On Saturday's edition of The Weekend, MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson, in a segment devoted to Kamala Harris's possible VP picks, took not-so-subtle shots at Josh Shapiro.
Johnson began by saying that some of the possible candidates would be momentum killers for the campaign, causing the Washington Post and the New York Times to run headlines about "Kamala's first stumble and Dems in disarray."
You'd have thought that the hosts would press Johnson to name names on those momentum-killing candidates -- but they didn't.
But reading between the lines, it wasn't too hard to discern who Johnson had in mind: Shapiro.
He gave upsides and downsides on three of the possible candidates: Pete Buttigieg, Mark Kelly, and Shapiro. But the drawbacks on Kelly and Buttigieg were mild. Kelly might have problems with labor -- but he's been able to "pivot" on those issues. Does "Mayor Pete" have sufficient experience?
But when it came to Shapiro, the criticisms were more pointed and serious. Shapiro's biggest calling card is that he is governor of the key[stone] swing state of Pennsylvania. But Johnson noted that for 25 years, VPs have been no guarantee of winning their home swing state.
Johnson next flat-out declared that "there's a lot of complaints within the left about Josh Shapiro."
Finally, Johnson said it would risk turning off young people, who will be key to the ground game, if Harris picks someone whose issue positions—whether domestic or "international"—they disagree with. And what has been the biggest issue for young people this year? Who has been leading the pro-Hamas demonstrations on campus and elsewhere? Young people. So who might those young people, Johnson seemed to imply, be most upset about as the VP pick? Shapiro—the Jewish governor of Pennsylvania who, it was recently revealed, actually did some volunteering with the IDF in Israel when he was 20.
At the end of the segment, discussing JD Vance, Johnson and Michael Steele, with some egging on by Symone Sanders-Townsend, had great fun working "couch" into the conversation, a reference to a false and fabricated internet allegation about his personal life. If false claims about Vance's personal life are fair game, what of true claims about Kamala's personal past?
Note: Johnson also managed to work in one of the liberal media's favorite attacks on Trump, saying that Harris's campaign is so great that we'll be studying it in 50 years -- "assuming we still have a democracy."
Here'e the transcript.
MSNBC
The Weekend
8/3/24
8:16 am EDTJASON JOHNSON: This [Harris's VP pick] is is very important, because of the short timeline. Kamala Harris -- the VP's campaign has been excellent, right? We are going to be studying this in 50 years: assuming we still have a democracy. We're going to be studying this in 50 years as, like, this is one of the best-run campaigns we've seen. This is almost like England: they have 90 days to put this together.
She cannot afford a stumble. What I mean by stumble is, I don't actually think that any of the people that are in this top six would harm her, but it could change momentum. There are some of these people she could select that'll keep the momentum going, and there are some of these people she could select where, Monday, the headline in the Washington Post and New York Times is going to be, "Harris's First Stumble: Dems in Disarray."
There are some people she could pick that could mess up the momentum they have right now, and I hope they make a wise decision this weekend.
. . .
SYMONE SANDERS: The Harris campaign worked it [the VP selection process] very similar to how she was selected in 2020. There was a group of people that candidate Biden designated, and said you all are going to be my selection committee; I want yourthoughts. I will have the final say, but I want some people that I trust also weigh in on these folks.
I have to imagine when they handed the packet over, they were thinking about JD Vance, and everything they've seen in the news, Jason, about all of these things coming out, and all of the audio, and the fact that he wrote the forward for Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, architect of Project 2025, his book, it's coming out. It just seems like all these unforced errors, and I could just imagine, the packet was sick, and it's like: we think we got it all, but we don't know.
JOHNSON: Well, here's the thing, it's a completely different process, right? JD Vance, JD Vance was selected, because Donald Trump -- it was a flex! He already thought he was going to win. JD Vance was just to run up the score in states he thought he was already going to win.
This is different. This is finding an actually governing partner. And let's be honest, you have a lot of very qualified people. But you have people that some parts of the Democratic base are more excited about.
Pete Buttigieg is probably the best communicator the party has. He's fantastic. Great, that works for you.
If you were to pick Mark Kelly, he literally is from a border state. He can talk about the border, he can talk about security, he can talk about IVF that he and his wife used to have a child. He can talk about gun issues. He can do all those things.
You've got, you know, Josh Shapiro, who's great on the stump, who's charming, who's from a critical swing state. But let's also be clear: it has not been evident over the last 25 years or so that your Vice President is necessarily going to guarantee you a swing state. There are criticisms from labor about Kelly, even though he's been able to pivot. There are concerns about whether or not Mayor Pete would be ready for this position after just being Transportation Secretary. And there's a lot of complaints within the left about Josh Shapiro.
And I think that the Harris campaign has to be very aware of these things. Look, she's got to make sure that the young people, the young people who have free time, they young people who are going to volunteer, the young people are going to go to Michigan and knock on doors and take a semester off because they're so excited about her: she can't have any of those young people get disappointed, or think that she's playing in their faces, if she picks someone who represents or has positions that they're not happy about on any issue, domestic or international.
SANDERS-TOWNSEND: So Michael, can I just say, can I just ask you, but like, aren't they, this is just like, you think the young people were excited about Joe Biden when Barack Obama picked him in 20--in 2008? Like, I think they were voting for Barack Obama.
JOHNSON: No, but it's not the same kind of race. We're not in the same kind of race.
MICHAEL STEELE: I think to Jason's point, it is a different race today, and those are the considerations, particularly when you stack them up. But when you stack them up against what we see on the other side, I don't think--to be honest, I just don't think any of those gentlemen are going to have a problem with JD -- [Symone starts to giggle] -- nah, I won't say it. With JD Vance, I'll just go there. I know, I almost said it.
JOHNSON: You had to couch it perfectly, so the people really didn't get confused.
STEELE: I had, I had to couch it perfectly. And so I just figured I'd just leave the couch in the other room. Heath Mayo, Dr. Jason Johnson, thank you both so much for being with us this morning.
Symone, you're so bad.
