Jasmine Crockett points to Kamala Harris' role as prosecutor as reason she had trouble with Black men
Crockett appeared on The Chuck ToddCast with ex-NBC News host Chuck Todd, who asked the Democratic lawmaker if Black male voters were hesitant to vote for a woman.
Harris served as a district attorney for San Francisco as well as California Attorney General before launching a bid for the Senate and ultimately serving as vice president. The former VP faced criticism from both sides of the political aisle over her prosecution record.
"I definitely think that there was misogyny in this across the board no matter what color male you're talking about. I just think that you'd be in error to not like know that there was misogyny that existed," she said. "The very first polling briefing that we had, with a pollster that I trust a lot, he briefed the Black caucus, and he said that one of the issues that he was running into with Black and Brown communities was that she had been a prosecutor."
Black Group Fires Back At Obama For 'Insulting' Harris Pitch: 'Worst Kind Of Identity Politics'
"There was definitely some resume stuff that disallowed her from being able to build the type of rapport of trust within these marginalized communities that historically have been targeted," she said.
Read On The Fox News App
Crockett told Todd that she was given guidance to lean into Harris' background as a prosecutor, which she believed was not going to be helpful.
"When I did it, I did a bit of a swing on it, right, as a criminal defense attorney, and I explained like this is the kind of prosecutor we all would have wanted, right? So, I built it that way," she added.
Crockett said a prominent rapper told her he was uncomfortable openly endorsing Harris, citing her prosecution record.
Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture
"So he told me that one of the issues was just kind of like the prosecutor thing. And I said, and I made sure to talk about the things that we had been told move the needle with these groups, right? Like knowing that she had like second-chance programs and things like that, like letting them know that she was one of the good ones," she said.
The lawmaker argued that the fact that Harris was a prosecutor was "baked in" and people didn't know much beyond that.
"When you're talking about 107 days of a campaign, it's kind of hard to get that across," she added.
Crockett recently suggested Democrats were looking to run the "safest White boy" in 2028.
"It is this fear that the people within the party, within the primary system, will have about voting for a woman because every time we voted for a woman, we've lost, so far," she said in a clip posted to Instagram. "And I think that that's a natural fear because we just want to win."
The Democratic congresswoman added, "I had a donor on the phone with me telling me that all the donors are lining up behind that candidate. So I can tell, and I tell you, it's not a Black person, nor a woman, OK?"Original article source: Jasmine Crockett points to Kamala Harris' role as prosecutor as reason she had trouble with Black men
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
There's a sinister reason for Democrats' collapsing pride in America
One of America's two great political parties no longer thinks of itself as proudly American. As recently as 20 years ago, Democrats were almost as keen on their country as Republicans were, according to Gallup polling. In 2005, fully 81 per cent of Democrats said they were 'very' or 'extremely' proud of being American. Today that number is just 36 per cent. Republicans have hardly changed in that time: 93 per cent were 'very' or 'extremely' proud 20 years ago, and 92 per cent feel that way now. Their national pride didn't decline much even during the Democratic administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Democrats have grown more disenchanted with America whenever Donald Trump has been president, but their alienation isn't only about him. There was a time when even the Communist Party USA went out of its way to present itself as patriotic, insisting that 'Communism is 20th-century Americanism'. The 21st-century Democratic Party is rather less eager to present itself as characteristically American. If the Gallup surveys provide one indication of a post-American mentality taking root among Democrats, recent events supply further evidence. When illegal immigrants clash with law-enforcement in cities like Los Angeles, many Democrats, including office holders, side with the foreign lawbreakers. There are some 212 Democrats currently serving in Congress, but only seven voted for a House of Representatives resolution condemning the recent violent protests in LA. The Democrats have come to see themselves as a party that represents populations other than just American citizens. The charismatic 33-year-old who is the Democratic party's nominee for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, is himself an American citizen. But in 2013 his mother, the filmmaker Mira Nair, was quite emphatic in telling the Hindustan Times that Zohran 'is not an [American] at all. He was born in Uganda, raised between India and America. … He thinks of himself as a Ugandan and as an Indian.' That may have changed since he acquired US citizenship in 2018. Then again, his mother was already a US citizen when she made her boast to the Indian newspaper. Mamdani's father, for his part, is a professor at Columbia University renowned, the New York Times notes, as 'a major figure in the field of post-colonialism'. Mamdani might very well tell Gallup he's very or extremely proud to be an American, if he gets called during the next poll. But it's still fair to suggest that a Democratic Party already drifting in an ideologically 'post-colonial' and post-American direction is apt to accelerate down that path if the son of a top post-colonial academic becomes one of its future leaders. At the elite level with the Mamdanis and at the street level with the riots against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Left side of America's political spectrum is consistently committed to breaking down the connections between citizenship and the nation-state. Instead of the American federal government serving as an instrument of its citizens, the Left envisions a government administered by an elite without strong national loyalties, which rules in the name of humanity. To their minds, citizenship and national pride are anachronisms, indeed barbarities, that prevent the realisation of a more just, redistributive, 'post-colonial' society – the kind of thing that Mamdani's mayoral campaign might well have in mind with its call to 'shift the tax burden … to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighbourhoods.' Republicans have a steady sense of pride in being American because their view of politics prioritises country over party: America doesn't stop being a source of pride simply because Barack Obama or Joe Biden is president. Democrats, however, clearly have a weaker attachment to the country in general, and that attachment is more party-dependent than it is for Republicans, according to the data. This suggests that what is a source of pride for Democrats is how well America's government approximates the Left's post-national ideal. Trump moved steadily away from that ideal during his first term in office, causing Democrats' degree of pride in America to slump, dropping every year to a low of 42 per cent of Democrats who said they were very or extremely proud of their country in 2020. (The number then shot up to 62 per cent – still 25 points below the Republican mark – in Biden's first year.) In his second term, Trump has asserted national distinctions against transnational ideals still more aggressively, triggering a corresponding collapse in Democrats' sense of pride in America, to today's record lows. For Democrats, 'national pride' means being proud of transcending the old nation. This wasn't always the case. For all the bad publicity Democrats rightly received for the antics of their anti-American, radical Left-wing during the Vietnam War, the party had a patriotic mainstream. The high levels of pride in America recorded by Gallup's polls of Democrats 20 years ago attest to how long that mainstream survived. But since then the party has adopted a new outlook, fostered by a highly educated elite. This first cost the party much of its working-class white support and is now eroding its working-class Hispanic and black support, while Democrats have picked up new donors and publicists from the ranks of old guard Republicans with an internationalist outlook. Yet this influx of a few libertarians and neoconservatives isn't nearly enough to offset the loss of working-class voters, and what's worse, it contributes nothing to restoring the party's feel for the nation – quite the opposite, in fact. One of America's two parties is now a world party instead. Yet voters, especially Americans, prefer the nation to the world. Daniel McCarthy is the editor in chief of Modern Age Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Without compromise, American democracy has no future
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The following day, Bacon announced that he'd also had enough of the intolerant partisanship dominating Congress. The former Air Force brigadier general, Advertisement Tillis and Bacon aren't rebels. They just don't believe their job is to elevate hardline ideological rigidity above all other considerations. In that sense they are like former Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two Democrats who likewise found themselves demonized for occasionally making common cause with members of the opposing party. Last year, they too chose not to run for reelection. Advertisement Of all the developments that have sickened American politics in this generation, the abandonment of democratic civility and the resulting hostility to compromise are the most toxic. The virtues of moderation and magnanimity, the willingness to engage respectfully with others' views, the assumption that individuals with contrary opinions may be wrong but are not evil — without these, our political institutions cannot function. The first and most vital task of liberal democratic politics is to accommodate strong differences without tearing society apart. But that becomes impossible when conciliation is regarded as treachery — and when politics stops focusing on persuasion and debate and becomes obsessed instead with defeating enemies by any means necessary. Granted, Yet compromise has been the lifeblood of the American experiment from its earliest days. The very possibility of self‑government is grounded in the presumption that citizens with intensely held but divergent views can find ways to cooperate. The American founders knew perfectly well that there would always be deep disputes over principles, tactics, means, and ends. That is why they regarded compromise not as a necessary evil but as an essential element of our constitutional system. Advertisement 'Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics,' the American thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote in In ' America's independence holiday is a good time to remember that some of this nation's greatest achievements emerged from political give‑and‑take, not from unilateral assertions of power. The Constitution itself was born of compromise. At the convention in 1787, delegates were deadlocked between a population-based legislature (favored by large states) and one that would treat all states equally (favored by small states). Had the impasse not been broken by what was later called the Great Compromise — a bicameral Congress with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate — the convention would have collapsed and the fragile confederation of states might never have endured. American progress has depended time and again on the ability of political leaders to transcend their partisan, sectional, or ideological loyalties and reach a compromise all sides could live with. Advertisement Consider the bargain struck in 1790 between Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state debts, which would amount to a dramatic expansion of national power. That prospect alarmed Southern leaders like Jefferson and Madison — but they agreed not to derail the plan in exchange for locating the new national capital on the Maryland-Virginia border instead of in one of the major commercial centers of the North. Though each side had to swallow a bitter pill, the deal achieved two vital ends: national creditworthiness through debt assumption, and a seat of government accessible to both North and South. And it showed that even foundational questions about the scope of federal power could be resolved through negotiation rather than force. Congress similarly chose compromise over caustic stalemate in 1964, with a Civil Rights Act that combined Southern concessions on federalism with Northern demands to outlaw segregation. The law was far from perfect, but it transformed American society and politics. It passed despite the opposition of hard-core segregationists, thanks to a bipartisan coalition hammered together by President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader — proof that compromise, when linked to moral conviction, can dismantle entrenched injustice. To mention one more, recall the 1997 budget agreement. When Republicans under Newt Gingrich won control of the US House for the first time in decades, their ' surpluses . It was one more illustration of how ideological opponents, if they are motivated to do so, can find ways to compromise. Advertisement None of this is to suggest that all compromises are good. That would be as ridiculous as insisting that any compromise is bad. The point, rather, is that without the ability to compromise — and without the civility and mutual respect that make that possible — our democratic republic cannot survive. Maybe we've already crossed that point. Is there any reason to be optimistic about a Congress in which fanatics like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bernie Sanders flourish while thoughtful legislators such as Thom Tillis and Kyrsten Sinema are marginalized until they resign? In ' What would have happened if those men hadn't been able to reason together — if they had abandoned all efforts to persuade and had resorted instead to invective and intimidation? The American experiment might have ended before it even got off the ground. If today's leaders continue to scorn compromise and civility, ours may be the generation that brings it crashing back to earth. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
2 hours ago
Alleged mastermind behind shooting of Colombian senator and presidential candidate arrested
BOGOTA, Colombia -- The alleged mastermind behind the shooting of a conservative Colombian senator and presidential candidate was taken into custody Saturday, almost a month after the attack, law enforcement authorities said. Elder José Arteaga Hernández, alias 'Chipi" or "Costeño,' was arrested in a neighborhood in the northwestern part of the capital, Bogota, National Police Director Maj. Gen. Carlos Fernando Triana told reporters. Authorities had previously accused him and other suspects of being near the Bogota park where Miguel Uribe Turbay was shot in broad daylight on June 7. Uribe was giving a political speech in the park when he was attacked from behind and wounded in the head, allegedly by a minor who was captured as he fled. Three other people have been arrested for participating in the logistics and execution of the crime. The motive is still being investigated. Uribe, who in October announced his intention to run in the 2026 presidential election, remains in intensive care and has undergone several surgeries. From his Senate seat, he had become one of President Gustavo Petro's most vocal critics. The attack has been widely condemned in a country with a dark past in which drug cartels and insurgent groups murdered and kidnapped politicians. Charges against Arteaga include attempted aggravated homicide; manufacturing, trafficking and carrying firearms or ammunition; and using minors to commit crimes. Interpol issued a red notice against him Friday. It was not immediately clear Saturday if Arteaga had an attorney who could comment on his behalf. Authorities said he would make his first court appearance over the weekend. Triana last month said Arteaga 'has been involved in a life of crime for more than 20 years, performing hit jobs in all types of crimes in Bogotá.'
