What began as the Democratic National Convention in Chicago witnessed a series of objectives that Kamala Harris and her team struggled to achieve. These were: (1) Attempting to maintain the lukewarm enthusiasm ignited since her presumptive nomination; (2) clumsily trying to turn a new leaf from Joe Biden’s uninspired leadership that had left her a questionable ‘safe change’ from the hackneyed Biden-Trump feud; (3) attempting to against strike fear into voters about the so-called ‘unsafe change’ championed by Trump and J.D. Vance; and (4) barely steering clear of diversions, be it from protesters or botched attempts at executing the convention plan.
The first three days of the convention, though fraught with missteps, addressed these four objectives to a moderate degree. Harris’ team floundered to keep the initial momentum alive, relying heavily on gimmicks like a dance-party roll call of the states, a surprise appearance from Oprah, and an overzealously staged acceptance speech by Tim Walz.
Despite these efforts, the likability of Harris or the authenticity of her campaign was far from evident. The transition from Biden was awkwardly handled on the first night, with the Obamas making a feeble attempt to turn the page. Cameos from other high-profile Democrats like Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi did little to boost the subpar inaugural night.
Even as the convention trudged ahead, painting Harris as a figure vastly different from the so-called ‘radical leftist’ as alleged by the Trump campaign proved challenging even for her team. With so many past inconsistencies and flip flops in her political career, it can be easily envisaged that it would take more than the weary rhetoric of the convention to convince voters otherwise.
The convention predictably took shots at Trump and Vance, obviously attempting to build on their ‘safe change’ narrative contrasted with an ‘extremist GOP’. The emphasis on reproductive rights, a subject the Democrats feel newly emboldened to roar about, was heard loud and clear.
Harris’ team did manage to stave off the threat of protests without making overtly oppressive moves. Yet, the central ‘distraction’ was a clear struggle to manage time efficiently. Even though the prime-time East Coast ‘window’ for the big moment might have been hyped up more than necessary, the lack of strict adherence to the schedule reflected the absence of discipline within the party.
Of the numerous failings, Harris herself merely seemed to add to the underwhelming performance, rather than rise above it. She appears to be complacent, banking on the unfolding convention to seal the deal for her.
The larger question that loomed – the degree of change and continuity she pledged to offer as president – required urgent elaboration. This demanded far more than sweeping statements about her past achievements or rehashed narratives of her experiences in California and Washington.
She needed to give a highly specific outlook on her policy plans, partly to galvanize Democrats but more significantly, to convince swing voters that she wouldn’t be a clone of Biden or any sort of ‘radical leftist’. The vagueness in her intentions and lack of insight into policy matters remained a glaring flaw during the convention.
The convention relied on other speakers to reinforce her image as a tough-on-crime prosecutor, patriot, and supposedly empathetic leader who heeds people beyond party lines. Yet, it was undoubtedly crucial for Harris herself to articulate her plans to address the policy issues where Biden faltered, particularly with the economy and the border.
Simply mentioning these areas was insufficient, and her campaign missed the specifics that voters crave, a trait Biden’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, was well known for. The convention seemed more focused on vibe and memes than it was on projecting a comprehensive image of a President Harris.
Harris’ idea of having ‘signature phrases’ were quite lost amidst a sea of ill-conceived ideas, and her pointed remarks aimed at Trump lacked substance and depth. While decorum and delivery may have been adequate, the lack of basic marketing and discussion on governmental priorities became more evident as the convention proceeded.
What was supposed to be her pivotal moment in front of an engaged but skeptical electorate turned out to be quite underwhelming. The ability to present an impressive vision which would have made these next 75 days feel like an exciting run, rather than a tiresome haul, was missing.