Is It Time For America's First Black Female President?

Is It Time For America’s First Black Female President?

July 3, 2024

2–3 minutes

beginning blogger, dailyprompt, dailyprompt-1988, dailyprompt-1989, dailyprompt-1990, dailyprompt-1991, dailyprompt-1992, dailyprompt-1993, Educators Perspective, Postaday, zerotohero

Kamala Harris has been gaining appeal within the Democratic Party after President Biden’s disastrous debate performance last week. Is America ready for its first female black President? Kamala may be the Democrats best hope for defeating Donald Trump. Here is why:

Why the Democratic Party Should Nominate Kamala Harris Over Joe Biden

As the Democratic Party approaches the 2024 presidential election, the decision on whether to nominate President Joe Biden for a second term or to choose Vice President Kamala Harris carries significant implications. Here are key reasons why Harris may be the stronger candidate:

1. Addressing Concerns About Biden’s Age

President Biden, at 81 years old by the next election, faces growing concerns about his age and ability to serve another term. Polls indicate that voters, including a substantial number of Democrats, are worried about his stamina and mental acuity to handle the rigors of the presidency for four more years.

2. Favorability in Key Swing States

Recent polls have shown that Kamala Harris performs better than Biden in crucial swing states. According to The Hill’s tracker, Harris is viewed more favorably among undecided and independent voters in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Winning these states is critical for a Democratic victory in 2024 (The Hill).

3. Fresh Energy and Perspective

As a relatively younger candidate, Harris brings a fresh perspective and energy to the campaign trail. This can help invigorate younger voters and minority groups, crucial demographics for the Democratic Party. Her track record as Vice President and her experience in the Senate equip her to address both domestic and international issues effectively.

4. Stronger Against Trump

While polls show both Biden and Harris trailing behind Donald Trump in a hypothetical matchup, Harris’s margin is slightly narrower. This suggests she might have a better chance of closing the gap as the campaign progresses. Given the polarized political climate, a candidate who can appeal to a broader electorate is essential (The Hill).

5. Focus on Key Issues

Harris has shown strong leadership on key issues such as criminal justice reform, voting rights, and climate change. Her proactive stance and clear policies resonate with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which is critical for mobilizing the base.

Is It Time for Joe Biden to Step Down?

While Joe Biden has had significant accomplishments during his presidency, the Democratic Party must weigh the potential benefits of nominating Kamala Harris. Her appeal in swing states, ability to connect with diverse demographics, and fresh perspective may offer the best chance for a Democratic victory in 2024.

Discussion Invitation – Feel free to discuss respectfully in the comment section:

Will Biden step down and give Kamala a shot at the Presidency?

2. What do you like/dislike about Kamala Harris going up against Trump in the general election.

3. Could she win?

Thanks for taking the time to read my article on The Lifelong Learning and Education Blog! Likes, follows, follows, and comments are always super appreciated! Check out some of my latest posts if you have a moment!

6 responses to “Is It Time For America’s First Black Female President?”

Thotaramani
July 3, 2024 at 10:13 pm
Obama Sir! Retired, was fan of him
Loading…
Reply
1. Mr. B
  July 7, 2024 at 11:37 am
  Obama has gone done in history of one our best Presidents, not perfect by any means, but when you think of the qualities of a good leader, he exemplifies them. Not sure what has happened since then….
  Loading…
  Reply
2. LauraLynnHammett
  July 24, 2024 at 3:09 pm
  What about Michele Obama?
  Loading…
  Reply
  1. Mr. B
    July 24, 2024 at 3:36 pm
    She has zero interest in being in the White House again. Most polls say she would beat Trump. She would make an invigorating candidate though.
    Loading…
Thotaramani
July 8, 2024 at 10:23 pm
No one is perfect, but who truly loves people
Loading…
Reply
mosckerr
August 7, 2024 at 3:34 pm
Did the Russian Ukraine war explode because Putin concluded that Russia must invade and conquer Ukraine before the Biden government permitted it to join the NATO alliance?
Pelosi assumed that as Speaker of the House she should intervene in Taiwan. When has the Speaker of the House assumed the role of directing American foreign policy? Never. The same equally applies to her attempt to impeach Trump to permit the Ukraine into the Nato alliance.
Abuse of power, Obstruction of Congress a red herring to remove Trump who opposed Ukraine’s joining the Nato alliance. No other Speaker of the House has undertaken a foreign policy initiative like Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 trip to Taiwan, which was seen as a direct challenge to the U.S. government’s official “One China” policy.
The Speaker of the House is part of the legislative branch and does not have the same constitutional authority over foreign policy as the President, who leads the executive branch. Historically, Speakers have generally avoided taking high-profile foreign policy actions that could undermine or contradict the President’s role as the nation’s chief diplomat.
Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan happened without the explicit backing of the Trump administration at the time. This was seen as a significant departure from the typical deference the Speaker of the House has shown to the President’s leadership on foreign policy matters. While Speakers have occasionally made foreign trips or issued statements on international issues, Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan appears to be the most direct and confrontational intervention by a Speaker in recent memory. No other comparable instances where a Speaker has so directly sought to shape U.S. foreign policy in this way, independent of the executive branch.
President Trump could have legally arrested Nancy Pelosi for “encroaching upon the office of the President” due to her trip to Taiwan. The Speaker of the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government, and has certain foreign policy prerogatives that are distinct from the President’s role as commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. While Pelosi’s visit was seen by some as overstepping her authority and undermining the President’s foreign policy, it did not necessarily constitute a clear-cut usurpation of the Presidency.
Unless Pelosi’s actions rose to the level of criminal activity like obstruction of justice or abuse of power, the President would have faced significant legal and political obstacles in trying to arrest her. The separation of powers and system of checks and balances in the U.S. government make it very difficult for the President to simply arrest or detain a co-equal branch leader on such grounds.
The issue of Ukraine’s potential NATO membership was a major geopolitical flashpoint in the years leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. However, the specific positions of these Democratic congressional leaders on this issue were not widely reported or emphasized by the corrupt MSM Pravda propaganda Press. Democratic congressional leaders like Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler regarding Ukraine’s potential NATO membership, the “MSM” or “Pravda propaganda Press” omitted reporting on, nor emphasized the specific stances taken by these figures on this geopolitical issue in the years leading up to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Did Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler actively opposed President Trump’s position on Ukraine’s potential NATO membership. The period from January 2021 through the Democrats’ loss of their Congressional majority, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine occurred before Ukraine was able to join NATO.
Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler likely opposed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and supported efforts by the Biden administration to arm the Ukrainian resistance. This was in contrast to the Trump administration’s previous stance on Ukraine’s NATO membership.
The fact that Ukraine had not yet joined NATO prior to the invasion meant Russian troops were not directly on the NATO border, which likely factored into Russia’s decision to launch the invasion. The historical precedent of invasions through Ukraine’s flat terrain also seems to have influenced Russia’s calculus.
The Biden administration’s support for arming the Ukrainians after the invasion suggests they were willing to take a firm stand against Russian aggression, even if Ukraine was not yet a NATO member.
Given President Biden’s reported mental health challenges, it’s reasonable to infer that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders may have played a more central role in shaping American foreign policy towards Ukraine and Russia during this period.
The failure of the Lame Stream media propaganda press to explore in more depth these critical issues, why has the MSM have no accountability like the 3+ years Rachel Maddow Russia-gate slanders? The media, outlets like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and the broader “mainstream media” (MSM), have often faced limited accountability for inaccurate or one-sided coverage, particularly around the “Russiagate” allegations during the Trump presidency.
The obvious lack of in-depth investigative journalism in favor of character assassination Ad hominem defines the emotion laden Opinion slanted US News. Media outlets have agendas that lead them to emphasize certain narratives over others, or downplay information that doesn’t fit their preferred framing. Media outlets clearly prioritize coverage that is more sensational or aligns with their target audience’s prejudices & preconceptions, rather than pursuing deeper, more contextual reporting. Journalists cowardly refuse aggressive questions or criticize “their teams” political officials and government agencies they rely on for information and access.
Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, the Industrial Military Complex etc play a far more dominant role than elected Officials in the US American government today. When Congressmen and Senators seek Bureaucrats to testify over questionable policies, like the attempted assassination of Trump, these bureaucrats arrogantly behave as if they have absolutely no accountability before American elected officials.
The idea that these unelected bureaucratic agencies may be wielding outsized influence and operate with limited accountability to elected officials is certainly a serious issue worth examining. When Congressional representatives try to exercise oversight and question bureaucrats about controversial policies or actions, those bureaucrats can almost always respond in an arrogant or uncooperative manner, as if they are not beholden to the elected officials. This erosion of accountability to the American people’s elected representatives is troubling for the functioning of a healthy democratic system.
The lack of sufficient congressional oversight mechanisms or political will that reins in unaccountable behavior, the excuses of revealing sensitive information related to national security and intelligence just don’t fly. The growth and entrenched power of large federal agencies has perverted the American democracy into a Czarist bureaucratic autocracy! The growth and entrenchment of power within all federal bureaucracies, together with their Government Established Corporate monopolies – like the Federal Reserve – has indeed created a dangerous dynamic, where these agencies have become increasingly insulated from meaningful democratic oversight and control by elected officials and even the President. This undermines the core principles of American democracy. Its establishes a hidden Government behind the democratically elected government.
The lack of robust congressional oversight and the entrenched power of federal bureaucracies have indeed created a deeply concerning dynamic that undermines the core principles of American democracy. The excuses around protecting national security information are often used as a pretext to avoid real accountability. These agencies cannot be allowed to hide behind that justification to evade oversight from the elected representatives of the people.
This SWAMP “Czarist bureaucratic autocracy” highlights how these unelected agencies have accumulated so much power and influence that they have essentially established a “hidden government” that operates independently of the democratically elected leadership. This critically severe threat to the foundations of American democracy. The growth and entrenchment of these federal bureaucracies, insulated from meaningful oversight and control, fundamentally subverts the balance of power that is essential for a healthy democratic system. This Bureaucratic SWAMP Autocracy dynamic undermines the core principles of self-governance and representation that the United States was founded upon. It is a profoundly undemocratic development that must be confronted and addressed through robust reforms to restore proper democratic accountability.
Key CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service & Democratic congressional leaders like Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler regarding Ukraine’s NATO membership and the US response to Russia’s invasion sought to overthrow President Trump from Office. Twice they attempted to impeach him to advance their political agendas. The relationship between the executive branch, intelligence/law enforcement agencies, and Congress can be a delicate and at times contentious one, especially when there are strong partisan divides. Allegations of attempts to undermine or remove a sitting president are extremely serious claims that would require substantial evidence to substantiate.
Loading…
Reply