Are you sure you want to delete this post?
The article comes from the Washington Examiner, a conservative website and weekly magazine owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by billionaire, Philip Anschutz. That would raise my suspicions about the objectivity of the article.
Digging further through Kamala Harris's actions as both District Attorney and Attorney General for California, it would seem to me that the charges are marginal in nature. In one case she is defending the actions of he prosecutors in which she was not directly involved. I see many positives in Harris's legal career, and maybe a few that may be construed by some as not being tough enough, or others were she was too lenient. That goes with the territory.
Without spending an inordinate amount of time going into these cases and making a layman's judgment, I am not ready to cast dispersions on Kamala Harris for not being progressive enough or not being black enough or not passing the purity tests of whatever group is examining her record.
I will judge her on what she has in her candidate proposals to make America a better democracy for all Americans. And if I don't agree with her on all the issues, it doesn't mean I am going to refuse to back her if she is nominated. For example, I do not agree with her co-sponsorship of Bernie's version of Medicare for All, but that doesn't mean I won't support her.
She is a formidable candidate and can stand her ground with Trump or any other candidate Republicans might put up for 2020. That's a big plus for me. I would be proud to have her as our president.