Democrats keep trying to offer explanations for why Kamala Harris didn't choose Josh Shapiro as her running mate ... and keep failing to convince people. The popular Pennsylvania governor seems poised to deliver the one state Democrats can't afford to lose while expanding the potential appeal of the ticket elsewhere. Two narratives emerged yesterday in the damage control effort:

• The explanation leaking out from Team Kamala was that Shapiro was too ambitious for their comfort. That seems patently absurd coming from the Anointed nominee, whose ambitions have been on display since running for the US Senate. Ambition is hardly a disqualifier in politics.
• Shapiro's team leaked that he was conflicted about accepting the role in the middle of his term as governor. That could be more believable if Shapiro hadn't spent last week twisting himself into knots to distance himself from his earlier pro-Israel positions. If he didn't want the job, why bother with all of the dancing around in public?

None of these explanations really sound convincing, especially given the context of how the Biden-Harris campaign spent the last several months pandering to the anti-Israel Left. 

CNN's Abby Phillip tiptoed toward the truth yesterday during the live coverage of the Harris-Walz rally in Philadelphia. Phillip suggested that the real reason was Shapiro's criticism of the demonstrations on college campuses, and that Team Harris decided to go the "do no harm" route.

That brought an immediate objection from Jake Tapper:

What a moment on CNN:

Abby Phillip wonders if picking Josh Shapiro would "antagonize those voters" who voted "uncommitted" in Minnesota over the Gaza war.

Jake Tapper tries to cut in and say that Shapiro's policy on Israel is the same as Walz, but "he is Jewish."

Audie Cornish… pic.twitter.com/3D1Dlm8E0R

— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) August 7, 2024

PHILLIP: ... Would it help in Pennsylvania? Absolutely. But there's more to this than that.

And I think, ultimately, Shapiro I think fit is important but, you I also think that when you look at the principle of do no harm, maybe they did say it in a state like Minnesota. Do we want to those 100,000 on I'm committed voters who came out about the Gaza war. Do we want to antagonize those voters? Those are all parts of, part of the questions as well.

TAPPER: So can I just say?

CORNISH: Tim Walz also spoke conciliatory towards those people. He said, look that uncommitted vote is significant and those people should be heard so having that kind of response, I think is probably more of an open door to the parts of the party that had been very frustrated with the Democrats.

TAPPER: So, but just to -- just one point on the -- on the -- on the Gaza War, Shapiro has the same position on Israel that Governor Walz, that Senator Kelly has. He's actually been more critical of Netanyahu, then the other two. But he is Jewish. And --

CORNISH: He's also the face of the crackdown on the protests, right? He spoke very vehemently about those campus protests as being antisemitic.

TAPPER: Not all of them. The ones that were antisemitic he criticized as being antisemitic.

Later, Tapper argued again that holding the Gaza war against Shapiro but not Walz or Kelly, both of whom have identical positions on it as Shapiro's, might be construed as singling him out for being Jewish. Or at the very least, pandering to an anti-Jewish contingent in the Democrat Party.

The Wall Street Journal doesn't sound convinced either, mainly because the pro-Palestinian activists are still arguing against Shapiro as a running mate on the basis of Israel:

The criticism of his handling of pro-Palestinian protests sparked allegations of antisemitism from some Democrats, including several Jewish lawmakers, who argued Shapiro’s views on Israel were no different than those of other vice presidential contenders. Some said that Shapiro, who has been vocal about his Jewish identity, was being held to a different standard.

Pro-Palestinian activists cited several steps they said set Shapiro apart, such as his sharp criticism of pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses and proposals he has supported to punish institutions that divest from Israel. During campus protests this year, Shapiro had decried incidents of antisemitism and suggested they should be tolerated no differently than if people were “dressed up in KKK outfits or KKK regalia.” 

In his defense, Shapiro’s backers pointed to his public condemnation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. But some Democratic lawmakers and donors privately expressed concerns to people around Harris that Shapiro’s positions on Israel and the pro-Palestinian movement risked alienating voters who had sworn off Biden but were willing to give Harris a fresh look.  

As Tapper points out, that's a double standard -- and it's being applied to a Jew. That quacks like an anti-Semitic duck, walks like one, and looks like one. In fact, the duck has everything except "Restricted" on it to make it clear what really drove this decision.

Batya Ungar-Sargon sees that duck just as clearly. In a Free Press essay last night, she argued that "America Is Ready for a Jewish Veep. The Democrats Aren’t."

Almost as soon as Harris began her search for a running mate in earnest, a campaign from the progressive left made it clear that the anti-Israel wing of the party would not vote for Shapiro. Though his support of Israel is identical to that of every other contender, though he hates Benjamin Netanyahu a lot, though his view on college campus protesters (he called it “absolutely unacceptable” that “universities can’t guarantee the safety and security of their students”) is the most common, most popular view, none of this was a match for his last name, the fact that he is an observant, kosher-keeping proud Jew, and that, like the vast majority of Jews, he supports the state of Israel.

In their criticism of Shapiro, leftists pointed to the fact that he excoriated University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill for refusing to condemn calls for the genocide of the Jews—I know, what a monster!—that he called on Penn to shut down the anti-Israel encampments, which violated university codes and guidelines—the shame!—and that he told The New York Times, “If you had a group of white supremacists camped out and yelling racial slurs every day, that would be met with a different response than antisemites camped out, yelling antisemitic tropes.” How dare he suggest antisemitism should be condemned, no matter what side it comes from! 

As The Babylon Bee put it Monday night, “Democrats Worried Choosing Jewish Vice President May Cost Them The All-Important ‘Death To America’ Vote.” By Tuesday morning, the Harris campaign had turned farce into tragedy and picked Walz for Harris’s running mate. 

There can be no doubt about it: there was only one reason to reject Shapiro, and it was that the Democrats would rather cater to their antisemitic base and lose the election than embrace the vast non-antisemitic American middle and win. 

That's the obvious conclusion, and the anti-Semitic Left isn't even hiding it. Even if the Protection Racket Media still is, with a couple of notable exceptions in CNN's Jake Tapper and Van Jones. 

Last observation: If the anti-Israel Left can buffalo Harris out of choosing the best running mate, we can very clearly see how American foreign policy will shift in a Harris-Walz administration.