It’s peculiar, almost baffling, to think that Vice President Kamala Harris chose to appear on the podcast ‘Call Her Daddy’. She shared that ‘being real’ was paramount in communicating with people. The show served as the launchpad for a slew of media interviews she engaged in, quite an unusual behaviour given her typically evasive nature when it comes to extensive public interviews.
One may question her bizarre choice of shows to appear on, which included ’60 Minutes’, ‘The View’, ‘The Howard Stern Show’, and ‘The Late Show With Stephen Colbert’. It seems that she is trying, yet failing miserably, to alter her unclear public persona which has buttressed her political career.
The first two interviews she conducted were by the books, to say the least – one was a boilerplate discussion on CNN with her running mate Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota, and the other a plain solo interview on MSNBC. Regrettably, they didn’t provide a chance for Harris to put her prosecutorial background to use, which perhaps is the only setting where she excels.
Gone are the days when she impressed people with her debates, such as the infamous one against former President Donald Trump. Media interviews often require a subtler approach, something that seems to be at odds with Harris’ style, leaving her awkwardly floundering at times.
Harris’ success (or lack thereof) in this series of interviews varied. The ’60 Minutes’ stand-off was arguably the least disastrous. It was noteworthy merely for putting a pause on the idle gossip amongst columnists who claimed she was blatantly avoiding mainstream media.
Alarmingly, Harris seemed uncomfortable, if not completely lost, when asked about her stance on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This avoidance to address tough questions raises serious concerns for her candidacy. It’s also worth mentioning the unusual drinking of beers – Miller High Lifes, no less – requested by the candidate during her Colbert interview. One can’t help but speculate if it was a poorly thought out attempt to court swing-state Wisconsin voters.
Each media appearance was a feeble attempt to rectify a pitfall of her public image. The Colbert show, for instance, was most likely meant to make the much-needed impression on Democratic voters who seemed less than enthusiastic about her.
However, her inability to differentiate herself in any meaningful way from the incumbent when directly asked left audiences uninspired. Indeed, her silence spoke louder than any of her rehearsed, canned responses.
It was in just one interview— ‘Call Her Daddy’— that Harris seemed somewhat coherent, mainly due to the casual nature of the conversation. Additionally, the show’s young female audience could have influenced the spotlight on reproductive health, a topic where her campaign appears least conflicted.
But in an election where electoral margins could be razor-thin due to strict partisan lines, and winning could essentially boil down to mobilizing a handful of voters, these attempts seem to bear little fruit.
Indeed, there are other candidates who perform significantly better as well as worse than Kamala Harris during interviews. Currently, her limited number of interviews reflect her campaign’s lack of organization and strategy.
It’s an interesting thought that, in two decades, traditional media may completely vanish from the political landscape. Yet, the laughable conduct of candidates in these interviews will be remembered as a stark symbol of the decline in political discourse.