Barack Obama posted on social media that his address would lay out why Kamala Harris and Tim Walz ‘should be our next president and vice president’. (AFP pic)
Former First Lady Michelle Obama, who delivered an emotionally charged speech in support of Vice President Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in August, has made it clear that she does not intend to actively campaign for the nominee in the crucial weeks leading up to November 5, according to CNN.
Given Michelle Obama’s significant popularity among African-American women, a key group in the support base of neoliberal politicians, this was bad news for Kamala Harris’s campaign.
The reasons for Michelle Obama’s reluctance are many. According to the conservative (often referred to as «far-right») website Breitbart, it reflects the reluctance of some influential Democratic Party strategists to fully commit to Kamala Harris. Why? If she wins the election in November, there’s no guarantee she won’t run for a second term in 2028, which means that any aspiring politicians from the globalist talent pool would have to wait until 2032 for their moment in the spotlight.
This version is fascinating but unconvincing. A more rational explanation lies in the undeniable fact that there is a behind-the-scenes struggle between competing factions within the Democratic Party establishment, each vying for dominance.
One notable detail supporting this version: when Barack and Michelle Obama offered their measured, ritualistic praise of Harris at the Chicago convention, the honoree was about 150 kilometers away, where her campaign rally was scheduled.
A commentary in the British Daily Mail probably clarifies things: «Rumor has it that Harris avoided attending the forum that day ‘out of respect’ for Biden, who believes Obama is responsible for his exclusion from the (presidential) race. It was the least Kamala could do after the (intra-party) coup».
As the well-informed The New York Times (NYT) reported this summer, citing sources close to Joe Biden, he is «seething with anger» as he watches an iron ring of conspirators close in around him. According to veteran politician Biden, this group includes his former boss, ex-President Barack Obama, and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The NYT noted that such friction between an incumbent president and the leaders of his own party has not been seen before elections in many years.
To be fair, there have always been factions, cliques, and groups within the Democratic Party. Examples of such «groupism», as Americanist Alexander Shchelokov reminds us, include the «Jacksonians», who advocated limiting the power of the federal government between 1824 and 1832; the «Copperheads», who condemned the split that led to the Civil War of 1861–1865; and the «Southern Democrats», among others.
A textbook example of party infighting can be found in the case of Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator who stopped being «independent» and joined the American-style Democrats in an attempt to seize supreme power. He positioned himself as a supporter of marijuana legalization and same-sex marriage. This was not enough to satisfy the party bosses. In his student days, he was a member of the Socialist Youth Union and later called himself a defender of the working class.
At one point during the 2016 primaries, the «leftist» Sanders was running almost neck and neck with Hillary Clinton. But the “kingmakers” within the Democratic Party had already declared the former U.S. Secretary of State the winner, using their strategic reserve — the «superdelegate» mechanism, consisting of former presidents, vice presidents, as well as current congressmen and governors. As if on command, they voted for Hillary, sinking Bernie’s campaign.
But when the truth came out, thanks to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Democratic National Convention chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign. Shortly thereafter, Bernie Sanders also withdrew his candidacy, coincidentally at the same time that news broke that he had purchased his… third house.
The reason for Barack Obama’s cool attitude towards Kamala Harris, who has stopped laughing for no reason, is said to be purely pragmatic. The New York Post reported that both Obamas do not believe that the often confused and stumbling liberal of color is the best choice for the Democrats in the upcoming election.
As Barack Obama once said, Harris is unlikely to see all the traps set for her by her opponent. There is a strong possibility that sooner or later she will «slip up», especially when asked about foreign policy issues, such as her position on conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. A source close to the Biden family told the New York Post: «Obama is very upset because he knows she can’t win».
In any case, «the main result of the Democratic convention is the division of the party and the victory of the Clintons over the Obamas. Barack and Michelle Obama argued for an open convention, allowing delegates to choose the party’s nominee from several options. But the Clintons insisted that it should be the choice of the bureaucrats — Harris», political analyst Sergei Markov commented on the behind-the-scenes battle between the two neoliberal clans. In his opinion, «Harris is the Clinton choice, and she’s a colored version of Hillary Clinton».
This comment coincides with the opinion of political scientist and Americanist Dmitry Drobnitsky, published on aif.ru, about the extent of Barack Obama’s influence on Washington politics:
«No Biden, no bureaucrats like Sullivan and Blinken have emerged from his shadow. During his two terms in the White House, Obama brought the entire bureaucracy under his control and created a powerful political clan. Later, everyone from secretaries to the top of the State Department, who had previously been loyal to various groups, became Obama’s people».
All of this means that Kamala Harris, who was not elected but appointed by party bigwigs to the role of commander-in-chief and president, will have to keep looking over her shoulder. Even before the election results are in, she is skillfully maneuvering between competing clans.
Let’s predict: Even if Harris disproves Obama’s low opinion of her and inherits Biden’s White House residency, she’ll have to constantly keep the Clintons’ and Obamas’ interests in mind.
Ideologically, their differences are nuances, but when it comes to making key appointments and promoting «their people» to lucrative positions, a clash of ambitions is inevitable. This will require long and tedious negotiations — horse-trading, if you will — to feed the wolves from different political packs and keep the uninformed sheep whole.