Kamala Harris, who launched her campaign for president, has long been a favorite of Hollywood donors.

Kamala Harris has launched her campaign for the White House, after President Joe Biden stepped aside Sunday under pressure from party leaders.

The vice president has Biden’s endorsement, and is unchallenged as yet for the Democratic nomination, which will be formally decided at the Aug. 19 convention in Chicago.

“I am honored to have the President’s endorsement and my intention is to earn and win this nomination,” Harris said in a statement. “I will do everything in my power to unite the Democratic Party—and unite our nation—to defeat Donald Trump and his extreme Project 2025 agenda. We have 107 days until Election Day. Together, we will fight. And together, we will win.”

In her statement, the vice president paid tribute to Biden’s “extraordinary leadership,” saying he had achieved more in one term than many presidents do in two.

    • Drunemeton@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      Read in another thread, and haven’t looked it up yet mind you, but apparently AOC is 1 year too young.

      • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

        People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          0·
          2 months ago

          My problem is not that it is misinformation, my problem is that Republicans could use it to gum up the elections in the courts.

          • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
            0·
            2 months ago

            The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

            It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

            Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 months ago

              Until this year, there was nothing remotely questionable about whether or not it was legal for a president to commit crimes. And people like you told me similar things about how the court would rule there too.

              • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 months ago

                I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

                I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

                If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

                Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.