You're a good guy, Ross, and your article was totally fair. I say that as a fairly standard liberal; odds are you and most readers are well to my left.
In fact, I read you because you're fair. For me, in the 2010s and early 2020s, the Left of the Democrats became snonymous with woke yelling and moralizing. Fire and brimestone spewing forth. But not you. You're different. You're calm, literate, and you take your audience's intelligence for granted. I'll always respect the hell out of that no matter what.
"The partisan Democrat is a curious figure. Three months ago, he was absolutely certain Joe Biden was the best nominee for the party and that any questions about his advanced age amounted to right-wing disinformation. He strutted about, like caked-up Gavin Newsom in a CNN spin room, spouting off factoids about Biden’s vigor and Trump’s lunacy."
Great line. The partisan Democrat adheres to MSM propaganda that would make North Koreans blush. Don't lose sleep over 50 unsubscribes because you care about truth and transparency, they are not serious people and have plenty of TDS regurgitating Substacks to choose from. Democracy dies in the darkness!
I rarely comment here because I usually don't have the brain power left to match yours. But I am somehow even more confused about the reality I thought I lived in than I have been for the past 11 months.I'm a 35-yr-old American Jew who has never given less of a shit about Israel. Since college, I have become more and more anti-Zionist. (btw, so is my survivor grandmother - as most are.) So many public figures I looked up to and so many people in my life and my family were instantly revealed to be someone living in a different reality or with a completely different moral compass or lacking basic human empathy. Like most Americans, I fully bought into the "America" taught to me in my state-regulated public education. It wasn't until my 20's that I "woke up" to what America actually is. How much someone is aware of "what America actually is" has always been a sliding scale. But living through 11 months of genocide funded by our tax dollars in the name of my religion's entirely unrelated past tragedy has officially turned that sliding scale into an on/off switch. This is an event bigger than America and bigger than any of us privileged enough to talk about this online from our homes in relative safety. I keep Al Jazeera's live feed open every day -- this is not news consumption - it's bearing witness to genocide and the horrors committed with full support from my own government. It's not an "issue" as in "I'm a one-issue voter." This is a genocide that we have watched in real time for 11 months. We've literally watched the State respond with violence and censorship to pro-Palestinian sentiment. Every single statement about the "war" from US officials has increased my rage and devastation. It has been maddening to see both parties and the entire mainstream media erase the Palestinian genocide by either flat out refusing to speak a word of it or spewing out misinformation the likes of which I have never seen in my life. I genuinely worry that those 50 people who unsubscribed do not know that the US is unequivocally a party to genocide with the full and growing support of both parties. Because if they subscribed to this newsletter, that's just the tip of iceberg as far as the rest of the American public goes. It makes me sick to my stomach to even read about what percentage of this or that population wants a ceasefire. How can this be something that requires public support? How can it be something thrown into the same conversation as our fake democratic elections? No one gets to pick who lives or dies. And yet at least 50 people still believe that one party is different from the other. I foolishly thought the past 11 months had revealed the lie of the "two-party" system to more people than it has. I hope none of this came off as snarky or gave the impression that I think I'm superior in ANY way to any of those 50 people. I am just so frustratingly confused!
This has certainly turned into way more of a nonsensical rant than I intended and will definitely reread this tomorrow and delete it if it's insane. But honestly everything is insane right now. If there is anyone reading this that has been on the line about whether to speak up for Palestine, I want to tell you that everything about this genocide is against the Jewish religion. Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow mobilized within hours back in October and taking to the streets almost immediately. We knew our religion would be used to somehow justify the slaughter to come because it's been used to justify billions in defense spending for decades. I'm one of many Jews trying to spread the word that antizionism is NOT antisemitism. we hate genocide just as much as the next guy. stay strong and in solidarity <3
Notice how not one word of that deranged screed condemns or even references the atrocities Hamas committed on October 7 and very day since, or the missiles Lebanon has been raining down on the north of Israel for months. It’s almost word for word Hamas propaganda.
Their strategy seems like madness to me. One interview and one debate over the course of an entire campaign is pitiful. Who the fuck do Dems have in top positions who are advising her to be this skittish about taking questions from reporters? And it really doesn’t speak well of her judgement that she’s bought into this timid approach. I suspect she’s listening to some high level Biden holdovers who really shouldn’t be there. They oversaw an epic campaign implosion that almost sank the party, and she turns around and puts them in charge. Wtf!?
I keep thinking back to a couple of events from the 2008 campaign. Two months before the election, Obama sat for a hostile interrogation by Bill O’Reilly, in which O’Reilly basically called him a communist for proposing marginally higher income taxes. Two months later, Joe Biden went on an Orlando news station and, probably expecting questions about Iraq or the financial crisis, was instead brusquely asked why Obama’s statements about taxes didn’t make him a Marxist. In both cases, Obama and Biden held their own (Biden: “Is this a joke?”) against idiotic and bad-faith questions from lightweight journalists. Harris has not demonstrated that she could ever do this. There is no question that Tim Walz, or Hillary Clinton (she was interviewed by O’Reilly during the 2008 primary), or Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or a host of other candidates could. As recently as 2022, Stacey Abrams went on Fox during her second gubernatorial campaign. I understand that Democrats must to do the best with what they currently have—and Harris is by any measure superior to what the GOP has decided to offer voters—but they shouldn’t ignore her shortcomings. Had they not this willingness to turn a blind eye to their candidate’s faults (a willingness they share, albeit to a lesser degree, with Republicans), they wouldn’t have found themselves in the present predicament in the first place.
I think this is a great point. In part, running for president means standing up to nasty or bad faith interrogations, doing well, holding your own, communicating your viewpoints. If you can't do it, you're not up for it, and your presidency (if you get there) is going to be a rough one.
Now this is a joke. You’re talking about a woman who was a prosecutor for decades.
Trump is so triggered by her existence that he can’t stop whining about how “mean” she was to Mike Pence and Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Barr during her Senate career yet y’all still sit here going, “gee, I wonder if she can hold her own in the face of bad faith arguments.”
Where’s all this “hiding” happening? She’s done a whirlwind of campaigning. Including taking time while there in Pittsburgh to talk to people. All while keeping herself abreast of her day job.
It’s funny how much wishcasting keeps going on around her. As if she’s not aware of how insane Trump has been over the past month.
I thought Hilary's 2008 interview with Bill O'Reilly was the most likable, charismatic, and competent I've ever seen her. They listened to each other and discussed policy.
I agree. Of course O’Reilly had an agenda — the right was trying to boost Hillary in order to prolong the primary — but credit goes to Clinton for agreeing to be interviewed by a man who had said some pretty vile things about her in order to court voters.
Am I the only one who wants Kamala Harris to do more interviews because I, a left-liberal, want to know her views on the issues that matter to me? This is the most basic form of exchange that could possibly exist between a voter and a candidate. When did insisting on that go beyond the pale? She has my vote already, but I’d like to know what she has in store for the country beyond “not being Trump.”
Well …for the same reason Trump will not debate again. It is really a strange situation. Trump can talk to the press because it matters not what he says. People are numb to his preposterous rants. Or..”he doesn’t really mean it”. On the other hand, every word Harris says would be critically examined and analyzed to death. She is a federal prosecutor, she could handle the press. But I really think it’s more that her many feel this election is more critical than any before. Trump and cronies are ready to dismantle institutions, discard rules and norms, load the courts. These changes could take decades to reverse. Her campaign is taking whatever seems the safest route to victory. I’m not saying they are right, but I can surely understand it. Me…I really am not worried about specifics on her policies. Because whatever they are, I’m sure we can survive them and things can change in four years. I mean how radical left can she walk given the House? I’m not at all sure we can survive four more years of Trump, given the now organized, ready for action, extreme nationalist cadre of actors waiting to do his bidding, or worse (think Roberts, Miller, Bannon, Johnson, Stone etc).
I have no horse in this race and no skin in the game except for not wanting to live in a world where wars are breaking out with greater frequency, trade routes being interrupted and consequently life becoming more and more expensive for those of us outside the American sphere, aka "the west".
I happen to think the world will be less impacted by Trump and that if Americans have to turn inward for a few decades to repair their own house after his infantile rampage through the institutions all the better.
Harris is an empty pantsuit fronting for the warmongering bastards that run America. At least Trump is something to embarrass them if not slow them down.
Of course you have a point, and in normal times I would totally agree with you. But this time, I think the fact that Trump still a threat and could win the Electoral College in this insane system we have is a factor. I think the media prop him up when it is clear he is not fit in any way to be President. I hope after the debate she will have enough strength to begin to open up to some questioning.
I won’t unsubscribe…your space is very interesting. I am not partisan Democrat, I wanted Joe to retire on his own long ago, opening the process up. Given that he didn’t, and there was no contest, I don’t think Harris needs to be parsed and grilled right now. Events will expose her more and more. She will have to have interviews. But, again, not having Trump sleaze is way to the Presidency is the imperative. That includes responsible work by “the media”.
I've been waiting 6 weeks for a journalist to call out the media and Democrats for their anti-democratic complicity in coddling Harris. If anything, you were too easy on those keeping her under wraps. It's worse than anti-democratic, it is positively Orwellian: to save democracy we must violate its norms. Keep the press at arms length to preserve our cherished institutions. As though the truth and the media are the threat, not Trump.
It is true that Democrats are afraid how Harris will perform--I know I am. She is much better than four years ago, but four years ago she sucked at this. I worry every day she's going to say something mind-bogglingly stupid. "Basket of deplorables" was the beginning of the end for HRC and even the usually nimble Obama was dogged by his unforced "consolation of guns and religion" boner. So yeah. We're plenty worried about Harris going off script.
But that's too bad. Democracies vet candidates. If she's kept under wraps--only allowed out for photo ops like Joe--we're courting disaster. Remember when they finally untethered Joe from his aides and he was on a debate stage for 2 hours with no handlers or managers? Literally gut-wrenching. There are two debates coming and my guts can't handle more gaffes like those listed above.
Interviews benefit not just the listener--they benefit the candidate. They season and toughen and improve their extemporaneous abilities. Harris should be speaking to local and regional outlets every day, fielding questions from reporters of all stripes, across platforms. It's how one gets good at this--Pete Buttigieg learned how to do it on debate teams and in a red state. She can too. And she needs to, fast. "I'm not DJT" won't cut it. Ask Joe Biden.
I think I agree with you. And Ross Barkan is correct (IMO) that there’s a sense of desperation this time. It’s not so much « for Harris », as it is « anyone but Trump! ». The other sentiment I’m picking up is that whatever flaws she may have can be reasonably ironed-out, whereas on the trump ticket there will be no negotiation.
This whole Harris experience reminds me, in a minor key, of the 2020 fever dream. It is a wave of enthusiasm that looks very odd if you can't share it.
I'd been a passionate Bernie supporter but I was a bit skeptical of BLM. "Police abolitionism" seemed like an indirect way of calling for "full communism now" after the social democrat had lost the primary, and "defund the police" seemed like a call for municipal budget cuts.
If Harris isn't up for challenging interviews I don't think she owes them to us, she and her team should do what they think is best. (Mayor Pete or Bernie would be doing interviews on FOX News, just like Obama did.) But these people who suddenly think that Harris is a world-historical political talent and that the media is out to get her are just not observing the same world that I do, they really do put me in mind of Trump supporters talking about Burisma. I guess one has to hope that this weird wave of enthusiasm will last long enough to put Harris in the White House, but as Ross says at the end of this post there is already something a bit shrill and desperate about it.
It's a got a desperate feel vs. 2020, where people genuinely (wrongly) believed this great wave of history was at their back, change was coming, they were unstoppable etc.
Harris can win but she's still not far removed from the candidate who flopped in 2019 against a large field.
Good morning Ross. I've only recently become aware of your substack...and find this topic of VP Harris doing interviews of interest. Having worked in mostly GOP campaigns doing video production and candidate coaching, I believe the current issue around Kamala from her campaigns POV doing a bunch of interviews is more about available time and appropriate preparation time for those interviews. A month ago she became the official candidate. President Biden bowed out on July 21. That's 7 weeks ago. So she's had to fully ramp up a Presidential campaign in a month. Who else has done that in our lifetime ? No one. The first thing she had to prep was acceptance. Then prep for a convention. ALL other candidates in the TV age have had months to prep, because they were in a primary first and then on to the big show. There's already speeches and position papers in the can. She's had to choose a running mate in a week...that's daunting...write speeches and present herself as the next POTUS. From my experience I can assure you that doing interviews with the real networks and newspapers ( not the maniverse...) takes time, which did not exist at all in the first 3 to 4 weeks. Then she needed to get out on the campaign trail with her VP pick and co-ordinate with Biden, Obama, the Clintons and all of the other surrogates and spokes people. That's a BIG job....and get some sleep...oh yea and be VP. Personally I'm impressed that she and Tim pulled off the CNN interview. The sit down interviews will come. Right now prepping for the debate with Trump is by far the most important thing in her life...along with having to be fully aware of Israel/Gaza...Ukraine/Putin...Iran...and teenage shooters in GA...all of them tragic, complex issues. I'm exhausted just writing this. I think the expectation is unrealistic. Do the debate. It will say a lot about both candidates. Then you have something to sit down and do interviews about. Thanks for the space. Balls in your court.
Agree with this. The whole Kamala won’t talk to the Press is a canard. My suspicion is after the debate she’ll make herself much more available to the press my reasoning much aligned with Mikes here. She’s pulling off a miracle right now in uncharted waters against an opponent who isn’t honorable. It’s an amazing lift with a lot of drag on her.
FWIW I’m a partisan democrat who subscribes to NYT, WaPo, Seattle Times, LA Times. The candidate comparison coverage (here is hers, here is his, compare contrast) I find actually a nuisance and doesn’t inform. How do you take serious “On the one hand housing policy down payment assistance housing construction targets, on the other deport immigrants so not as many houses are needed”. Give me a break. (Google Harris housing policy right now and see).
Thanks Kyra. What she is pulling off is super human. How about clamoring for Trump to do interviews with media besides Fox or Musk...what a joke that was...or this maniverse stupidity. Using Cocaine was a topic ? When he has done real interviews Trump usually yells at the interviewer for being rude and stomps off when he can't control the narrative. Let's all witness this debate of the century...and then ask both of them real questions, about real issues....how about that ?
You know she's been vice president for three and a half years? She's a former U.S. senator, a former state attorney general? It's "super human" to show up at political rallies and give speeches? She is literally performing in polls like the median Democrat against a deeply unpopular Republican who is running for president for a third time. She can't do an interview with MSNBC or the Detroit Free Press or Ezra Klein because she needs more time and special prep? She's *that* deficient? This isn't even the first time she's run for president! She was in a primary already. 2019 happened.
Ross, showing up is not super human...that's not what I meant...putting all of this together in this short a time span is unheard of. No one else has EVER had to do it. I don't think she's "deficient " at all. I think your expectation level is very unrealistic. This is the biggest stage on the planet...more eyes, more pressure, more demands than anyone else has at this moment. This is a juggling act with a thousand moving parts and people. Winning is waht matters and from my POV I think she's doing an excellent job.
That’s a pretty simplistic response to a very legitimate and clearly stated argument by Mike W. - one that I very much agree with.
More than anything else, I’ve been reading what you have to say to try to understand your angle….your ultimate goal in all of this.
I mean, do you really want to undermine the Harris campaign with your nit picking over this “issue” that the media has essentially created out of pique? She’s not paying enough attention to you guys, so that makes her less trustworthy or presidential than the other guy??
You do realize that your bitching and whining may make it even more likely that a morbidly flawed, repulsive, and “deeply unpopular” [your words] candidate can once again claim to be “leader of the free world.” Right?
There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked of any candidate who runs for office. Hopefully some of those will be asked - and allowed to be addressed without interruption, blatant falsehoods, and insult comedy - in the upcoming debate. Some will probably be clarified somewhat in the days after the debate. But there are also tired, meaningless questions that so often dominate in any of these “interviews.” And maybe, just maybe, Mike W. here knows what he’s talking about.
If you are sincere in your journalistic beliefs and responsibilities to the public, I would encourage you to seriously consider what Mike has to say, and perhaps, as a member of the media, to ignore your professional ego needs and consider what you are enabling by literally mining for weaknesses on the one side while ignoring the daily displays of grotesqueness on the other side.
I am hardly a partisan hack or hardcore ideologue. I’m just an increasingly aged fellow who sees awfulness all around me in the politics of fear and hatred that have arisen over the past couple of decades. The choice we face as a nation in this presidential election is clear to me, and I would think - and hope - that responsible journalists will do what they can to help clarify the differences between sides for everyone, rather than search for click-worthy nits to pick.
John, thanks for your reflection and support. I read your response above to Ross and I have a theory about the young Mr Barkan's use of the interview issue. We have communicated directly outside of this forum. My impression is that he really does not like or respect VP Harris and has not liked her as a candidate since the 2019 primary. What that is based on I can't really tell...but I believe this happens a lot when a pundit or reporter takes an elected figure to task for some issue...but that issue is really not the "illness". It's a minor symptom that can be focused on and beaten to death. As a former campaign operative (with a good track record ) I told him that one to one interviews would be near the bottom of my "to do" list until after the debate. What's the 1% ? Just curious.
Your theory is honestly dumb. I'd suggest you actually read pieces I've written on any other politician - Biden, Obama, Andrew Cuomo. If any other politician were ducking the press for 6 weeks and counting, I'd write on it.
with all due respect, this is not any of the above...it is a totally different situation...I don't think she's "ducking"...and some of your comments about her show me you don't respect her. I've said all I need to say. Enjoy your career
Women make up 51% of the population and roughly 15% of Congress and 13% of the Senate and less than 1% of US Vice Presidents and 0% of Presidents. How often have you endorsed a female candidate’s approach. Some examples perhaps. Maybe I’m wrong that your criticisms of Harris might not be influenced by her gender
Honestly I wonder if he just has a problem with women candidates that he may not be aware of himself. As a woman in a completely male dominated “manly” profession I’ve dealt with the “ugh” factor personally. I’m very effective but somehow certain men are just not cool with me being a decision maker on these manly boy things that boys do. It shows up in strange critiques that don’t really work because whatever you may feel about me, I’m in construction so I just point to the stuff I built (on time, on budget) and let that do the defending of my record.
This is going places that it does not need to go. The original post was about Harris dodging media interviews. I gave my thoughts based on about 15 years experience as a "hired gun" and working with successful campaigns. The comment that Ross made above that stands out to me is calling the VP "deficient". He is accusing her of not being smart enough to do all the things that she's doing to ramp up this campaign and do interviews. In my exchange with him in a private chat he said things that indicate a former lack of respect for the VP...not just "she's dodging interviews". If he wants to make his comments public, that's up to him. Calling my "theory" stupid is not the response I'd expect from a seasoned journalist. Saying it's not true and giving some support to that is what I'd expect. I've made my points about media interviews and how not important I believe they are at this moment. But I have to wonder if Kyra is on to something with the snarky, cheap reply that Ross made above an hour ago.... With that...adios...have a good weekend. I'm looking forward to the debate.
Does anyone who is a committed Dem really believe at this point that who the party selects for you is really in charge? Biden hasn’t been fit for quite awhile and Harris has yet to prove she is capable. Your party is selecting a place holder so they continue with their agenda. It would be nice if the unelected people truly running things introduced themselves to the American people.
Sorry, but the press has been instrumental in creating the current antipathy that many of us liberal Democrats have toward the institution. Perhaps it started with the months and months it took the press to start calling Drumpf a liar, even as he lied to Americans on a daily basis. Or perhaps it was the continuing coverage of Trump above the fold on a daily basis, as if he were a teen idol and the press a gaggle of screaming adolescent girls. Most recently, even the one interview Harris did grant to CNN included “gotcha” question after “gotcha” question (does the public really care a lot what Harris thinks about Drumpf’s w ok red rants about her changing ethnicity?
At the bottom of this is I suspect the fatal business-ification of journalism, now so far devolved that if “it doesn’t bleed” the press will poke at it until it does, so that they can lead with it. The journalistic touchstone of “need to know” has been replaced with the schadenfreude driven “urge to click”
Post-2024 Democrats: No primaries and no interviews to save democracy
You're a good guy, Ross, and your article was totally fair. I say that as a fairly standard liberal; odds are you and most readers are well to my left.
In fact, I read you because you're fair. For me, in the 2010s and early 2020s, the Left of the Democrats became snonymous with woke yelling and moralizing. Fire and brimestone spewing forth. But not you. You're different. You're calm, literate, and you take your audience's intelligence for granted. I'll always respect the hell out of that no matter what.
"The partisan Democrat is a curious figure. Three months ago, he was absolutely certain Joe Biden was the best nominee for the party and that any questions about his advanced age amounted to right-wing disinformation. He strutted about, like caked-up Gavin Newsom in a CNN spin room, spouting off factoids about Biden’s vigor and Trump’s lunacy."
Great line. The partisan Democrat adheres to MSM propaganda that would make North Koreans blush. Don't lose sleep over 50 unsubscribes because you care about truth and transparency, they are not serious people and have plenty of TDS regurgitating Substacks to choose from. Democracy dies in the darkness!
I agree with both of your Kamala Harris posts. It seems obvious. In a neck and neck race, you gotta risk being visible.
And if you can't risk being visible, you shouldn't be running.
I rarely comment here because I usually don't have the brain power left to match yours. But I am somehow even more confused about the reality I thought I lived in than I have been for the past 11 months.I'm a 35-yr-old American Jew who has never given less of a shit about Israel. Since college, I have become more and more anti-Zionist. (btw, so is my survivor grandmother - as most are.) So many public figures I looked up to and so many people in my life and my family were instantly revealed to be someone living in a different reality or with a completely different moral compass or lacking basic human empathy. Like most Americans, I fully bought into the "America" taught to me in my state-regulated public education. It wasn't until my 20's that I "woke up" to what America actually is. How much someone is aware of "what America actually is" has always been a sliding scale. But living through 11 months of genocide funded by our tax dollars in the name of my religion's entirely unrelated past tragedy has officially turned that sliding scale into an on/off switch. This is an event bigger than America and bigger than any of us privileged enough to talk about this online from our homes in relative safety. I keep Al Jazeera's live feed open every day -- this is not news consumption - it's bearing witness to genocide and the horrors committed with full support from my own government. It's not an "issue" as in "I'm a one-issue voter." This is a genocide that we have watched in real time for 11 months. We've literally watched the State respond with violence and censorship to pro-Palestinian sentiment. Every single statement about the "war" from US officials has increased my rage and devastation. It has been maddening to see both parties and the entire mainstream media erase the Palestinian genocide by either flat out refusing to speak a word of it or spewing out misinformation the likes of which I have never seen in my life. I genuinely worry that those 50 people who unsubscribed do not know that the US is unequivocally a party to genocide with the full and growing support of both parties. Because if they subscribed to this newsletter, that's just the tip of iceberg as far as the rest of the American public goes. It makes me sick to my stomach to even read about what percentage of this or that population wants a ceasefire. How can this be something that requires public support? How can it be something thrown into the same conversation as our fake democratic elections? No one gets to pick who lives or dies. And yet at least 50 people still believe that one party is different from the other. I foolishly thought the past 11 months had revealed the lie of the "two-party" system to more people than it has. I hope none of this came off as snarky or gave the impression that I think I'm superior in ANY way to any of those 50 people. I am just so frustratingly confused!
This has certainly turned into way more of a nonsensical rant than I intended and will definitely reread this tomorrow and delete it if it's insane. But honestly everything is insane right now. If there is anyone reading this that has been on the line about whether to speak up for Palestine, I want to tell you that everything about this genocide is against the Jewish religion. Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow mobilized within hours back in October and taking to the streets almost immediately. We knew our religion would be used to somehow justify the slaughter to come because it's been used to justify billions in defense spending for decades. I'm one of many Jews trying to spread the word that antizionism is NOT antisemitism. we hate genocide just as much as the next guy. stay strong and in solidarity <3
It'd be nice if a journalist forced Kamala Harris to answer questions about Israel and Gaza!
Notice how not one word of that deranged screed condemns or even references the atrocities Hamas committed on October 7 and very day since, or the missiles Lebanon has been raining down on the north of Israel for months. It’s almost word for word Hamas propaganda.
These people are utterly certifiable.
Their strategy seems like madness to me. One interview and one debate over the course of an entire campaign is pitiful. Who the fuck do Dems have in top positions who are advising her to be this skittish about taking questions from reporters? And it really doesn’t speak well of her judgement that she’s bought into this timid approach. I suspect she’s listening to some high level Biden holdovers who really shouldn’t be there. They oversaw an epic campaign implosion that almost sank the party, and she turns around and puts them in charge. Wtf!?
I keep thinking back to a couple of events from the 2008 campaign. Two months before the election, Obama sat for a hostile interrogation by Bill O’Reilly, in which O’Reilly basically called him a communist for proposing marginally higher income taxes. Two months later, Joe Biden went on an Orlando news station and, probably expecting questions about Iraq or the financial crisis, was instead brusquely asked why Obama’s statements about taxes didn’t make him a Marxist. In both cases, Obama and Biden held their own (Biden: “Is this a joke?”) against idiotic and bad-faith questions from lightweight journalists. Harris has not demonstrated that she could ever do this. There is no question that Tim Walz, or Hillary Clinton (she was interviewed by O’Reilly during the 2008 primary), or Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders, or a host of other candidates could. As recently as 2022, Stacey Abrams went on Fox during her second gubernatorial campaign. I understand that Democrats must to do the best with what they currently have—and Harris is by any measure superior to what the GOP has decided to offer voters—but they shouldn’t ignore her shortcomings. Had they not this willingness to turn a blind eye to their candidate’s faults (a willingness they share, albeit to a lesser degree, with Republicans), they wouldn’t have found themselves in the present predicament in the first place.
I think this is a great point. In part, running for president means standing up to nasty or bad faith interrogations, doing well, holding your own, communicating your viewpoints. If you can't do it, you're not up for it, and your presidency (if you get there) is going to be a rough one.
Now this is a joke. You’re talking about a woman who was a prosecutor for decades.
Trump is so triggered by her existence that he can’t stop whining about how “mean” she was to Mike Pence and Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Barr during her Senate career yet y’all still sit here going, “gee, I wonder if she can hold her own in the face of bad faith arguments.”
Spare me.
And yet she is essentially hiding in Biden's Covid basement from 2020.
Where’s all this “hiding” happening? She’s done a whirlwind of campaigning. Including taking time while there in Pittsburgh to talk to people. All while keeping herself abreast of her day job.
It’s funny how much wishcasting keeps going on around her. As if she’s not aware of how insane Trump has been over the past month.
Not to mention how unoriginal he is.
I thought Hilary's 2008 interview with Bill O'Reilly was the most likable, charismatic, and competent I've ever seen her. They listened to each other and discussed policy.
I agree. Of course O’Reilly had an agenda — the right was trying to boost Hillary in order to prolong the primary — but credit goes to Clinton for agreeing to be interviewed by a man who had said some pretty vile things about her in order to court voters.
Am I the only one who wants Kamala Harris to do more interviews because I, a left-liberal, want to know her views on the issues that matter to me? This is the most basic form of exchange that could possibly exist between a voter and a candidate. When did insisting on that go beyond the pale? She has my vote already, but I’d like to know what she has in store for the country beyond “not being Trump.”
Excellent article Ross.
This is Democratic Party Campaigning 101.
They know she has your vote already.
They know she has almost every Black woman's vote already.
They know she has every Brooklyn Marxist's vote already.
Why would they risk her going off on a wine mom word salad in an unscripted interview?
Well …for the same reason Trump will not debate again. It is really a strange situation. Trump can talk to the press because it matters not what he says. People are numb to his preposterous rants. Or..”he doesn’t really mean it”. On the other hand, every word Harris says would be critically examined and analyzed to death. She is a federal prosecutor, she could handle the press. But I really think it’s more that her many feel this election is more critical than any before. Trump and cronies are ready to dismantle institutions, discard rules and norms, load the courts. These changes could take decades to reverse. Her campaign is taking whatever seems the safest route to victory. I’m not saying they are right, but I can surely understand it. Me…I really am not worried about specifics on her policies. Because whatever they are, I’m sure we can survive them and things can change in four years. I mean how radical left can she walk given the House? I’m not at all sure we can survive four more years of Trump, given the now organized, ready for action, extreme nationalist cadre of actors waiting to do his bidding, or worse (think Roberts, Miller, Bannon, Johnson, Stone etc).
I have no horse in this race and no skin in the game except for not wanting to live in a world where wars are breaking out with greater frequency, trade routes being interrupted and consequently life becoming more and more expensive for those of us outside the American sphere, aka "the west".
I happen to think the world will be less impacted by Trump and that if Americans have to turn inward for a few decades to repair their own house after his infantile rampage through the institutions all the better.
Harris is an empty pantsuit fronting for the warmongering bastards that run America. At least Trump is something to embarrass them if not slow them down.
Of course you have a point, and in normal times I would totally agree with you. But this time, I think the fact that Trump still a threat and could win the Electoral College in this insane system we have is a factor. I think the media prop him up when it is clear he is not fit in any way to be President. I hope after the debate she will have enough strength to begin to open up to some questioning.
I won’t unsubscribe…your space is very interesting. I am not partisan Democrat, I wanted Joe to retire on his own long ago, opening the process up. Given that he didn’t, and there was no contest, I don’t think Harris needs to be parsed and grilled right now. Events will expose her more and more. She will have to have interviews. But, again, not having Trump sleaze is way to the Presidency is the imperative. That includes responsible work by “the media”.
Hallelujah, Ross Barkan.
I've been waiting 6 weeks for a journalist to call out the media and Democrats for their anti-democratic complicity in coddling Harris. If anything, you were too easy on those keeping her under wraps. It's worse than anti-democratic, it is positively Orwellian: to save democracy we must violate its norms. Keep the press at arms length to preserve our cherished institutions. As though the truth and the media are the threat, not Trump.
It is true that Democrats are afraid how Harris will perform--I know I am. She is much better than four years ago, but four years ago she sucked at this. I worry every day she's going to say something mind-bogglingly stupid. "Basket of deplorables" was the beginning of the end for HRC and even the usually nimble Obama was dogged by his unforced "consolation of guns and religion" boner. So yeah. We're plenty worried about Harris going off script.
But that's too bad. Democracies vet candidates. If she's kept under wraps--only allowed out for photo ops like Joe--we're courting disaster. Remember when they finally untethered Joe from his aides and he was on a debate stage for 2 hours with no handlers or managers? Literally gut-wrenching. There are two debates coming and my guts can't handle more gaffes like those listed above.
Interviews benefit not just the listener--they benefit the candidate. They season and toughen and improve their extemporaneous abilities. Harris should be speaking to local and regional outlets every day, fielding questions from reporters of all stripes, across platforms. It's how one gets good at this--Pete Buttigieg learned how to do it on debate teams and in a red state. She can too. And she needs to, fast. "I'm not DJT" won't cut it. Ask Joe Biden.
I think I agree with you. And Ross Barkan is correct (IMO) that there’s a sense of desperation this time. It’s not so much « for Harris », as it is « anyone but Trump! ». The other sentiment I’m picking up is that whatever flaws she may have can be reasonably ironed-out, whereas on the trump ticket there will be no negotiation.
Subscribed because of this post. Thank you for writing it.
This whole Harris experience reminds me, in a minor key, of the 2020 fever dream. It is a wave of enthusiasm that looks very odd if you can't share it.
I'd been a passionate Bernie supporter but I was a bit skeptical of BLM. "Police abolitionism" seemed like an indirect way of calling for "full communism now" after the social democrat had lost the primary, and "defund the police" seemed like a call for municipal budget cuts.
If Harris isn't up for challenging interviews I don't think she owes them to us, she and her team should do what they think is best. (Mayor Pete or Bernie would be doing interviews on FOX News, just like Obama did.) But these people who suddenly think that Harris is a world-historical political talent and that the media is out to get her are just not observing the same world that I do, they really do put me in mind of Trump supporters talking about Burisma. I guess one has to hope that this weird wave of enthusiasm will last long enough to put Harris in the White House, but as Ross says at the end of this post there is already something a bit shrill and desperate about it.
It's a got a desperate feel vs. 2020, where people genuinely (wrongly) believed this great wave of history was at their back, change was coming, they were unstoppable etc.
Harris can win but she's still not far removed from the candidate who flopped in 2019 against a large field.
Good morning Ross. I've only recently become aware of your substack...and find this topic of VP Harris doing interviews of interest. Having worked in mostly GOP campaigns doing video production and candidate coaching, I believe the current issue around Kamala from her campaigns POV doing a bunch of interviews is more about available time and appropriate preparation time for those interviews. A month ago she became the official candidate. President Biden bowed out on July 21. That's 7 weeks ago. So she's had to fully ramp up a Presidential campaign in a month. Who else has done that in our lifetime ? No one. The first thing she had to prep was acceptance. Then prep for a convention. ALL other candidates in the TV age have had months to prep, because they were in a primary first and then on to the big show. There's already speeches and position papers in the can. She's had to choose a running mate in a week...that's daunting...write speeches and present herself as the next POTUS. From my experience I can assure you that doing interviews with the real networks and newspapers ( not the maniverse...) takes time, which did not exist at all in the first 3 to 4 weeks. Then she needed to get out on the campaign trail with her VP pick and co-ordinate with Biden, Obama, the Clintons and all of the other surrogates and spokes people. That's a BIG job....and get some sleep...oh yea and be VP. Personally I'm impressed that she and Tim pulled off the CNN interview. The sit down interviews will come. Right now prepping for the debate with Trump is by far the most important thing in her life...along with having to be fully aware of Israel/Gaza...Ukraine/Putin...Iran...and teenage shooters in GA...all of them tragic, complex issues. I'm exhausted just writing this. I think the expectation is unrealistic. Do the debate. It will say a lot about both candidates. Then you have something to sit down and do interviews about. Thanks for the space. Balls in your court.
Agree with this. The whole Kamala won’t talk to the Press is a canard. My suspicion is after the debate she’ll make herself much more available to the press my reasoning much aligned with Mikes here. She’s pulling off a miracle right now in uncharted waters against an opponent who isn’t honorable. It’s an amazing lift with a lot of drag on her.
FWIW I’m a partisan democrat who subscribes to NYT, WaPo, Seattle Times, LA Times. The candidate comparison coverage (here is hers, here is his, compare contrast) I find actually a nuisance and doesn’t inform. How do you take serious “On the one hand housing policy down payment assistance housing construction targets, on the other deport immigrants so not as many houses are needed”. Give me a break. (Google Harris housing policy right now and see).
Thanks Kyra. What she is pulling off is super human. How about clamoring for Trump to do interviews with media besides Fox or Musk...what a joke that was...or this maniverse stupidity. Using Cocaine was a topic ? When he has done real interviews Trump usually yells at the interviewer for being rude and stomps off when he can't control the narrative. Let's all witness this debate of the century...and then ask both of them real questions, about real issues....how about that ?
You know she's been vice president for three and a half years? She's a former U.S. senator, a former state attorney general? It's "super human" to show up at political rallies and give speeches? She is literally performing in polls like the median Democrat against a deeply unpopular Republican who is running for president for a third time. She can't do an interview with MSNBC or the Detroit Free Press or Ezra Klein because she needs more time and special prep? She's *that* deficient? This isn't even the first time she's run for president! She was in a primary already. 2019 happened.
Ross, showing up is not super human...that's not what I meant...putting all of this together in this short a time span is unheard of. No one else has EVER had to do it. I don't think she's "deficient " at all. I think your expectation level is very unrealistic. This is the biggest stage on the planet...more eyes, more pressure, more demands than anyone else has at this moment. This is a juggling act with a thousand moving parts and people. Winning is waht matters and from my POV I think she's doing an excellent job.
That’s a pretty simplistic response to a very legitimate and clearly stated argument by Mike W. - one that I very much agree with.
More than anything else, I’ve been reading what you have to say to try to understand your angle….your ultimate goal in all of this.
I mean, do you really want to undermine the Harris campaign with your nit picking over this “issue” that the media has essentially created out of pique? She’s not paying enough attention to you guys, so that makes her less trustworthy or presidential than the other guy??
You do realize that your bitching and whining may make it even more likely that a morbidly flawed, repulsive, and “deeply unpopular” [your words] candidate can once again claim to be “leader of the free world.” Right?
There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked of any candidate who runs for office. Hopefully some of those will be asked - and allowed to be addressed without interruption, blatant falsehoods, and insult comedy - in the upcoming debate. Some will probably be clarified somewhat in the days after the debate. But there are also tired, meaningless questions that so often dominate in any of these “interviews.” And maybe, just maybe, Mike W. here knows what he’s talking about.
If you are sincere in your journalistic beliefs and responsibilities to the public, I would encourage you to seriously consider what Mike has to say, and perhaps, as a member of the media, to ignore your professional ego needs and consider what you are enabling by literally mining for weaknesses on the one side while ignoring the daily displays of grotesqueness on the other side.
I am hardly a partisan hack or hardcore ideologue. I’m just an increasingly aged fellow who sees awfulness all around me in the politics of fear and hatred that have arisen over the past couple of decades. The choice we face as a nation in this presidential election is clear to me, and I would think - and hope - that responsible journalists will do what they can to help clarify the differences between sides for everyone, rather than search for click-worthy nits to pick.
And that’s about all I have to say about that.
I appreciate what you’ve said here, and I’d say I agree with at least 99% of it.
John, thanks for your reflection and support. I read your response above to Ross and I have a theory about the young Mr Barkan's use of the interview issue. We have communicated directly outside of this forum. My impression is that he really does not like or respect VP Harris and has not liked her as a candidate since the 2019 primary. What that is based on I can't really tell...but I believe this happens a lot when a pundit or reporter takes an elected figure to task for some issue...but that issue is really not the "illness". It's a minor symptom that can be focused on and beaten to death. As a former campaign operative (with a good track record ) I told him that one to one interviews would be near the bottom of my "to do" list until after the debate. What's the 1% ? Just curious.
Your theory is honestly dumb. I'd suggest you actually read pieces I've written on any other politician - Biden, Obama, Andrew Cuomo. If any other politician were ducking the press for 6 weeks and counting, I'd write on it.
with all due respect, this is not any of the above...it is a totally different situation...I don't think she's "ducking"...and some of your comments about her show me you don't respect her. I've said all I need to say. Enjoy your career
Women make up 51% of the population and roughly 15% of Congress and 13% of the Senate and less than 1% of US Vice Presidents and 0% of Presidents. How often have you endorsed a female candidate’s approach. Some examples perhaps. Maybe I’m wrong that your criticisms of Harris might not be influenced by her gender
Honestly I wonder if he just has a problem with women candidates that he may not be aware of himself. As a woman in a completely male dominated “manly” profession I’ve dealt with the “ugh” factor personally. I’m very effective but somehow certain men are just not cool with me being a decision maker on these manly boy things that boys do. It shows up in strange critiques that don’t really work because whatever you may feel about me, I’m in construction so I just point to the stuff I built (on time, on budget) and let that do the defending of my record.
I've never critiqued a male politician. It's true. You got me! I celebrate all men in politics.
That’s not what I said or even in the spirit of what I said.
This is going places that it does not need to go. The original post was about Harris dodging media interviews. I gave my thoughts based on about 15 years experience as a "hired gun" and working with successful campaigns. The comment that Ross made above that stands out to me is calling the VP "deficient". He is accusing her of not being smart enough to do all the things that she's doing to ramp up this campaign and do interviews. In my exchange with him in a private chat he said things that indicate a former lack of respect for the VP...not just "she's dodging interviews". If he wants to make his comments public, that's up to him. Calling my "theory" stupid is not the response I'd expect from a seasoned journalist. Saying it's not true and giving some support to that is what I'd expect. I've made my points about media interviews and how not important I believe they are at this moment. But I have to wonder if Kyra is on to something with the snarky, cheap reply that Ross made above an hour ago.... With that...adios...have a good weekend. I'm looking forward to the debate.
Does anyone who is a committed Dem really believe at this point that who the party selects for you is really in charge? Biden hasn’t been fit for quite awhile and Harris has yet to prove she is capable. Your party is selecting a place holder so they continue with their agenda. It would be nice if the unelected people truly running things introduced themselves to the American people.
Well said, Ross. Thank you.
Sorry, but the press has been instrumental in creating the current antipathy that many of us liberal Democrats have toward the institution. Perhaps it started with the months and months it took the press to start calling Drumpf a liar, even as he lied to Americans on a daily basis. Or perhaps it was the continuing coverage of Trump above the fold on a daily basis, as if he were a teen idol and the press a gaggle of screaming adolescent girls. Most recently, even the one interview Harris did grant to CNN included “gotcha” question after “gotcha” question (does the public really care a lot what Harris thinks about Drumpf’s w ok red rants about her changing ethnicity?
At the bottom of this is I suspect the fatal business-ification of journalism, now so far devolved that if “it doesn’t bleed” the press will poke at it until it does, so that they can lead with it. The journalistic touchstone of “need to know” has been replaced with the schadenfreude driven “urge to click”