In a recent interview, Kamala Harris’s campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon, engaged in a futile attempt to deflect criticisms that had arisen from Harris’s lack of media interviews during her campaign’s early stages. With apparent disregard for the expectations on any public figure, let alone one running for vice presidency, Dillon labeled these predications as ‘ridiculous.’
Dillon tried to build a narrative of them being stretched too thin with running for nomination, searching for their running mate, and planning publicity activities. However, the valid criticism of Harris’s lack of media presence seemed to have been inconsequentially discarded by her campaign. They believed the accusations of having no media interviews were false; a stance that puts them at odds with usual campaign practices and notably inconsistent when compared to their counterpart Trump’s campaign.
Once Joe Biden conveniently withdrew from the race, endorsing Harris on July 21, it wasn’t until 39 days later, on August 29, that Harris held her first joint interview with running mate Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota. An inexplicably long silence for someone up for such an essential role.
Dillon lamented over the extra strain this criticism put on their campaign. Strangely, the barrage of media scrutiny, crucial for holding any public figure accountable, seemed to be an unexpected burden for them. She claimed these standards were not the same for Trump, painting an oddly distorted image of typical campaign expectations.
Harris’s team also appeared disgruntled with the quality of questions during their scarce interviews. Dillon complained the questions being ‘minor and procedural’ didn’t cater to Harris’s desired narrative. A strange complaint for a campaign that should be answering to the people, not managing how they’re seen by people.
The campaign maintained they were victims of receiving questions they deemed ‘insignificant’ to voters. This is an unusual perspective, as any topic pertaining to their campaign strategy, policy, or intention would be inherently of concern to those voting for them. Evidently, they gave themselves liberty to decide what information the voters should care about.
The Harris campaign belatedly acknowledged their flawed early signposting of their strategy, including their use of podcasts and their attempt to reach the masses. This showed an evident lack of foresight, a crucial trait for any team aiming to run a country.
The lack of media engagements during her early campaign days rightfully faced criticism and scrutiny. A vice presidential hopeful should not shy away from the accountability that media exposure would necessitate.
Subsequent to tentatively embracing traditional media outlets, and sporadically with local news, Harris was continuously rebuked for consistently evading detailed answers and side-stepping direct questions. Visual media, as well as the public at large, could clearly see through this facade of evasion and lack of transparency.
Moreover, in the wake of her ill-conceived loss, political pundits and media outlets accurately pointed the finger at Harris’s disastrous appearance on ‘The View’. Here, she defiantly maintained she would have not deviated from Biden’s four-year term actions, fuelling further scrutiny.
Such a stance caused further concern amongst critics and observers, as this reflected poorly on her capabilities and signaled a profound lack of innovation that would be essential for such high office. It demonstrated an alarming absence of unique strategy or the potential for positive change.
In a democracy, where everyone’s voice needs to be heard, Harris’ seemingly indifferent attitude towards direct and open communication with widespread media signals a fundamental misunderstanding of accountability and transparency. Her catastrophic campaign was suggestive of how her tenure might have unfolded had she secured the office.
To conclude, it’s evident that Harris’s campaign faced significant setbacks due to their dismissive attitude towards media engagement and their inability to articulate persuasive strategies or innovative policies. Their apparent disdain for the usual processes of democracy fundamentally undermined their credibility and trustworthiness.