Former ESPN personality Jemele Hill is finally speaking out about the 2024 election, but you might be surprised to learn that she thinks Kamala Harris lost because of “racism” and “sexism.” do not have.
Well, perhaps “surprise” isn't the right word. Because she blames racism and sexism for everything that ails America, it was predictable that she would blame Harris' defeat on racism and sexism. .
Immediately after the election, Hill declined to comment on the 2024 election results. But she is speaking out now, and her statements are not only predictable but also arrogant, as she places herself on the same level as senators, vice presidents, and presidential candidates.
Hill appeared on his podcast this week to provide much-awaited analysis of the recent election that gave Donald Trump a second term in the White House, the second such event in U.S. history. It was the second time.
“I take Donald Trump's re-election very personally,” Hill gushed. I think we can empathize with Kamala Harris in the sense that for many Black women, there are people who have been in that position before feeling entitled, if not overqualified in many ways. It's from. ”
That's quite a line. Hill said she is somehow “overqualified” like Kamala Harris and puts herself on Harris' level.
Whether he deserves it or not, Harris has accomplished something important in his life. She rose from being a lawyer to a prosecutor to a senator to vice president. And she was appointed as the presidential candidate of one of the country's two major political parties. Then again, deserved or not, Harris has a long list of higher achievers since then.
Compare that to Hill's accomplishments. A local sportswriter in Detroit who became a commentator for ESPN, was fired and given a busy job. atlantic oceanthe list of failed TV shows and podcasts continues to grow, and the contrast is striking. Calling Hill “overqualified” at anything seems a bit of a stretch. no?
Oh, but Hill wasn't done expressing his displeasure with the 2024 election.
“And I don't think it's a coincidence that both of President Trump's wins were against women,” she continued. “I hate to use the word 'ready,' but when will America be ready for women to play that role?”
“I think this is a question we have to ask ourselves: What does this take? Because I'm looking at all the post-election autopsies that are trying to corral what I think is very clear about how even the “voter” was being driven. [sic] I met Kamala Harris. ”
Yes, this wise political commentator coined the term. There is no word “elector.” She probably means “electors,” which in that context means the entire U.S. electorate.
As for her claim that Trump only won because the Democratic Party fielded female candidates both times: Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024, that accusation is ridiculous. It looks like.
First, Hillary only narrowly lost to Trump in 2016, so if “sexism” was an issue for her, it certainly didn't seem to be a big issue. One might imagine that if sexism were a major issue in American politics, Hillary wouldn't even come close to winning.
But the real problem seems to be not the gender, but the pick itself. Both Hillary and Harris rank as among the most unpopular figures of our time in politics. Harris was so unpopular that when she tried to run for president in 2020, she dropped out after falling short in the primary. And as vice president, she was even. more unpopular Ahead of his promotion to party nominee, ahead of Biden! Hillary has always been a lightning rod for criticism and ranks as one of the most unpopular politicians in recent US history. between her Run for president.
Perhaps if Democrats want to run a woman, they should choose one who doesn't already have a track record of severe negative ratings.
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Hustonor truth social @WarnerToddHuston
