Is Kamala Harris inadequately prepared and positioned?

 

In March 2020, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden vowed he would select a woman as his running mate and create an administration that looks like America. Conservative columnist Kaylee McGhee warned “Biden has done a disservice to his future running mate … Whomever he chooses … Will be seen as the most inclusive option, rather than the most accomplished.”

By this time, California Senator Kamala Harris already dropped out of the presidential race. Harris had one attention-grabbing moment during her campaign. During a debate, she chastised Biden for working with “segregationist” senators. Harris’ attack on Biden created a media buzz that doubled her poll numbers within a week. Suddenly, other candidates went on the attack to increase their poll numbers as well, but instead of attacking Biden, they attacked Harris. Harris appeared overmatched against second-tier candidates.

As a result, her poll numbers plummeted to 3-percent support.

Harris eventually suspended her campaign for financial reasons. Afterward, she explained to an Axios reporter that her campaign failed because America wasn’t ready for a woman of color to be the commander-in-chief.

With racism and sexism as an excuse, Harris never discovered the shortcomings of her campaign.

Every political insider thought Harris was finished until the next election cycle. Besides, presidential candidates choose running mates to strengthen their deficiencies. Since the Democratic presidential nominee was guaranteed to win Harris’ home state and sweep 90 percent of the black vote, Harris brought no electoral or popular votes to the Biden ticket.

Then George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was killed by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, resulting in nationwide protests and rioting.

The AFP reported, “Floyd’s death and the resulting wave of rage against racism and police brutality may have changed the political calculus for US presidential contender Joe Biden, who faces pressure to pick a black female running mate.” A columnist at the Boston Globe insisted that “Biden must choose a black woman for vice president … In this perilous moment, no one else can speak more eloquently from the lived experience of battling racism and sexism.”

Biden eventually picked Harris as a running mate, but the fact remains if George Floyd wasn’t murdered, Kamala Harris wouldn’t be the vice president.

Last month, an embarrassing CNN article detailed Kamala Harris’ “dysfunctional” and “frustrating” start as vice president. Supportive democratic operatives believe Harris is not being adequately prepared or positioned and is purposely being sidelined, but that’s an odd take. Not adequately prepared? That implies her staff is incompetent. Not being positioned? She’s in a position to be the next Democratic nominee for president. Being sidelined? President Biden put her in charge of the border crisis, arguably the most significant issue of the past two decades.

It’s important to note, John Adams, the nation’s first vice president, referred to the vice presidency as the most insignificant office ever invented by mankind. Vice President Harris was granted the opportunity to rise above the insignificance of the office and distinguish herself from her predecessors through accomplishment, but instead of rolling up her sleeves, she dragged her feet.

In October, the New York Post reported, “President Biden announced in March Harris would take the lead [on the border crisis]. However, with the exception of a rocky visit to Mexico and Guatemala in early June and a brief trip to El Paso at the end of the same month, Harris has receded into the background on this issue.” Now, the latest USA Today/Suffolk University poll shows that only 28 percent of voters approve of the Vice President’s job performance, making her the least popular vice president in over fifty years.

Of course, defenders of Harris blamed her unpopularity on racism and sexism, but CNN reported a top donor to the Democratic Party complained that Biden should be putting Harris in positions to succeed as opposed to putting weights on her. But the donor’s suggestion to help Harris succeed stemmed from the bigotry of low expectations. Harris wasn’t weighted down, the crutches of race and sex were removed, and she refused to step forward. Then the donor stressed Biden needed to think long-term, i.e., think about Harris’ future presidential run and do what’s best for the party.

But “what’s best for the party” might not look like America. Looks are normally deceiving, but when it comes to the big picture, they’re insignificant.

First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 12/1/21