done to appeal to Black voters.
And we’ve seen a kind of indifference demonstrated
by the Democratic Party, that is increasing
over the years.
So, I want to just note that, because I think
it’s important to say that there is a constituency
that isn’t as enthusiastic about Joe Biden’s
ticket right now, and that is younger voters,
including younger Black voters, who are in
a place where they’re a little bit past
representation being a be-all/end-all.
And I’m, of course, not arguing the facts
that Ms. Allison is saying here, but it is
difficult to feel sometimes, as a person of
color, as a Black person in particular, that
representational value is being elevated in
these instances over your substantive political
concerns.
So, my feeling here is that, yes, Kamala Harris
has evolved, but that’s also part of the
concern here, that I think a lot of voters
aren’t exactly sure where she stands on
a lot of these issues.
And I think that’s part of what was an issue
for her during the primary.
Remember that she dropped out before any ballots
were cast, before the California primary,
speculation being that that was in part because
she was losing her home state to Andrew Yang.
So, there is a lot of California-based, local,
domestic concern about her from people who
know her record the best.
And there has been an implication, online
at the very least, that the people who have
raised concerns about Kamala Harris and her
record are not the base, are not Black people,
are white leftists.
The “Bernie bro” mythology has been raised
as a specter again, when the reality is there’s
a lot of grassroots frustration with the fact
that this, again, unprecedented political
movement is basically being ignored, or at
very least a nose is being thumbed at what’s
going on in the streets right now.
The issue, though, with We’ve Got Your Back
is bigger than party.
It’s bigger than Trump.
It’s that this country, although the base
of the Democratic Party in recent polls has
demonstrated that they want a Black woman
in leadership — and so now we have a Black
woman at the top of the ticket, a woman of
color at the top of the ticket — despite
that, racist and sexist comments dismissing
the readiness of many of the women of color,
particularly Black women, who were being vetted
for VP, already had started.
And it wasn’t just from Republicans.
It also came from quarters like former Senator
Chris Dodd.
So, what we have to do is be vigilant.
We learned a lot from the attacks on Hillary
Clinton as a white woman running for president.
We know that the racist and sexist attacks
are going to continue fast and furious against
Senator Harris and other women who are standing
for leadership.
So, what we ask from the media is to focus
on the issues, is to not tolerate headlines
like they had in L.A. Times, which is likening
Kamala Harris to receiving a rose on the island
and silly things like that.
We don’t want any conversation about her
hair or her clothes.
What are the issues?
What are we trying to do with this country?
What are the essential values of the political
game?
What is the plan?
And when we take the conversation, particularly
for women of color, away from characterizing
the personal attributes and dismissing women
of color with words like “ambitious” and
holding women of color to a different standard,
we actually get a better political result.
So, in all, what we’re doing, as women of
color and broadly, is we’re leading a larger
movement to create political space for women
of color to lead — not just Senator Harris,
but women of color everywhere.
We are the fastest-growing voting bloc.
We are the most underrepresented at every
level of government.
And for us to be able to assert ourselves
in a multiracial democracy, we have to push
back hard against racism and sexist attacks,
and celebrate and uplift our ability and willingness
to govern.
I want to echo what Ms. Allison has said about
there being no excuse for using racism or
sexism to criticize Kamala Harris or any other
female candidates or candidates of color.
At the same time, evoking the example of Hillary
Clinton, I think part of the issue there was
that there was a mixed bag of substantive
complaints and sexist concerns.
And I would hate for us to fall in the same
trap that the party fell into in 2016 in dismissing
both, in tandem, instead of taking and addressing
a lot of those substantive concerns head-on
in a way that it could have helped Hillary
Clinton assuage the concerns of her critics
and unify a party that — much of which felt
ultimately gaslit and ignored.
And I don’t think anybody here thinks that
the substantive criminal justice concerns,
in particular, that have been lobbied at Kamala
Harris are sexist.
And already we’ve seen some of that characterized
that way.
So, Aimee Allison raised this idea of calling
her ambitious as a sexist slur.
No doubt that some people are characterizing
it that way.
But there’s also a very legitimate criticism
of her choice to pursue a career as a prosecutor
in part because it’s a very commonly known
way to advance oneself politically when you
have a background as a lawyer.
And I say that as an attorney myself.
With respect to the Democratic National Convention,
you know, I think the party is sending a very
clear signal about whose votes they are reaching
for and whose they aren’t.
They have John Kasich, who is a Republican
and who has attempted to pass some of the
most draconian anti-abortion laws in the state
of Ohio, in a prime spot, when there was news
for a while that suggested that they weren’t
even going to allow AOC to speak.
Of course, they now have.
But they have made gestures like barring The
Young Turks, one of the preeminent lefty news
organizations, from having a press pass to
a digital event.
Why you would do that, other than to send
a kind of signal to progressives that you’re
not interested in their vote, I don’t know.
So, it’s a really curious choice.
It feels again like it’s 2016, and there
is a dynamic being set up where there is a
kind of wanton disregard for the values and
interests of what is coming up to be the new
base, the insurgent left wing of the party,
the part of the party that just celebrated
the victory of Cori Bush last week and Jamaal
Bowman and Mondaire Jones.
And it is telling that the only people under
the age of 40 — under the age of 50, rather,
who are speaking at this event are AOC and
Pete Buttigieg.
