She is getting close.

It's going to be tough for her to move forward past the vetting stage considering her career path.

a much higher opinion of her before learning more about her background.

She's considered in the top tier of candidates now. Vetting shouldn't be only for the front-runner.

There are extremely good reasons to not vet those who are on the outside. Harris is right there. I guess at this point, considering the promotion, she has probably hit the spot where she has a shot.

Let the vetting commence.

"She should have the answers ready anyway."

I'm well read on Harris. There simply isn't an answer for some of her history outside of deflecting to the good work she has done.

She will simply turn it around to attack other Democrats for something completely unattached.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=199236

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=199244

I imagine Harris will be willing use the exact same tactic.

standard if she wants to focus on someone else's past.

In the same spirit of your OP, "believing the primaries should include vetting of what candidates said and did" just over the last 2 years:

"Former vice president structured his speaking, writing business in a way that cut his tax bill

The presidential candidate and his wife used a strategy that let the couple avoid paying a 3.8% self-employment tax on book and speech income.
By Richard Rubin


Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden used a tax loophole that the Obama administration tried and failed to close, substantially lowering his tax bill.

Mr. Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, routed their book and speech income through S corporations, according to tax returns the couple released this week. They paid income taxes on those profits, but the strategy let the couple avoid the 3.8% self-employment tax they would have paid had they been compensated directly instead of through the S corporations.

The tax savings were as much as $500,000, compared to what the Bidens would have owed if paid directly or if the Obama proposal had become law.

“There’s no reason for these to be in an S corp—none, other than to save on self-employment tax,” said Tony Nitti, an accountant at RubinBrown LLP who reviewed the returns."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-used-tax-code-loophole-obama-tried-to-plug-11562779300

Lucrative appointments to Commissions, Creative use of tax loopholes... it should all be vetted.
Better now than in the General Election.

of the qualifications required by that law is to point out that Biden used a legal tax loophole?

That legal loophole was one Obama tried to close.

But honestly, please, lets vet all this now in the primaries.

Better now than in the General Election.

be a "representative of recipients of such services"? Wouldn't a prosecutor be representing them in relevant criminal matters?

Do you have a link to her “backhanded acknowledgment?

Where is Biden mentioned in the op?

Your post is a statement about "bluewater," not Biden like you think it is.

There is nothing unethical in using a tax code provision exactly as it was intended. There was no decption involved in using this provision. Biden did not pull political strings to get this written into the law to specifically benefit him. It is no worse that the millions of home owners deducting their mortgage payments (another dubious tax break IMHO).

If there is a problem, it is with the tax code, not with Biden

And we can certainly empathize with your desire to avoid a direct answer to the OP, as it's a very efficient method of holding others to a higher standard than what you hold yours to.

"Same spirit..." would seem more sincere if a laugh-track were played along with it.

Leaves the door wide open to discuss vetting the candidates on what they said and did.

boom. mic drop.




Seriously, Biden using a TAX LOOPHOLE that President Obama tried to close is, well, unseemly.
Just as lucrative appointments to Commissions are also unseemly.

I naively thought the discussion was about ANY and ALL candidates making money in unseemly ways, trying to limit the focus to Harris seems unfair.

You are trying to vet someone else. Make a separate thread.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Like Republicans and "but Hillary" or "but Obama."

Assembly?

Full pay and full benefits as prosecutor.

Is the correct ??? B

to in the OP points out she wasn't the only one doing that. It was a systemic problem. It still needs to be addressed when she's running for president.

I vaguely recall that she also had some sweetheart deal at a hospital.

Hence her slogan"Kamala Harris: For the People.

Easy to look over that level of deflection.

It got kind of glossed over, but I only mentioned it because it nudged my memory. I remember thinking that it didn't make sense.

Guess that didn't nudge up against your memory.

Love the verbiage you use to hedge.

Didn't. Vaguely. Sweetheart. Nudged.

"I only mentioned it because it nudged my memory."



Unlike the rest of her background. That wasn't even a good attempt.

Geeze Louise! Whaddabout Michelle Obama?!?

appointment to a lucrative state job whose qualifications were spelled out by law, and whose qualifications she didn't begin to meet, judging by everything I've been able to learn.

I care about her having the highest absentee rate on that commission, too, and would like an explanation for that.

and a job that recruited her hard.

not that that has anything to do w anything.

So there's no reason to vet her.

Whatever the facts are about Michelle, it has nothing to do with this thread.

Michelle was named executive director of community relations and external affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals in 2002. She had the experience and studied sociology.

and I said again and again that I thought she'd be a great VP if Biden is the nominee.

I changed my mind about her after learning more about her background, and I would like to know what explanations she can offer for the questions I raised in my OP.

A typical day at DU.

background. I would like these questions answered.

in her capacity as a prosecutor of crimes against them? Wouldn't a DA / prosecutor be a representative of those recipients in criminal court cases?

to San Francisco Weekly in 2003 was that she had a "level of life knowledge and common sense" that she brought to the job. I'm guessing that if she'd have been appointed as a "representative of recipients of service" she'd have mentioned that.

IMO, given the qualifications stipulated by that law, it was clear that the intent of the law was to have someone with extensive experience representing recipients of health services, and that wasn't Harris's background.

If you'll read the article, you''ll see, as I said in the OP, that she wasn't the only person with trivial or nonexistent qualifications appointed to this commission or a couple of others that paid high salaries for very little work (as opposed to more typical state commissions that paid very little). It was a badly run system.

But the fact other people without qualifications were being appointed does not excuse Harris's accepting this appointment to a commission important in a field she had no expertise in.

Guesses and personal opinions are interesting as well. Not particularly convincing, but certainly interesting.

Considering all that Harris has accomplished in her career, I bet she actually did a great job on the commission
-------------
Also from the article:
Harris defended her work on the commission, saying that the workload was 'significant' and that she was proud that she was able to help underserved communities. 'The commission's work is very important,' she said.

for a government run healthcare system in America.

Christ, that’s misguided.

they had none of the qualifications stipulated by the law creating that commission. And a commission where they had the highest absentee rate for years.

none of the qualifications and experience stipulated in the law creating that commission?

And would you then skip more of the twice-monthly meetings than anyone else on the commission?

qualified community leaders, and Harris is highly qualified.

Board members would get voluminous packages and agendas, and often communicated their wishes to staff and/or the Chairman, without attending meetings. Votes were not always taken in person, and important issues were often handled without formal meetings.

You are missing the point(s), and/or just trying to disparage her.

the California law creating that commission was quite specific, and Harris did not meet those qualifications.

It says that no where in the article.

The truth is, she was imminently qualified for the commission and said it was important work.

to the commission to represent recipients of the medical services concerned.

Unless there's some evidence that the other commission members filled the other qualifications cited, and she was appointed specifically to represent recipients of care, then you've just assigned her a role on the commission with no particular reason for doing so. As far as I've been able to discover, she never said that was her role on the commission.

And again, she had no experience in the field.

She has defended her work for the commission -- of course she would -- but I'd like third parties who are qualified to verify that.

Willie Brown who was known for political favors and investigated for corruption for handing out favors. 2 indictments for his buddies.

those traits in others, too.

But thanks for joining in bashing Harris.

80% seems like a pretty good attendance rate for the twice a month meeting, doesn't it?

It would have been fairer to mention that Harris actually attended 80% of all the meetings.

That's hardly a "no show" job, right?

48 over two years she was on it.

80 percent of 48 is 38.4 and I'm assuming we are talking give or take one meeting.

So that means that she attended 19/24 meetings both years one would assume, on average.

That's even assuming it's exactly 20 percent and not say rounded up from 17% or something.

Yeah, sorry, not all that spun up about that number. She didn't put herself on the commission and it's not like there wasn't a pattern and practice of putting other "not qualified in healthcare" people on the commission.

It’s an issue that should be better explained by the candidate.

And, indeed she is not really at the stage where “vetting” is serious. Yes, she’s moved up in the polls but still trails badly where she needs it the most ... with the AA vote. Currently trailing Biden by 29 pts


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287199440#post15

Yeah, she already basically admitted she was not qualified.

controversial appointment to those who raise the question to me. Hopefully this issue will be addressed and satisfactorily put to rest long before the General Election.

That should calm them down some, don't you thin?

would be a challenge for me to defend.

That was one of the qualifications mentioned in the OP.

As a prominent African American political figure, don't her contacts with members of the community, the recipients of the service, meet that qualification?

Sure seems so to me.

Honestly, the article quoted in the OP sounds a bit like a hatchet job on Harris.

who met every requirement. How many more qualified applicants were passed over?

For sure, Biden, E.W., Mayor Pete, and Bernie won't touch the issue in the debates. Trump will throw everything he can at her.

but admittedly in the real world that often doesn't happen but I would think a legal aid attorney would be a better legal representative of recipients of those services.

Republicans will use this - I've seen them do it already on her badly policed Facebook page, where every troll who can type has made many vile accusations. We'd best be prepared. Wasn't that the argument? Biden was not prepared, and that was said to be a problem.

need to find out, pronto.

I knew this was posted by a Biden supporter before I ever got to the preferred candidate tag.

who do the same thing. I don't like the negativity, but when Harris started on it, complaining about turnabout is hypocritical.

be exempt from Vetting when she's Vetting Joe Biden last century?

Riddle me that?

So many anti-Harris posts on DU. Doesn’t help Biden at all.

the only helped by these attacks, will be trump!

Why was that fact not mentioned in all these posts?

Was that left out to imply that Harris had some sort of "no-show job"?

That was hardly the case, she attended 80% of the bi-monthly meetings.

And what was the absentee rate for the OTHER people on this commission, hmm?

No idea how important these meetings were, it could be that much more work was done outside these meetings. But as we are talking about participation rates, I don't know why 80% would be remarkable. It certainly wouldn't be for me if I showed up for 80% of my job duties.

So it's hard to tell if it was out of the ordinary. For instance, missing just 5 of the 48 meetings over that 4 year period would give an attendance rate of 89.6%.

From my OP, which quotes the Chronicle article:

A wink is as good as a nod, eh?

1. "I care about her having the highest absentee rate on that commission, too, and would like an explanation for that."

2. "And a commission where they had the highest absentee rate for years."

3. "And would you then skip more of the twice-monthly meetings than anyone else on the commission?"

Boy, oh boy.

Those posts would have come across "a little different" if you actually said in them that Harris had an 80% attendance rate and that you did NOT know the attendance rate of any other member of the commission, don't you think?

I think so.

Honestly, the article in the OP just seems like a hatchet job on Harris.

Had I missed even 15% of those mtgs, I would have been out of a job!!

But I was there 80% of the time..... lol

Now do one about Biden's duties at the University of Pennsylvania, which paid him $900,000 over the last 2 years.



Note: I don't care how Biden or Harris earned their money. They're both highly intelligent, motivated people who work to do good for the people they serve. I think the OPs concern about Harris' qualifications for this committee are ridiculous, just like the concern about Biden's duties at PENN are ridiculous.

Sid

Well said Sid.

Penn pays well.

Biden's paid more, but he brings more to the university than an average professor.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/joe-biden-penn-salary-lectures-20190712.html

The commission called for someone to represent recipient of service. It's great that Harris was able to represent underserved communities while on the commission. All too often, underserved communities do not have an advocate.

There's nothing disqualifying here for me. Interesting article, though. Sounds like the state of California has a lot of these commissions for random things.

I hope you find the answers you are seeking as you make your choice.

experience in the field, I really don't think the idea was to pick someone with zero experience representing Medi-Cal recipients.

Nor have I read anything suggesting that Harris was placed on the commission to be the person representing recipients of service.

Maybe there is some evidence that she was, and that she actually had some experience in this.

If so, I hope she or her campaign can present it.

Because otherrwise, as the article points out, it looks like cronyism. And although she wasn't the only person without any evident qualifications benefiting from being appointed to one of these jobs, she's the one running for president and insisting on looking decades back at candidates' records.

She worked in the district attorney's office in San Francisco at the time. Her job was representing people, on behalf of the state, who came from all walks of life. That's what a prosecutor does.

That made her more than qualified to serve on the commission based on the charter of the commission that you posted.

From the article:

20% of the time.

Those are all net positives.

I'll just leave this here, since I think it applies:

I have a full time job and I attend all the meetings of the board I am on and I don't make any money let alone 90k for being on that board. So don't pull this you are a sexist bullshit. She took that job, which paid 90k, for less than 50 hours of work PER YEAR. The very least she could have done was show up for the meetings. She missed more meetings than any other member of that board.

So, yes. The quote holds: It looks to me like she has had to work twice as hard for her entire career, like most women, because of the bullshit, sexist perceptions that people hold.

And, it wasn't her fault that California had highly paid people on commissions. The state isn't a charity and she didn't make the law.

Oh, and I will continue to point out willful or unconscious bias where it exists.

I don't get paid for it. She made over 1 and a half times my entire yearly income to work 50 hours a year, the very least she could do is show up for those hours. It isn't sexist to insist you actually do the job you are being paid not only a living wage but a salary that is above the median salary for your state for a job that is 50 hours of work. You can bet if we find that Joe Biden sat on some board, got paid 90k and had the worst attendance on the entire board I would be every bit as not happy as I am with this.

given to her by Willie. She admitted she was not qualified for the positions. She was an assistant DA in Alameda. When was she a rep of recipient of service? She was a prosecutor. Completely unrelated.

their panties in a wad over something that isn’t a negative.

behind trying to take something positive that Harris did and turn it into a negative, though. But that's politics.

My flame-proof underpants are firmly in place since things are just getting started.

They are a side position that professionals take on.

Sometimes it is a requirement for the professional license.

It is like a type of community service.

to attend every single meeting, either. But she put in a lot of time on behalf of the non-profit on top of her other responsibilities.

that is my issue. She was being paid more than the median income (way more than it) for a job that was 50 hours a year.

Honestly? The commission was bound by state law. Like I posted above, that was the set salary. And Harris deserved every penny.

if I missed 20% of the days at my work I would be docked those days after my sick leave ran out.

You may not like it but it isn’t something Harris needs to apologize for. It is a contrived hit piece.

What rule was that? She got paid $2000 an hour for a job and was a no show 1/5 of the time.