In Terms of Word Salad
This morning I saw this clip of Kamala tossing a big old word salad during an interview with Stephen Colbert. And while most people marveled at her utterly incomprehensible non-answer, I couldn’t help but notice that in her 37-word response, Kamala used her favorite phrase, IN TERMS OF, two times.
Then again, as I said in March 2021, once Kamala’s favorite phrase is pointed out to you, “you will never not notice it.” It sticks out like a sore thumb.
I’ve gotten to the point that when I see a clip of Kamala talking, her favorite phrase is as jarring to me as an out of tune guitar string is to an accomplished musician.
Case in point, here is the clip from her interview with Colbert:
As always, I recommend you read the words out loud to yourself:
“Well, I think that the concerns are based on what we should all be concerned about. But the solutions have to be and include what we are doing IN TERMS OF going forward, IN TERMS OF investments.”
Where to begin?
First of all, Kamala didn’t answer Colbert’s question at all.
He asked her directly if they had been discussing the blowback over the White House approving the oil project. And Kamala’s answer wasn’t an answer IN TERMS OF answering his direct question.
And what in the Sam Hill does “I think the concerns are based on what we should all be concerned about” even mean?
It reminds me of her “it is time for us to do what we have been doing and that time is every day” response in that Good Morning America interview last year.
Honestly, why do they insist on having Kamala Harris sit down for these interviews? Left without a speech written by others, this woman couldn’t formulate the words to order an iced tea with lemon.
“But the solutions have to be and include?” How did Kamala Harris make it all the way through law school without someone taking the time to teach her grammar and sentence structure?
Unsurprisingly, Kamala’s double use of her favorite phrase were just frivolous and unnecessary, very similar to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s penchant for using “it’s like” and “you know.”
As I wrote in my April 2022 column “In Terms of Kamala:”
”Like a vestigial organ, Kamala’s favorite phrase serves absolutely no purpose in the grand scheme of what she’s trying to say.”
And yet she cannot make it through a single off-the-cuff interview or extemporaneous remarks without tossing it out around like a handful of confetti.
Yesterday, a flack from the Democratic National Committee wrote a Twitter thread praising Kamala’s “brilliance & masterful communication skills” during her interview with Colbert that ended with this:
“One last note: I’m tired of all the attacks on Kamala Harris. They’re misogynistic. They’re racist. They’re uncalled for. Has she been perfect? No. No VP is perfect. But she sure has done a heck of a good job & we should embrace her as one of our party’s best. Period.”
Hey, if the Democrat Party wants to embrace Kamala as their “party’s best,” who are we to stand in their way?
Fact is, IN TERMS OF the rest of the Democrat Party, maybe Kamala is the best they have to offer, IN TERMS OF “brilliance & masterful communication skills.”
But why would they boast about that?
Jesse Kelly cracked me up so hard with his response to this guy’s thread:
“She got hired because she’s black and a woman by Joe’s own admission and she got her start in politics by letting Willie Brown blow her back out. These are the facts of the case.”
Jesse Kelly is a national treasure, IN TERMS OF what he means to the country.
Let’s face it. Democrats are stuck with Kamala Harris no matter how much they wish they could unload her in 2024.
I just don’t see Biden giving Kamala the heave-ho if he runs for reelection. As Jesse Kelly pointed out, Biden, by his own acknowledgment, selected Kamala Harris so he would have a black woman as his Veep.
James Clyburn, no doubt the force behind Biden wanting the Democrat Primaries starting in South Carolina, would raise holy hell if old Joe’s team even dared to suggest replacing Kamala with someone else. And I just can’t see Biden risking Clyburn’s wrath given the role Clyburn played in forcing Biden’s nomination on the country.
No. Democrats are stuck with her, and her all-you-can-eat word salad bar, whether they like it or not.
Hit the Tip Jar!
Every dollar makes a difference! Hit the DONATE button in the sidebar. Or, set up a recurring monthly contribution by choosing SUBSCRIBE.
Books by Dianny
Check out Dianny’s collection of ebooks available at all of these fine stores: Amazon Kindle Store, Apple iBooks, Barnes & Noble Nook Store, and smashwords.com.
3 thoughts on “In Terms of Word Salad”
Reminds me of Kevin King’s “Verbal Perception Manipulation”
Kameltoe has elevated the art form of saying nothing while speaking to the nth degree, albeit remaining nearly incoherent and completely banal while doing so. My interpretation of part of the exchange.
Colbert; “What is your job as VP?”
Harris; “My job is to do the job of the VP, and every day the job entails fulfilling all the requirements of the job”.
Her use of “in terms of” joins a growing list of annoying, meaningless, and time wasting utterances which impede accurate and succinct communication. Listening to language challenged individuals spew their endless litany of “ums, uhs, and duhs, likes, you knows, whatever’s”, etc. makes me wish for a life in a remote, uninhabited corner of Montana, out of reach of any form of communication (sat phones excluded, of course). It’s not enough that the English language is dying an ignominious death, a large segment of the public is actively accelerating this process. My seventh grade English teacher (best teacher I ever had) is rolling over in his grave.
Too many current public figures apparently never read Hamlet: “Brevity is the soul of wit.” Instead they never use one word when they could use twenty. Or a hundred.