Oh look: Jamie Kirchick is making things up again. I wouldn't bother with this if I hadn't seen a lot of pieces making a similar argument: that not choosing Shapiro opens Democrats to charges of anti-semitism. I don't get this at all.
If having a ācommitmentā to Israel is a barrier to the Democratic presidential ticket, then it bodes ominously for future Jewish participation in Democratic Party politics.
But this is exactly what Republicans think racism is: a nonsensical gotcha that people use to demand power be given to them for no reason.
Do they not realize how insulting to Shapiro it is to act as if his only defining trait is his Jewishness, and also to suggest an endorsement of Shapiro would mean complete carte blanche for Netanyahu? Not to mention the implication that Walz is a complete nullity, nothing to recommend him.
Fun fact: VP candidate JD Vance is also not Jewish! But somehow Trump isn't under the same scrutiny
You are not the intended audience.
Why donāt republicans have a Marco Rubio problem?
Once again, claiming that Jews should have a "commitment" to Israel (or anything else) is antisemitic!
Kamala Harris is married to Doug Emhoff. Heās Jewish. For God sakes, sheās not antisemitic. She didnāt not pick Shapiro because heās Jewish, just like she didnāt not pick Mark Kelly because heās an astronaut. The NY Times & WaPo are stirring up crap to help Trump.
In plain English: NYT has a GOP codependency problem, refuses to go to counseling.
He wants to be president some day, so that would always be in the back of his head. He is a lawyer, again, and too similar to Harris. I think those are the most important reasons he wasnāt chosen. And he can replace Garland after the elections.
It's just weirdo conservative wishcasting. Jamie *wants* democrats to have a Shapiro problem. What's hard to get is why the NYT opinion editor thinks this is worthy, except to generate clickbait anger.