I’m a lifelong Minnesota resident who’s watched Walz with admiration throughout his career. He’s the real deal; what you see is what you get. He’s brave, witty, articulate, ferocious, pragmatic, and kind all wrapped in one and he’s been an outstanding governor. As a Minnesotan, political scientist, and former journalist, I was fervently hoping that Harris would choose Walz and overjoyed that she did, and I fully agree that the Pennsylvania rally was a superb display of this team’s potential. I love this analysis of their presentation.
Did it seem to you that Shapiro was consciously imitating Obama? There were a number of things—like Obama’s characteristic head-tilt—that made me think this. Once I saw it I couldn’t stop seeing it.
I don't know if it's conscious or not, but I certainly know what you mean.
Trump has even turned this into his main riff about Shapiro— "bad imitation of Obama" etc. And Shapiro turned that back on Trump, a few days before KH made her pick.
It also makes me agree with some other commenters: That Shapiro and Harris are in a way too similar as speakers/candidates to be maximally effective. Versus Walz and Harris, who are different in a complementary way.
I watched the Harris and Walz speeches twice and both times Harris gave me goosebumps. Besides the amazing chemistry between the two of them, there was again almost a Zen-like quality to the way she has merged her life story with this historic journey she is on. She exudes a combination of joy, grace, humility, and fierce certitude in her acceptance of the responsibility of her groundbreaking candidacy instead of shouldering it like a burden. Also, Zen-like is both the powerful economy of her language in these recent speeches and the spontaneous way she weaves almost whispered call and response moments with the audience in with the more conventional and overt ones. And the choice of Walz was genius. What a privilege to be living during such a consequential moment in the history of this precious human experiment known as America.
I was in favor of Walz all along, but (a) thought all the choices, including Shapiro, were good, (b) thought it was going to be Shapiro, and (c) had no idea of how well Walz and KH would meld. But — SO FAR — it seems to be an inspired choice.
Final thought. I also liked that she stated that "we are the underdogs" in this election. Because I don't think there is any room for complacency right up to election day. Been there, done that. Not going back. Ha. Regards, Frank
A Tim Walz quote “I can't wait to debate the guy… that is if he's willing to get off the couch and show up.”
I love the baggage associated with this quote. Everyone acknowledges that there is no substance to the 'couch episode' but it is still fun to refer to it. I suggest to the VP candidate that he (Walz) will stop couch references to a clearly untrue and scurrilous story if Trump and Vance agree that the stolen election story is clearly untrue and scurrilous
He pulled it off — with an air that reminded me of Johnny Carson winking at the audience as he told a "daring" joke. (Johnny Carson being a reference Tim Walz would know.) I like your idea of a swap. I can imagine Walz pulling that off as well.
Jim -- I wrote a late comment on your last post praising your prescience about Tim Walz. Well done. Watching both Walz and Shapiro last night I do believe it was the correct decision. Shapiro is an excellent (and gracious) speaker, but he is very much an East Coast big city guy, like Kamala is a West Coast big city lady. Walz is a better choice for broadening the ticket. Hope it works.
Oddly, Biden hanging on so long has been a gift. The campaign is now the length it should be (and is in most other countries), about 3 months,. Long enough to get to know the candidates but short enough to avoid how interminable most campaigns have been. The marvel is that the Democratic Party has avoided its usual circular firing squad and has seemed organized and wholeheartedly behind the new ticket. Kind of like our old days when party bosses balanced popular primaries, which had a lot of advantages -- the bosses were mostly concerned with having a candidate who helped local candidates get elected, and they were closer to the regular voter, rather than just to the committed activists.
Now let's hope that the upcoming Democratic Convention in Chicago goes far better than the last one in 1968. ...
Keep up the great work Jim, you are my first read whenever you publish your column...
And I agree about the unexpected "blessing" of having Biden hold on so long, and the timeline being so compressed. It genuinely seems miraculous that Biden did finally step aside; and that people agreed so quickly and non-traumatically on Harris; and that SO FAR she has barely put a foot wrong.
Every day counts, but these recent days have been very good.
Thank you for including the video from Philadelphia. I watched the first 10 minutes or so, long enough to see KH introduce TW, and I agree with everything you said about that introduction. I have read or heard others mention Walz's talent for storytelling that helps an audience understand the politics and policies he represents and, after watching him "relate" to the Philadelphia crowd as VP Harris talked about him, I began to anticipate something I didn't think was possible -- namely, that this campaign is going to be FUN!
Jim, I don't know how you missed the full quote at the end of the Kamala Harris section. Now that we have an honest to goodness football coach on the ticket, we can go full Dillon Panthers and get Kyle Chandler to one of the rallies for his "Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can't Lose" speech from the first episode of 'Friday Night Lights!!' https://youtu.be/fQPe4RigYmg?si=VDwvv4oaitphNUp_
Thanks. I did hear KH refer to "those Friday night lights" in her speech, but in a way that seemed to be artfully generic rather that specifically about the show. And I didn't hear her say "clear eyes..." But I'll check again.
I have no idea what Kyle Chandler's politics might be — or Jason Sudeikis's, for that matter. If either of them were interested, events with Walz could be magic. "The Three Coaches," etc.
I was lucky enough to attend. One thing I realized later: no mention of the historicity of Kamala Harris becoming the first woman president, if elected. I did wonder, when they came striding down the platform aisle, if it looked a little wedding-ish, kind of like the bride and groom greeting their guests, but that thought passed.
Harris exudes a commanding, confident presence. She is stunning and elegant, which is always a plus, but her serious, intelligent oratory captivates you. It has a conversational tone. Just like you said. A lot of the speakers preceding her seemed to be shouting. She is calm and in control. Everyone listens.
And Walz! He is stand-up level funny. I am sure this reflects his many years in the classroom, keeping teenagers' attention. Masterful. I can't wait to hear him anywhere, anytime.
A compelling breakdown, Jim, of this stage in the definitive launch of the campaign. It sets a high standard for the campaign and everything that follows during the next ~90 days, but it sure seems like they can continue in this vein because they are doing it so effortlessly and joyfully and purposefully.
Thank you for presenting Tim Walz to those of us who did not know him well. The qualities of Mark Kelly made him an easy choice in the first degree, and the attributes brought by Mark Shapiro were equally evident. But all the marginal negatives about each aside, it seems clear that testimony like yours must have contributed whether directly or not to the VP's process when considering the monumental decision before her.
More than all of that, the combination of Harris and Walz gives an peek into a synergy of perspectives and life stories that might have been less obvious with another pair of candidates and that reflects more of the entire electorate than might been the case with any other particular combo. Hopefully this can percolate outward to positively influence the electorate down ballot and across the country (and who knows, maybe even into the hearts and minds of voters and candidates in those GOP-dominated counties and states where these preexisting electoral conditions will be difficult to overcome in 90 days...).
Ed, yes, thanks. As I've mentioned, I had some sense of Walz's potential on his own. But I had *not* anticipated the way his and KH's on-stage presence and bearing would mesh. (And of course, I had also not anticipated how KH herself would perform, in such contrast to what I remember from 2020.)
I haven't watched Shapiro's speech again, but the first time struck me as being too much about himself and not enough about the top of the ticket. Perhaps I was reading in how he felt into what he actually said. But the impression was strong. Please tell me I'm wrong.
People in politics at the highest level all have big egos, or more politely, very high self esteem. Under the circumstances Josh Shapiro was spectacular. Blowing his horn a little, and defanging criticism of his religion was fine, and beneficial to the Harris-Walz campaign in that his prominence and popularity in PA will accrue to the ticket as he campaigns for them over the next 90 day. Yes, his speech was a little hot. But as a intro at at this particular political moment it added energy, commitment, confirmation to keep the ticket's momentum at a 10. IMO his performance was exceptional. So, thank you Joe. Thank you Josh. Keep up the skeer.
Hi Bill — I know what you mean. I was probably grading on the curve, given all the circumstances I mentioned about why Shapiro might be in a sour mood. Those circumstances also lead me to cut him some slack for the personal touches. All things considered, I thought he did well.
You are right, Jim. They are happy warriors with a gift for speaking which sets them apart from the other side. I suspect that as the campaign rumbles on, this distinction will play to their advantage.
Yes. As you know, *usually* the "positive" candidate comes out on top in presidential contests. As in so many other aspects, Trump has upset all our calibrations about how such historically "normal" trends work. (Ie, as with Nixon in 1968, 2016 was the rare case where the angry, "negative" candidate came out on top.) One more reason to hope we're seeing a return to normal.
An analyst at another site pointed out that Harris and Shapiro are too much alike for things to have worked. Both of them are a "force of nature." In movie terms, both of them are Stars. And I can put it in further movie terms as a screenwriter: you cannot cast a star in a supporting role without "tipping the balance."
As far as worries about whether Shapiro would "deliver his state" if not on the ticket, you really have to flunk the IQ test low enough to get an offer from the NYT, WaPo, or the Cretin News Network to become a "pundit" to still believe that a VP candidate is ever chosen because of that. The last time it worked was when JFK chose LBJ as his VP 64 years ago. You would think these "geniuses" could at least keep up with the times.
Does anyone think that Shapiro won't "bring the wood" to the Trumpscum wherever he goes the next 90 days? And going alone, as Governor of Pennsylvania (a "star role"), he can do that without any conflict with the Big Star. He could never have done what Walz was doing while she was talking. That is no slur on him - he's going to be someone people will pay attention to for the next 30+ years.
I loved watching Kamala stifle her laugh when Walz fired the "get off the couch" line at Juvenile Delinquent (JD) Vance, and then again with "even his crimes" at Trump. That's why Walz got the job - he's the one who can deflate Trump down to his real size. "Weird!" Yes they are, and Trump cannot abide being laughed at - it's like taking a Bowie knife to one of those Baby Trump balloons.
The three of them are each cast in the right role.
Thank you. You've expressed something I was thinking about but hadn't found the way to express that crisply. Yes, Harris and Shapiro are "too much alike" in their public presence. (Maybe the last time this occurred was Clinton/Gore back in the olden days? But of course they survived that.)
And, yes, also agree about the win/win for how Shapiro can help the ticket, and himself, in the next three months.
I decided not to get into "get off the couch and show up," since it had gotten so much other attention. But I also noted with amusement how K Harris handled the moment.
Shapiro's speech was like hearing Obama reciting the Gettysburg Address - "Kamala Harris has always understood... that you've gotta be very day... for the people... for the people."
("My Girl" was great - but how about "Sweet Ka-ma-la. Ba ba ba! Good times never seemed so good!"? Happy days are here again!)
Yes, as @TCinLA points out, Shapiro's speech was "hot" in a way that is powerful on its own but doesn't mesh as well with KH's as Walz's seems to. At least so far, one day in.
A month ago I felt despair, given the prospect that Trump and a Republican Congress would be elected in November and that the soul of America that I wished for my grandchildren would be shattered.
The ‘miracle’ began when my hero Biden, after 50 years of exemplary service to his country, nobly placed country over self [something that astonished Trump].
Then there was Kamala, and now Tim. We are now going forward, not backward. This was reflected in a Blitzkrieg of positive support from diverse populations, especially the ‘undecided.’
Trump was now naked to the ‘age factor.’ As a 78-year-old rancid blimp, he symbolized the backwardness of Trumpublicans:
1) ignoring women’s rights to their bodies;
2) using the Dept of Justice/FBI for revenge against political opponents;
3) replacing professional civil servants with sycophants who swore that the 2020 election was stolen and January 6th was a typical tourist day;
4) climate change is a charade and fossil fuel producers deserve regulatory protection;
5) ‘fair taxes’ are low for the wealthy and large corporations;
6) the only relevant color of American citizens is white (male)
7) the 2024 presidential election might be the last [see Project 2025 handbook]
8) assault weapons are a 2nd Amendment right
9) the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, is politicized to the right
10) Swear an oath to the Constitution and then dishonor it;
11) trash our traditional alliances like NATO and make common cause with Putin, Orban, and other authoritarians.
I feel joy that we are going forward, not backwards, as a country. I delight in contributing to the Harris Victory Fund and to my candidate in NJ 7, which is a swing House district.
Ben Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, said ‘We have a republic [democracy,]’ if we can maintain it.’
With Kamala, Tim, and the American public, YES WE CAN!
I can't remember a change in mood as rapid or profound as this one. And, as you say, in the first instance we owe the change to Joe Biden—finally realizing what the highest call of duty dictated.
Like many pundits (eg Nate Silver, Chris Cillizza), I thought Walz would a poor choice compared to Shapiro, but I now think I was wrong. Shapiro's shouting is not what Harris needed.
Of course, Harris, Walz, Shapiro, every elected Democrat, is all-in on child mutilation and sterilization on demand of the child, no matter what the parents say. Walz proudly signed that law in Minnesota, and Shapiro would do it too in PA too if it ever passed the legislature. And they all believe that any man who says he is a woman (and wants to, say, box against women at the Olympics) is indeed a woman. Here is the Shapiro administration's form for changing the sex marker on your state-issued ID in Pennsylvania: https://www.dot.state.pa.us/Public/DVSPubsForms/BDL/BDL%20Form/DL-32.pdf
I agree with you about Walz's tone turning out to be a better match for Harris's, that Josh Shapiro would be.
As you know and as we've noted before, I don't share your views on trans issues. I understand that people have different sets of priorities for what motivates their votes, and that this is yours. I try to focus discussion here — my own, and that of readers and commenters — on topics where we can share information, ideas, experiences, and perspective, rather than on locked-in perspectives where people seem to differ in irreconcilable ways.
I am sharing information. Were you aware that you can change the sex marker on your US passport at will? What fraction of your readers do you think were aware of this?
Walz's views on trans issues are topical. Here is a WaPo article today:
> Walz made Minnesota a ‘trans refuge,’ championing gender-affirming care
Tom as an articulate writer, I believe that you do yourself a disservice with language such as this. Try adding ‘cretin’ to your vocabulary and you’ll describe a number of your opponents. Actually, you might add weird and creepy to your dictionary—these are now part of daily political vocabulary.
I value having a discussion section where people can disagree on substance and policy without being personally impolite. (Yes, I know, that politeness and civility can be over-valued in some circumstances. But usually it's wise to err in that direction.)
I love reading your insight and perspective James on what was distinct about each of three speeches. I get to learn a bit more and pay a bit more attention to what may be lost in it subtlety. I've been musing on why I find myself so moved by Walz in particular and I realized I can't remember a more real and genuine and down home and humorous politician? He seems like the real warm hearted and compassionate person who is in politics just so he can serve a bit more. Jimmy Carter has some of these qualities, but Walz and his authenticity feels near unprecedented in learning political figures in my 67 years of life. I didn't know what I was missing and longing for until he shows up.
Thanks. Walz has a comic touch that really is unusual and rare. (Jimmy Carter had/has a sardonic private wit, but nothing like what Walz has done in public.) Eons ago Mo Udall was supposed to be the wittiest person on the stump, but national TV coverage was in its infancy then.
I am sure that Walz, like everyone, will have rougher times ahead. But his tone is a very welcome complement to Kamala Harris's different kind of "up"-ness.
I’m a lifelong Minnesota resident who’s watched Walz with admiration throughout his career. He’s the real deal; what you see is what you get. He’s brave, witty, articulate, ferocious, pragmatic, and kind all wrapped in one and he’s been an outstanding governor. As a Minnesotan, political scientist, and former journalist, I was fervently hoping that Harris would choose Walz and overjoyed that she did, and I fully agree that the Pennsylvania rally was a superb display of this team’s potential. I love this analysis of their presentation.
Did it seem to you that Shapiro was consciously imitating Obama? There were a number of things—like Obama’s characteristic head-tilt—that made me think this. Once I saw it I couldn’t stop seeing it.
I don't know if it's conscious or not, but I certainly know what you mean.
Trump has even turned this into his main riff about Shapiro— "bad imitation of Obama" etc. And Shapiro turned that back on Trump, a few days before KH made her pick.
It also makes me agree with some other commenters: That Shapiro and Harris are in a way too similar as speakers/candidates to be maximally effective. Versus Walz and Harris, who are different in a complementary way.
Agree with that last point. I actually think Walz was a brilliant pick. I know most commenters disagree.
I watched the Harris and Walz speeches twice and both times Harris gave me goosebumps. Besides the amazing chemistry between the two of them, there was again almost a Zen-like quality to the way she has merged her life story with this historic journey she is on. She exudes a combination of joy, grace, humility, and fierce certitude in her acceptance of the responsibility of her groundbreaking candidacy instead of shouldering it like a burden. Also, Zen-like is both the powerful economy of her language in these recent speeches and the spontaneous way she weaves almost whispered call and response moments with the audience in with the more conventional and overt ones. And the choice of Walz was genius. What a privilege to be living during such a consequential moment in the history of this precious human experiment known as America.
Well put.
I was in favor of Walz all along, but (a) thought all the choices, including Shapiro, were good, (b) thought it was going to be Shapiro, and (c) had no idea of how well Walz and KH would meld. But — SO FAR — it seems to be an inspired choice.
Final thought. I also liked that she stated that "we are the underdogs" in this election. Because I don't think there is any room for complacency right up to election day. Been there, done that. Not going back. Ha. Regards, Frank
A Tim Walz quote “I can't wait to debate the guy… that is if he's willing to get off the couch and show up.”
I love the baggage associated with this quote. Everyone acknowledges that there is no substance to the 'couch episode' but it is still fun to refer to it. I suggest to the VP candidate that he (Walz) will stop couch references to a clearly untrue and scurrilous story if Trump and Vance agree that the stolen election story is clearly untrue and scurrilous
He pulled it off — with an air that reminded me of Johnny Carson winking at the audience as he told a "daring" joke. (Johnny Carson being a reference Tim Walz would know.) I like your idea of a swap. I can imagine Walz pulling that off as well.
Jim -- I wrote a late comment on your last post praising your prescience about Tim Walz. Well done. Watching both Walz and Shapiro last night I do believe it was the correct decision. Shapiro is an excellent (and gracious) speaker, but he is very much an East Coast big city guy, like Kamala is a West Coast big city lady. Walz is a better choice for broadening the ticket. Hope it works.
Oddly, Biden hanging on so long has been a gift. The campaign is now the length it should be (and is in most other countries), about 3 months,. Long enough to get to know the candidates but short enough to avoid how interminable most campaigns have been. The marvel is that the Democratic Party has avoided its usual circular firing squad and has seemed organized and wholeheartedly behind the new ticket. Kind of like our old days when party bosses balanced popular primaries, which had a lot of advantages -- the bosses were mostly concerned with having a candidate who helped local candidates get elected, and they were closer to the regular voter, rather than just to the committed activists.
Now let's hope that the upcoming Democratic Convention in Chicago goes far better than the last one in 1968. ...
Keep up the great work Jim, you are my first read whenever you publish your column...
Thank you!
And I agree about the unexpected "blessing" of having Biden hold on so long, and the timeline being so compressed. It genuinely seems miraculous that Biden did finally step aside; and that people agreed so quickly and non-traumatically on Harris; and that SO FAR she has barely put a foot wrong.
Every day counts, but these recent days have been very good.
Thank you for including the video from Philadelphia. I watched the first 10 minutes or so, long enough to see KH introduce TW, and I agree with everything you said about that introduction. I have read or heard others mention Walz's talent for storytelling that helps an audience understand the politics and policies he represents and, after watching him "relate" to the Philadelphia crowd as VP Harris talked about him, I began to anticipate something I didn't think was possible -- namely, that this campaign is going to be FUN!
Yes. The *fun* and joy and upbeatness are things we all really need — and may not have realized how much we needed them until less than 3 weeks ago.
Jim, I don't know how you missed the full quote at the end of the Kamala Harris section. Now that we have an honest to goodness football coach on the ticket, we can go full Dillon Panthers and get Kyle Chandler to one of the rallies for his "Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can't Lose" speech from the first episode of 'Friday Night Lights!!' https://youtu.be/fQPe4RigYmg?si=VDwvv4oaitphNUp_
That would be way cool!!!!
Thanks. I did hear KH refer to "those Friday night lights" in her speech, but in a way that seemed to be artfully generic rather that specifically about the show. And I didn't hear her say "clear eyes..." But I'll check again.
I have no idea what Kyle Chandler's politics might be — or Jason Sudeikis's, for that matter. If either of them were interested, events with Walz could be magic. "The Three Coaches," etc.
I was lucky enough to attend. One thing I realized later: no mention of the historicity of Kamala Harris becoming the first woman president, if elected. I did wonder, when they came striding down the platform aisle, if it looked a little wedding-ish, kind of like the bride and groom greeting their guests, but that thought passed.
Harris exudes a commanding, confident presence. She is stunning and elegant, which is always a plus, but her serious, intelligent oratory captivates you. It has a conversational tone. Just like you said. A lot of the speakers preceding her seemed to be shouting. She is calm and in control. Everyone listens.
And Walz! He is stand-up level funny. I am sure this reflects his many years in the classroom, keeping teenagers' attention. Masterful. I can't wait to hear him anywhere, anytime.
A compelling breakdown, Jim, of this stage in the definitive launch of the campaign. It sets a high standard for the campaign and everything that follows during the next ~90 days, but it sure seems like they can continue in this vein because they are doing it so effortlessly and joyfully and purposefully.
Thank you for presenting Tim Walz to those of us who did not know him well. The qualities of Mark Kelly made him an easy choice in the first degree, and the attributes brought by Mark Shapiro were equally evident. But all the marginal negatives about each aside, it seems clear that testimony like yours must have contributed whether directly or not to the VP's process when considering the monumental decision before her.
More than all of that, the combination of Harris and Walz gives an peek into a synergy of perspectives and life stories that might have been less obvious with another pair of candidates and that reflects more of the entire electorate than might been the case with any other particular combo. Hopefully this can percolate outward to positively influence the electorate down ballot and across the country (and who knows, maybe even into the hearts and minds of voters and candidates in those GOP-dominated counties and states where these preexisting electoral conditions will be difficult to overcome in 90 days...).
Ed, yes, thanks. As I've mentioned, I had some sense of Walz's potential on his own. But I had *not* anticipated the way his and KH's on-stage presence and bearing would mesh. (And of course, I had also not anticipated how KH herself would perform, in such contrast to what I remember from 2020.)
But every day counts.
I haven't watched Shapiro's speech again, but the first time struck me as being too much about himself and not enough about the top of the ticket. Perhaps I was reading in how he felt into what he actually said. But the impression was strong. Please tell me I'm wrong.
People in politics at the highest level all have big egos, or more politely, very high self esteem. Under the circumstances Josh Shapiro was spectacular. Blowing his horn a little, and defanging criticism of his religion was fine, and beneficial to the Harris-Walz campaign in that his prominence and popularity in PA will accrue to the ticket as he campaigns for them over the next 90 day. Yes, his speech was a little hot. But as a intro at at this particular political moment it added energy, commitment, confirmation to keep the ticket's momentum at a 10. IMO his performance was exceptional. So, thank you Joe. Thank you Josh. Keep up the skeer.
Hi Bill — I know what you mean. I was probably grading on the curve, given all the circumstances I mentioned about why Shapiro might be in a sour mood. Those circumstances also lead me to cut him some slack for the personal touches. All things considered, I thought he did well.
You are right, Jim. They are happy warriors with a gift for speaking which sets them apart from the other side. I suspect that as the campaign rumbles on, this distinction will play to their advantage.
Yes. As you know, *usually* the "positive" candidate comes out on top in presidential contests. As in so many other aspects, Trump has upset all our calibrations about how such historically "normal" trends work. (Ie, as with Nixon in 1968, 2016 was the rare case where the angry, "negative" candidate came out on top.) One more reason to hope we're seeing a return to normal.
An analyst at another site pointed out that Harris and Shapiro are too much alike for things to have worked. Both of them are a "force of nature." In movie terms, both of them are Stars. And I can put it in further movie terms as a screenwriter: you cannot cast a star in a supporting role without "tipping the balance."
As far as worries about whether Shapiro would "deliver his state" if not on the ticket, you really have to flunk the IQ test low enough to get an offer from the NYT, WaPo, or the Cretin News Network to become a "pundit" to still believe that a VP candidate is ever chosen because of that. The last time it worked was when JFK chose LBJ as his VP 64 years ago. You would think these "geniuses" could at least keep up with the times.
Does anyone think that Shapiro won't "bring the wood" to the Trumpscum wherever he goes the next 90 days? And going alone, as Governor of Pennsylvania (a "star role"), he can do that without any conflict with the Big Star. He could never have done what Walz was doing while she was talking. That is no slur on him - he's going to be someone people will pay attention to for the next 30+ years.
I loved watching Kamala stifle her laugh when Walz fired the "get off the couch" line at Juvenile Delinquent (JD) Vance, and then again with "even his crimes" at Trump. That's why Walz got the job - he's the one who can deflate Trump down to his real size. "Weird!" Yes they are, and Trump cannot abide being laughed at - it's like taking a Bowie knife to one of those Baby Trump balloons.
The three of them are each cast in the right role.
Thank you. You've expressed something I was thinking about but hadn't found the way to express that crisply. Yes, Harris and Shapiro are "too much alike" in their public presence. (Maybe the last time this occurred was Clinton/Gore back in the olden days? But of course they survived that.)
And, yes, also agree about the win/win for how Shapiro can help the ticket, and himself, in the next three months.
I decided not to get into "get off the couch and show up," since it had gotten so much other attention. But I also noted with amusement how K Harris handled the moment.
Shapiro's speech was like hearing Obama reciting the Gettysburg Address - "Kamala Harris has always understood... that you've gotta be very day... for the people... for the people."
("My Girl" was great - but how about "Sweet Ka-ma-la. Ba ba ba! Good times never seemed so good!"? Happy days are here again!)
How about Randy Rainbow's version of "Kamala" sung to the title tune from "Camelot"?
Yes, as @TCinLA points out, Shapiro's speech was "hot" in a way that is powerful on its own but doesn't mesh as well with KH's as Walz's seems to. At least so far, one day in.
Jim, I feel joy.
A month ago I felt despair, given the prospect that Trump and a Republican Congress would be elected in November and that the soul of America that I wished for my grandchildren would be shattered.
The ‘miracle’ began when my hero Biden, after 50 years of exemplary service to his country, nobly placed country over self [something that astonished Trump].
Then there was Kamala, and now Tim. We are now going forward, not backward. This was reflected in a Blitzkrieg of positive support from diverse populations, especially the ‘undecided.’
Trump was now naked to the ‘age factor.’ As a 78-year-old rancid blimp, he symbolized the backwardness of Trumpublicans:
1) ignoring women’s rights to their bodies;
2) using the Dept of Justice/FBI for revenge against political opponents;
3) replacing professional civil servants with sycophants who swore that the 2020 election was stolen and January 6th was a typical tourist day;
4) climate change is a charade and fossil fuel producers deserve regulatory protection;
5) ‘fair taxes’ are low for the wealthy and large corporations;
6) the only relevant color of American citizens is white (male)
7) the 2024 presidential election might be the last [see Project 2025 handbook]
8) assault weapons are a 2nd Amendment right
9) the judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, is politicized to the right
10) Swear an oath to the Constitution and then dishonor it;
11) trash our traditional alliances like NATO and make common cause with Putin, Orban, and other authoritarians.
I feel joy that we are going forward, not backwards, as a country. I delight in contributing to the Harris Victory Fund and to my candidate in NJ 7, which is a swing House district.
Ben Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, said ‘We have a republic [democracy,]’ if we can maintain it.’
With Kamala, Tim, and the American public, YES WE CAN!
Keith, thank you. I appreciate the list.
I can't remember a change in mood as rapid or profound as this one. And, as you say, in the first instance we owe the change to Joe Biden—finally realizing what the highest call of duty dictated.
As they say: It was a close-run thing.
Like many pundits (eg Nate Silver, Chris Cillizza), I thought Walz would a poor choice compared to Shapiro, but I now think I was wrong. Shapiro's shouting is not what Harris needed.
Of course, Harris, Walz, Shapiro, every elected Democrat, is all-in on child mutilation and sterilization on demand of the child, no matter what the parents say. Walz proudly signed that law in Minnesota, and Shapiro would do it too in PA too if it ever passed the legislature. And they all believe that any man who says he is a woman (and wants to, say, box against women at the Olympics) is indeed a woman. Here is the Shapiro administration's form for changing the sex marker on your state-issued ID in Pennsylvania: https://www.dot.state.pa.us/Public/DVSPubsForms/BDL/BDL%20Form/DL-32.pdf
And here is the Biden-Harris administration form for doing the same on your US passport: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/selecting-your-gender-marker.html
So I can't vote for any of them.
I agree with you about Walz's tone turning out to be a better match for Harris's, that Josh Shapiro would be.
As you know and as we've noted before, I don't share your views on trans issues. I understand that people have different sets of priorities for what motivates their votes, and that this is yours. I try to focus discussion here — my own, and that of readers and commenters — on topics where we can share information, ideas, experiences, and perspective, rather than on locked-in perspectives where people seem to differ in irreconcilable ways.
I am sharing information. Were you aware that you can change the sex marker on your US passport at will? What fraction of your readers do you think were aware of this?
Walz's views on trans issues are topical. Here is a WaPo article today:
> Walz made Minnesota a ‘trans refuge,’ championing gender-affirming care
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/08/07/tim-walz-minnesota-trans-refuge-bill/
Tom as an articulate writer, I believe that you do yourself a disservice with language such as this. Try adding ‘cretin’ to your vocabulary and you’ll describe a number of your opponents. Actually, you might add weird and creepy to your dictionary—these are now part of daily political vocabulary.
Hey Jim, is this consistent with your standards for comments on your stack?
It is of course sadly typical of what passes for discourse on the left these days.
I value having a discussion section where people can disagree on substance and policy without being personally impolite. (Yes, I know, that politeness and civility can be over-valued in some circumstances. But usually it's wise to err in that direction.)
Thank for deleting that comment of TCinLA.
I love reading your insight and perspective James on what was distinct about each of three speeches. I get to learn a bit more and pay a bit more attention to what may be lost in it subtlety. I've been musing on why I find myself so moved by Walz in particular and I realized I can't remember a more real and genuine and down home and humorous politician? He seems like the real warm hearted and compassionate person who is in politics just so he can serve a bit more. Jimmy Carter has some of these qualities, but Walz and his authenticity feels near unprecedented in learning political figures in my 67 years of life. I didn't know what I was missing and longing for until he shows up.
Thanks. Walz has a comic touch that really is unusual and rare. (Jimmy Carter had/has a sardonic private wit, but nothing like what Walz has done in public.) Eons ago Mo Udall was supposed to be the wittiest person on the stump, but national TV coverage was in its infancy then.
I am sure that Walz, like everyone, will have rougher times ahead. But his tone is a very welcome complement to Kamala Harris's different kind of "up"-ness.