This is going to be a giant issue in the beginning of her campaign, no doubt. Not only was Kamala a DA but she was also AG for the state of California. That made her the “top cop” in the state. That in itself isn’t an issue at all. What is at issue is what she did when she was there.
Vox put up a really good post that gives an into to the conundrum. It walks through her entire history from a policy perspective. As with everything in politics, its a balancing act : in order to change things, you need to “work the system” a bit and give on some areas and take on others. In other words, the job requires a nuanced approach.
Our job is to try and see through all of this and determine what is in Kamalas heart. What does she actually believe? Once we have a handle on that, we can predict with a little bit of accuracy what she will do in the future as president. Of course, we have seen instances where the candidate was somewhat more progressive than the actual president (see Obama, Barack).
This article in Mother Jones from a year ago gets into this stuff more and I recommend you read it. One thing that strikes me is how as AG she defended some things that are kind of shitty. But the question is this : What is the job of the Attorney General? Does the AG set policy? Or do they defend the policy decisions of their state? Can they move things in the right direction? Or should they try and win cases where they know they can win and let the others die? I’m inclined to give her a pass for her work as the AG (in terms of policy).
After reading the MJ article, one thing comes clear. Kamala is a big believer of changing things from within. Her family background and her time before she became a prosecutor tells the story of a person who is very much born into values around civil rights. The more I read, I think I’m digging her more and more. We need someone as president who is able to get things done using the traditional tools of US politics. We need someone pragmatic while still being idealistic. Is this who Kamala is?