Forget her awkward off-putting personality and habit of speaking like a dim-witted kindergarten schoolteacher. Those are public-facing problems, and public-facing problems have to be pretty extreme for them to be disqualifying.

Dems stuck with Biden until he had a total debate breakdown.

Dems would like another Obama, and Kamala isn’t that, but they’d settle for a normal human being who isn’t some nightmarish hybrid of Chauncey Gardiner, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with none of the positive aspects and all of the negative ones.

But the media and every establishment voice will spend the remaining months telling us that Kamala is the embodiment of the right side of history.

From a practical politics standpoint anyone (or almost anyone) can be turned into a viable public-facing figure with enough cultural firepower behind them.

Look at what they managed to do with an obscure Vermont socialist crank and an obnoxious Westchester hipster of Puerto Rican descent.

The real issue is that Kamala is leadership kryptonite. Her original presidential campaign dissolved into infighting between her staff and her sister. And she dropped out before she could even contest a primary.

As vice president, she not only made zero impact on anything, but her office staff abandoned ship. The only thing she made into a signature issue was opposing Israel over the war with Hamas.

That’s not a dealbreaker, but her inability to run anything is. Biden was an empty space that his staff filled.

Kamala isn’t an empty space, she’s worse—like a lot of CBC members, she seems to be a bad boss with a penchant for nurturing drama around her.

That wouldn’t be a first in the White House, but it’s especially damaging during a campaign.

Biden, as terrible as he was, had a circle of loyalists who served him to the bitter end. He tended to be abusive, but like every successful D.C. lifer, he had people he could count on.

That’s why he lasted this long, even well past the point where he could meaningfully function.

Kamala does not. Her people come and go. She has few loyalists and her staff tend to wash out quickly.

It’s one thing for this to be the case for female CBC house members (which it often is), but it’s a major problem for a presidential candidate running a national campaign.

It means she doesn’t have meaningful support, and in a business where politicians can’t do anything without loyal staffers, it’s a hole. A big one.

This isn’t something the average person cares about, but people in D.C. politics do. They see it as a serious failing that will impede her ability to succeed. It’s why they don’t think she can go the distance. And why they’re hesitant to get behind her.