A voter in New Hampshire asked Senator Kamala Harris a question during a campaign rally that included a politically incorrect description of President Trump’s actions. She laughed at his language and agreed with him. “Well said, well said”, was her response.

The question was about impeachment, something the man is in favor of, apparently, and Harris saw no problem with how he framed it. That is until the backlash began. Now she is backtracking and claiming she just didn’t “hear or process or in any way condone” it.

In his question to Harris, the person said: “I don’t buy that argument that impeachment does not make sense, and like when — I don’t buy that argument. There needs to be accountability. I mean, what are you going to do in the next one year to diminish the mentally retarded action of this guy?” The audience laughed and applauded after the person’s question.

And just like that, the backlash came for Kamala. Kendally Brown, a disabled health care advocate, tweeted out the video and a demand for Senator Harris to do better.

Using "retarded" as a slur and an insult is never, EVER "well said", @KamalaHarris, no matter who it's against and no matter the larger point being made. It's ALWAYS a betrayal of the disability community.

We need—and expect—better from you. #CripTheVote https://t.co/XCQmlcmPG3

— Kendall Brown (@kendallybrown) September 7, 2019

In an interview with a CBS reporter, Harris said she didn’t hear him.

“It’s an incredibly offensive term,” Harris said in an interview. “It’s offensive and you would think that in the year 2019, people would have a much better understanding of how hurtful a term like that can be.”

“I heard him talk about the other stuff and then that came later and it was not something that I really heard or processed … or in any way condone, that’s for sure,” Harris continued.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party convention was held over the weekend and eighteen of the candidates running for the party’s nomination were there. Kamala Harris continues to show that she is a really bad candidate. She makes remarks and then she backtracks as though it didn’t happen when she is questioned. As Ed pointed out, she is riddled with inauthenticity. She simply doesn’t stand for much of anything. She certainly doesn’t stand by any answer for long. At the first sign of doubt, she caves. And, as in this case, she justifies her weakness with really lame excuses.