Much like CNN’s Van Jones did earlier in the day, NewsNation spent part of their Tuesday night wondering if Vice President Kamala Harris picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) to be her running mate out of fear she would lose the votes of the anti-Semitic wing of the Democratic Party if she chose Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (D).

During his opening monologue, On Balance host Leland Vittert noted that picking Walz was Harris’s “first executive decision” and that it. “Gives us great insight into how she will govern as president.” According to his analysis, the choice of Walz “makes Democratic Twitter happy.”

 

 

“Twitter is not real life. It is the most extreme and petty part of life. It is the most extreme and petty part of a political party,” he warned. “But in humor, we found truth,” he declared after reading a Babylon Bee headline quipping: “Democrats worry choosing Jewish vice president may cost them the all-important death to America vote.”

Adding: “She did not pick Josh Shapiro. Even Van Jones on CNN said Harris caved in to the darker parts of her party.”

NewsNation correspondent-at-large Geraldo Rivera said he was “shocked” that Harris didn’t pick Shapiro. He admitted that there were several people in his orbit who “worried that this election was a nod to the pro-Palestinian wing of the Democratic Party.”

“But I think this will be a bed that Palestinian-Jewish thing will be an issue for Democrats going forward, to me, Leland,” he said.

In the following hour, host Chris Cuomo touched on similar themes in the opening monologue to his eponymous show. He suggested he felt it “deep in [his] gut” that “Democrats decided it was not a safe bet, if you want to win, to have a Jewish man on the ticket with Harris.”

“So, what bothers me more that they think that's the right choice or that I think they made the right call,” he lamented.

Cuomo noted that, “Some Jews are even relieved that it wasn't Shapiro” because “They fear increased anti-Semitism in a way they have never felt before.”

He proceeded to ask the big questions he felt the Democrats should be asking themselves:

I wonder: if avoiding the risk of not being safe, is that how you get better? Should the Democrats default to doing what’s safe; because that's how you win or - or do you take that on and refused to play safe if playing safe means playing to prejudice?

Wouldn't that make the Democrats better? Or, is there reason that I'm not the politically astute Cuomo? I'm not the one who was successful and that business. That this magical thinking, it's romantic thinking, it's not realistic. And that while I may see that that would be better in some way, that the reality is it would only be better for Trump because it would make it more likely he would win.

“So, I get why Harris picked Walz. I think he's got his own virtues in value to that party. And I get why Democrats like the pick. And it may well be the reason they win if they win this election,” he opined. “But I wonder if the really important part of this moment is who was not picked and why.”

The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read:

NewsNation’s On Balance
August 6, 2024
7:02:21 p.m. Eastern

(…)

LELAND VITTERT: Kamala Harris picking Tim Walz is her first executive decision. Gives us great insight into how she will govern as president. In short, Harris's first executive decision makes Democratic Twitter happy. Twitter is not real life. It is the most extreme and petty part of life. It is the most extreme and petty part of a political party.

Harris also made this headline from The Babylon Bee come true: “Democrats worry choosing Jewish vice president may cost them the all-important death to America vote,” referring to the pro-Hamas, pro-Palestinian side of the Democratic Party. The Babylon Bee, for those of you who do not know, is a right-wing satirical website. But in humor, we found truth. She did not pick Josh Shapiro.

Even Van Jones on CNN said Harris caved in to the darker parts of her party.

[Cuts to video]

VAN JONES: You also have anti-Semitism that has gotten marbled into this party. You can be for the Palestinians without being an anti-Jewish bigot. But there are some anti-Jewish bigots out there and there's some disquiet now and there has to be.

[Cuts back to live]

VITTERT: That's Jones. We hire the president to be our commander in chief. That is her most important, his most important role. And normally it's a long job interview. Lots of questions, the primaries, the primary debates, tons of interviews, impromptu gaggle, unscripted moments with voters. All of that is gone. We haven't heard any of that from Kamala Harris. And Harris will not tell us who she is. She hasn't had a meaningful interaction with the media since her coronation 16 days ago.

(…)

7:06:53 p.m. Eastern

GERALDO RIVERA: I was shocked as you are that he didn't pick Josh Shapiro who is nimble, charismatic, sharp it seemed. My wife and I and our friend group across the nation worried that this election was a nod to the pro-Palestinian wing of the Democratic Party.

(…)

I'm sorry he didn't pick Josh Shapiro. I worry that it's like Jackie Mason and Mel Brooks that Shapiro was too Jewish. But I think this will be a bed that Palestinian-Jewish thing will be an issue for Democrats going forward, to me Leland.

(…)

CUOMO
8:10:03 p.m. Eastern

CHRIS CUOMO: Let's do it through the lens of me. Okay? I'll be the Guinea pig. I don't know what bothers me more. Deep in my gut. To think that Democrats decided it was not a safe bet, if you want to win, to have a Jewish man on the ticket with Harris. Now and telling me that Harris's husband is Jewish. Yes, he is. I know that. It's not the same thing to me as having the VP be Jewish. It's not, “Oh, we already have a Jewish guy!” What, because she's married to one?

So, what bothers me more that they think that's the right choice or that I think they made the right call.

And as you know, I believe America is nothing without her diversity. It is our secret sauce. And the more our institutions look like the country – not exaggerated to the majority or minority, but reflective of both in proportion, the better. And I respect the historic nature of a black woman at the top of the ticket. I think it matters. Should it be dispositive? Of course, not. Will it win the election? I don't know. We could just as easily lose it because that's what safe really means.

I see value in a ticket that has a double minority demographic, but maybe it is unsafe. When I talk with black and Jewish friends, black and Jewish colleagues, black and Jewish politicos, black and Jewish Democrats, party people. They all kind of default to acknowledging that it would be dicey to have a black woman and a Jewish man on the same ticket.

Some Jews are even relieved that it wasn't Shapiro. Instead of feeling pride. They fear increased anti-Semitism in a way they have never felt before. Certainly here in America. And sadly, I get it and I hate that they feel like that. And I'm here to defend Jewish Americans, as with all minorities. We are one family or we are nothing.

I wonder: if avoiding the risk of not being safe, is that how you get better? Should the Democrats default to doing what’s safe; because that's how you win or - or do you take that on and refused to play safe if playing safe means playing to prejudice?

Wouldn't that make the Democrats better? Or, is there reason that I'm not the politically astute Cuomo? I'm not the one who was successful and that business. That this magical thinking, it's romantic thinking, it's not realistic. And that while I may see that that would be better in some way, that the reality is it would only be better for Trump because it would make it more likely he would win.

So, I get why Harris picked Walz. I think he's got his own virtues in value to that party. And I get why Democrats like the pick. And it may well be the reason they win if they win this election. But I wonder if the really important part of this moment is who was not picked and why. And what that says not so much about the Democrats, but about our country.

(…)