All they demanded was basically a lip service and they didn't get even that

They successfully got Biden to step down

But then they were stupid enoufht to replace him with another genocidal politician

Iron law of institutions. The entire point of the Democratic party is to fundraise and secure sinecure jobs for its members. Winning elections is a convenient side bonus. So they basically ran on Trump's first term platform and full support of Israel, since it is more important than winning the election. That's what the arms manufacturers, and other donors want.

I don't think it's incompetence. After-all they have successful defended the corporate duopoly for at least 50 years, probably longer. Sure there are some upstarts, but the machinations of the party ensure those people never get to actually threaten the status quo. Plus they make good sound-bytes so that the democrats can talk about how they are "fighting," in unspecific ways.

I believe they are competent at doing exactly what they have been doing. The system is working to benefit some people. :-(

So Harris said the same thing as Biden said... while Biden and Harris were complicit in genocide. And this changes anything about the post... How exactly?

Did Harris say no bombs? Did Harris draw red lines? Did Harris to concede any of the demands in the post you are trying to strawman?

Actions speak louder than words.

The only difference between the republicans and democrats, is that one is better at lying.

Didn't the Biden administration vote against the two state solution at the UN after claiming to support it?

Her words are meaningless when her actions are genocide

The White House routinely makes mutually exclusive statements about its desire to “end the war,” while saying Hamas could “have no role in postwar Gaza.” Yet no mainstream reporter, editor, or opinion writer bothers to reconcile this contradiction. This calculated vagueness is central to why Israel is permitted to continue bombing and killing at will for an indefinite amount of time. How can US officials simultaneously push for an “immediate, lasting ceasefire” while, at the same time, saying the other warring party must be completely defeated before they can support a lasting ceasefire?

This isn’t a call for a ceasefire—it’s a call for, in Netanyahu’s phrasing, “total victory.” The pairing of these two mutually exclusive phrases can only mean one thing: In common usage from the White House and its friendly media, “pushing for a ceasefire” means “continuing to bomb and besiege Gaza while reiterating terms of surrender.”

One linguistic trick that permitted this contradiction to go unchallenged is the sleight-of-hand in what the White House means by “ceasefire.” In some contexts, it means the term as it has been used by the Israelis, namely by Netanyahu: a temporary pause in fighting to facilitate hostage exchanges, followed by a continuation of the military campaign whose goal, ostensibly, is to “eliminate Hamas.” But this is explicitly not an effort to “end the war” as Netanyahu made clear repeatedly throughout the conflict.

The White House’s demand to “end the war,” increasingly popular since the summer of 2024, is just a reiteration of surrender terms. The State Department banned its staff from even using the word “ceasefire” for the first few months of the conflict. But in late February 2024, on the eve of a Michigan primary that was embarrassing then-candidate Biden, the White House, as we noted in The Nation at the time, pivoted to embracing the term. But the Biden administration changed its definition to mean (1) hostage negotiations, but with a firm commitment to continue the “war” once Israeli hostages were freed, and (2) a reiteration of surrender demands, sometimes using both definitions simultaneously.

The concepts of “ceasefire” and “push to the end the war” became, like the “peace process,” a ill-defined, open-ended process for process’s sake that US officials could point to in order to frame themselves not as participants in an brutal, largely one-sided siege and bombing campaign but a third party desperately trying—but perpetually failing—to achieve “peace.”

How the US Media Helped the Biden Administration Distance Itself From the Horrors of Gaza | White House–curated stories of performative outrage and feigned helplessness provided cover for an administration arming death on an industrial scale.

Several attendees at the November meeting — officials who help lead the State Department’s efforts to promote racial equity, religious freedom and other high-minded principles of democracy — said the United States’ international credibility had been severely damaged by Biden’s unstinting support of Israel. If there was ever a time to hold Israel accountable, one ambassador at the meeting told Tom Sullivan, the State Department’s counselor and a senior policy adviser to Blinken, it was now.

But the decision had already been made. Sullivan said the deadline would likely pass without action and Biden would continue sending shipments of bombs uninterrupted, according to two people who were in the meeting.

Those in the room deflated. “Don’t our law, policy and morals demand it?” an attendee told me later, reflecting on the decision to once again capitulate. “What is the rationale of this approach? There is no explanation they can articulate.”

Soon after, when the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken made it official and said that Israelis had begun implementing most of the steps he had laid out in his letter — all thanks to the pressure the U.S. had applied.

That choice was immediately called into question. On Nov. 14, a U.N. committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, was “consistent with genocide.” Amnesty International went further and concluded a genocide was underway. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations. (The U.S. and Israeli governments have rejected the genocide determination as well as the warrants.)

A Year of Empty Threats and a “Smokescreen” Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza

Absolutely wild the apologia for Democrats doing genocide you guys will do to avoid holding Democratic politicians and campaigners to account for their own decisions on policy and how they campaign.

As ever, blueMAGA shitlibs care more about what politicians say than what they actually do. Because decorum is more important than the lives of hundreds of thousands of foreigners.

talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words and the biden administration only talked.

The fact that you read "she called for a two state solution" as anything but her endorsing genocide makes you appear to be a fucking moron.

This assessment of you is only reinforced by one of your links literally saying "She dodged the question on Palestinian deaths" in its URL

Of course I don't really think you're an idiot. I think you're a nazi. You don't give a flying fuck except for the fact that refusing to back down on this subject cost you the election. And because you're nothing but a fucking nazi, you will literally say fucking anything. You will insist that the person who refused to budge an inch from Biden's "zero conditions for unlimited support" position was actually the opposite. You're only upset that people got upset at you. You are a nazi.

She was calling for a ceasefire for at least 6 months. As VP.

And the money and the weapons kept flowing.

So you can see the problem .

Are you lost?

Ask the campus protestors arrested during the Biden administration about their felony charges and then tell me about how activists have to worry about being jailed now.

Cool that people making a principled stand to engage with a political party to encourage a change in policy are at fault for the leaders of that political party refusing to change policy, despite being told at multiple levels, for a multitude of reasons, including electorally, why that policy was bad.

Liberals hate democracy. Expecting to engage with a political party to affect change? Ew, just tick the box with a D next to it regardless of what they do or say. Don't you know trying to engage with a party that doesn't listen to its base or membership might lead to bad PR and might hurt them in an election? How could you be so inconsiderate? Your role is just to sit down and do nothing and accept whatever they say is true on MSNBC.