During her appearance in Detroit yesterday, Kamala got attention because of a weird putdown she threw at some hecklers. However, there was a back story there, and it’s an interesting one because it highlights a problem that Democrats face: The tightrope they’re walking that has them simultaneously supporting both Israel and Hamas is beginning to go slack, and they’re in danger of falling off.

So, the big story was that pro-Hamas protesters interrupted Kamala’s speech, warning her that they will not support her if she supports Israel:

Kamala, according to the New York Times, shut down the hecklers:

At first, Ms. Harris brushed them off, suggesting the hecklers were evidence of democracy in action. Her supporters tried to drown them out with chants of their own.

But the protesters were not ushered out quickly, and the chants continued. Eventually, the exasperated vice president made her feelings clear.

“If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that,” Ms. Harris said. “Otherwise, I am speaking.”

Notice that Kamala didn’t challenge the substance of the heckling. Instead, she simply said the equivalent of please, don’t say that out loud because it will keep me out of the White House. Unsaid was the implication that she might indeed abandon Israel if she got into the White House.

Bizarre response or not, Kamala supporters were in heaven. I see that nagging teacher I hated back in junior high school, but others saw presidential power!

What’s more interesting than whether Kamala showed presidential power or told protesters to stop forcing her to reveal her real agenda is what a NY Times reporter had to say while covering the event. This report has since been changed, but I’ve got the screen grab:

So, a group of “uncommitted” voters—that is, Muslims angry at the Biden administration for sort of supporting Israel, even as it slow-walks arms and keeps threatening Israel if Israel doesn’t surrender to Hamas—managed to get some face time with Kamala. What I think we can accept as completely accurate is that they told her they want an arms embargo against Israel.

From there, according to Erica L. Green of the New York Times, “The leaders asked to meet with her about the embargo request, and she indicated she was open to it, and introduced the two leaders to her staff.”

Well, that satisfied the Hamas crowd but obviously got lots of pushback from those in the Democrat party (and presumably, shocked Independents) who don’t want Israel vaporized. So, her campaign immediately walked it back. Green’s short paragraph is completely rewritten from the original:

Harris listened to stories of people in Michigan who have had dozens of family members killed in Gaza. The leaders asked to meet with her about the embargo request, and said she had indicated that she was open to a meeting, and directed the two leaders to her staff. In a statement, a Harris campaign spokesman said only that “in this brief engagement,” the vice president “reaffirmed that her campaign will continue to engage with those communities.” (Correction: An earlier version of this reporter update referred imprecisely to protest leaders' account of their interaction with Harris. They said she had indicated she was open to a meeting; they did not say she had expressed openness to an arms embargo of Israel.)

The only problem with that correction is that, if you accept as true that the co-founders of the Uncommitted National Movement asked for a meeting about an arms embargo, the moment Kamala was “open” to a meeting, she was impliedly open to an arms embargo. Otherwise, she would have shut them down. She might have said, “Yes, I’ll meet you, but an embargo is off the table,” or “The meeting would be pointless because an embargo is a non-starter.” However, she didn’t say anything like that.

The question is whether Kamala was deliberately ambiguous or just drowned them in a sea of circular Kamala-speak. My bias says the former. This isn’t the first time Kamala has opted for deliberate ambiguity.

After the election in Venezuela, Kamala came out with a statement supporting whatever the result was:

(The cut-off portion reads “...future for the people of Venezuela.”)

Depending on your viewpoint, she’s agreeing with either Maduro or the opposition. It was only two days later, when solid evidence was emerging that Maduro had stolen the election and he was starting to arrest protesters, that Kamala decided that opposing Maduro was the politically stronger position to take:

(The cut-off portion reads “...people must be respected.”)

What happened in Michigan reveals a very serious problem for Kamala Harris. The cool thing about the Venezuelan election was that hard evidence emerged, allowing Kamala to take a stand.

In the Middle East, though, aside from the fact that there’s strong evidence that the whole genocide accusation is a lie, the main issue is whether the US government should support a truly small-d democratic ally that is fighting an existential battle against fanatic Muslims who are members of a designated terror group and proxies for Iran, an American enemy. (Iran has considered itself at war with the US since 1979, as its terrorist acts since then prove.)

For morally decent people, supporting Israel is a no-brainer. But for the left, which hates Israel, which is a living reminder of the Bible’s moral principles and the fact that there is a power greater than the government, Israel must be erased. Kamala is a leftist who has expressed understanding and empathy for the genocidal pro-Hamas protesters’ feelings, so it’s likely that they’re her real people, which is why she gave the hecklers that weirdly ambiguous put-down.

Ultimately, America is going to have to take a stand. Biden has managed to avoid it, being senile and all, but the next president must to act. We know that Trump will allow Israel to squash Hamas, which is an enemy of to civilization. We suspect Kamala will allow Hamas to squash Israel. For now, though, she must walk that tightrope, and her core pro-Hamas supporters aren’t making that easy for her.

Image: X screen grab.