Kamala Harris has run out of excuses for avoiding a real, formal press conference at which reporters ask her real questions—if any such reporters still work in what used to be called journalism.
She clearly won last night’s debate with Donald Trump, thanks in no small part to the former president’s failure to leave his ego behind, instead slipping into his old losing ways.
Give Trump credit for facing reporters, many of them hostile, numerous times. Harris hasn’t answered a single, tough question since she slid into the Democratic candidacy for president when Joe Biden was shived in the back by party honchos.
She continues to spit in the eyes of American voters by dodging and weaving any real discussion of her beliefs, positions and agenda. The stuff that the confused electorate has a right to ask.
Even Calvin Coolidge made himself available to the press, albeit only on background. But Harris hasn’t even deigned to go that far, leaving us to try to guess what this reed in the wind would do as president. Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt kept in touch with the press. FDR sat at his Oval Office desk to chat with reporters.
I dare say that Harris is setting a precedent for hiding out from the media. It’s worse than Joe Biden’s campaign from his basement.
Does she think that it’s time for the Fed to cut interest rates? Would she support stepped-up aid to Ukraine? What would be her approach to controlling artificial intelligence? Would she use her executive powers to stem the flow of illegal immigrants, or would she hide behind the Democratic talking point that only congressional action can be taken?
If she were asked such questions are asked without follow-up, she would oozes answers that are so general, so cliched as to be meaningless. Follow-up questions are needed as many times as necessary to pin her down to her real thinking. If she has any.
The press should be thundering. Come out, come out, wherever you are, Kamala! Instead the media’s demands for openness are muddled and half-hearted.
News articles give her credibility by seriously discussing whether she should hide out until the election.
It’s not surprising, considering the media’s lopsided bias in favor of Democrats/liberals/progressives. Here’s an astonishing example from Vox:
Interviews and press conferences are risky for any politician. There is no guarantee they will go well, and for Harris in particular, some in recent years have gone infamously poorly. As a candidate trying to win an election (against an opponent who is hostile to democracy and uses his own press appearances to lie and exaggerate wildly), she will naturally weigh the risks and rewards of what might help, or harm, her campaign.
Now who would that be?
Even more astonishing is a New York Times story:
Ms. Harris’s lack of engagement with the media has become a constant rallying cry on the political right, with Republican critics and Fox News stars accusing the vice president of ducking scrutiny. The Harris campaign says it is being thoughtful about how best to deploy its message, and to introduce a new candidate to crucial voters in battleground states.
Got it? Complaints about her “lack of engagement” are only a Republican concern. Avoiding the media is “thoughtful.”
No more flimsy excuses, please. She was forgiven for not having any press conferences because she had so little time to campaign—as if answering questions was not an essential component of a campaign. Or: she had to spend her time getting ready for the Democratic National Convention. Or: She had to prepare her acceptance speech. Or: She had to go into hiding to prepare for the debate.
I guess she’d say that she doesn’t need a press conference because she answered all those inconvenient questions during the debate. Even though she didn’t.
I can’t think of any more excuses with the election 59 days away. Mail-in voting begins soon; anyone voting for Harris will do so without a clear idea about her “values.”
As the Washington Post says: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” It’s Harris above all who has turned off the lights.