Steven Hayward at Power Line has a prescient observation about the unflattering exposé of Kamala Harris that ran in The Atlantic two days ago:

[P]erhaps the most revealing tidbit in the whole article, though it may not be evident to the casual reader:

Harris has been an elected official for 18 years straight, but she has only a few senior aides on staff who have worked for her for more than a few months. Turf battles have been a recurring feature of Harris offices over the years, but her newest circle believes it is finally getting her on track after years of past staffers not serving her well. Some have been surprised at how much work there is to be done, whether that's briefing her on certain policy issues or helping her improve her sparring-with-journalists skills.

The problem isn't "turf battles." It is always a bad sign when a politician can't good keep staff (or any staff), and Harris has long been known for being a terrible boss, going back to her time as California Attorney General. When you can't keep eager political staff ...

Briefing her on policy issues?  Hard to do when she's such a lazy person, interested only in wokester posturing, talking about her "story," posing for Vogue photo spreads, thrilling the crochet circles, or whining about her home decorating dilemmas.  Policy to Kamala is for the birds.

Hayward is right about politicians who can't keep good staff on hand and that being a bad reflection on their capacity to lead.  Eric Hoffer once noted that the reason Stalin was able to best Trotsky for the supreme leadership of the Soviet dictatorship was because of his capacity to retain the loyalty of a group of able lieutenants.  Kamala, while certainly wanting to be dictator of a vast left-wing empire, same as Stalin, hasn't grasped that critical element that allows such things to happen to whoever eventually ends up being the most equal animal.  Biden has — he has some very long-serving lieutenants, such as secretary of state Tony Blinken, and he seems to have forged some kind of closeness to far-left Susan Rice from the Obama administration days, too.  There are plenty of others.  Kamala, though, seems to be poison to staff, and apparently, they flee when they get a chance to flee.  She's got a big staff — 184 people, based on this listing from Legistorm, a site about politicians.

Here's one — you can click on any, I clicked on this one — Christian Carolina Becerra, a contributor to Teen Vogue whose bio says she's a budding politician of the leftist stripe, and a Kamala Harris alum, not staffer, according to her apparent Twitter bio.  Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know her, but I notice she doesn't advertise that Kamala experience high on her LinkedIn page, making me wonder if she got the heck out of Dodge from Kamala's crew and doesn't want to talk about it anymore.

Two things leap out from past news stories about Harris that might explain why she is so baleful to staff that they get out of their positions as if it were a garage filling with carbon monoxide as an idle engine runs.

One, she seems to hire a lot of crummy people in top posts.

Recall that she hired a top aide for law enforcement matters during her days as California's attorney general named Larry Wallace, whose sexual harassment escapades included making young staffers in dresses crawl down under his desk to "fix his printer" so that he could ogle their underwear — so the sex harassment suits that followed said.  According to Fox News:

A senior adviser to U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., resigned Wednesday over inquiries about a $400,000 harassment lawsuit against him while working at the California Department of Justice.

Larry Wallace resigned after the Sacramento Bee asked about the 2017 settlement, the paper reported.

"We were unaware of this issue and take accusations of harassment extremely seriously," Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams said.  "This evening, Mr. Wallace offered his resignation to the senator, and she accepted it."

There was a $400,000 payout for those, courtesy of the California taxpayers, yet Kamala claimed to know nothing.  So she hired a guy like this, yet knew so little about what this guy was doing in the office she was supposed to be in charge of that the staff got harmed.  And that's only assuming she told the truth about her ignorance of the matter; there's certainly a loud argument that she didn't.  How many other creeps like this has she hired?  Anybody asking?  She sure as heck doesn't pay attention to what such people do to the staff.  It's not unimaginable to wonder if there are other kinds of bad bosses among these Kamala staffers, sexual creeps, or maybe just corrupt, or mean people, hired by Kamala herself, given her own penchant for inattention and corner-cutting of her own.  The leader sets the example.

Two, she seems to treat her staff badly on the compensation front.  Here's a piece about how aides forced to transfer to Iowa to save her flailing presidential campaign, after voters decided that the more they heard from her, the less they liked her, were told to expect a salary cut.  Way to motivate them, Kams.

Three, her management style is completely chaotic, making any operation she's involved with a crony affair at best.  Her sister Maya is apparently the go-to person according to assorted negative reports in the press.  Staff disarray was the big factor preceding her dropout from the U.S. presidential election in late 2019, with Kamala not winning a single delegate in the primaries, and certainly no victory of any kind in Iowa.  The Kamala crew apparently ganged up on one staffer, campaign manager Juan Rodriguez, blaming him for all of Kamala's errors while denying him any credit for things he did right.  Who'd want to work for someone like that?

Seems that being around Kamala is a hideous experience, given the slew of news stories coming out.

This raises another question: why is the mainstream press seemingly bringing out all these negative stories about Kamala?  Might it be that the media realize they've got a lemon in her when they manage to push senile old Joe out to pasture and need a replacement?  Could be most anything — best thing to do now is watch for that motive.

Image: Pixabay, Pixabay License.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.