Kamala Harris Must Assert Herself

During a speech in Pittsburgh, Barack Obama strongly voiced his concerns about black men who do not back Kamala Harris, suggesting some of them are uncomfortable with the notion of a female president.

This led to resurfacing questions: Is Harris’ equally matched competition against a preposterous candidate due to her gender, or is it simply a superficial veil?

Hillary Clinton’s downfall wasn’t due to her being a woman, but due to her being precisely who she is. Her lacklustre campaigning efforts, her absence from Wisconsin and sparse visits to Michigan, paired with miscommunication surrounding gender and complaints about sexism, all contributed to her demise.

When querying James Carville whether Americans’ hesitation to vote for a woman or more specifically, a woman of colour, was a challenge for Kamala; he responded with stern words of rebuke.

Despite a decline in her support with less than four weeks till the election, and the Democratic party’s anxiety, Carville dismissed concerns about changing her gender or ethnicity ahead of the poll. Instead, he urged for a more assertive strategy, pointing out a seeming lack of combative instinct in their current approach.

Kamala’s campaign, Carville wryly observed, seemed to have remained in Wilmington. Despite her extensive engagement with media platforms like 60 Minutes, The View, Stephen Colbert’s show, and Howard Stern’s show, her efforts didn’t seem to influence public opinion.

Carville suggested that Kamala should be more proactive and critical. As a closing tactic, he proposed shelving the focus on the January 6th incident and the election results, and instead, questioning the audacity of JD Vance’s claims that Trump is the originator of Obamacare, having attempted to implode it numerous times. He also advised showcasing images of potential right-wing supreme court nominees under Trump’s administration and pondering if Americans are prepared for an even more extremist court.

The original text suggests that she should challenge people by asking, “Have you realised how devastating tariffs can be? These are what will eliminate your employment.”

She should commit to overturning the rich-focused tax deductions from Trump’s era and put the question to the electorate if they’d prefer to put the trillions saved towards assisting the younger generation in purchasing their first property.

In layman’s terms, it was suggested, “She should make voters tremble in fear. Trump appears to be just mocking us, staging a gathering at Madison Square Garden, mirroring actions of the Nazis back in 1939.

“Black males and young black men must ponder over what they stand to lose in the upcoming election. Donald Trump puts forth the idea that you have nothing at risk. But consider, you might lose your health coverage, you could even lose your job.”

Several Democratic strategists aligned with the notion that Harris needs to take off her gloves and step up her game. Essentially, her selling point revolves around her not being Donald Trump, which is an excellent standpoint,

But she needs to put forth an aggressive argument on her behalf.

It is baffling why long ago she hadn’t sat with a pen and paper or computer and outlined her wishes to run for president, clarified her chief objectives and how she intended to achieve them. The Vision Thing. Even when asked easy questions by sympathetic television hosts, there were moments when Harris appeared uncertain about the responses.

She didn’t learn to manoeuvre towards the middle ground in starkly democratic California. When queried on The View regarding any potential differences in actions from Joe Biden, she stated “nothing springs to mind” – a blunder if her intention is to signify change.

Harris should create a sense of distance from Biden when necessary. She should frankly acknowledge the known fact that border policy had been mishandled, and that Biden hadn’t taken a strong enough stance with the notorious Bibi.

The guarded nature of Kamala gives the impression that she’s not being entirely open about herself. Her hesitation to take part in serious interviews portrays her as cautious and scared. She should have been more involved with the media to move away from reading from a script and provide insight into her personality.

She indeed prepares diligently for her assignments, but her delivery comes across as rehearsed rather than sincere. Despite it appearing odd and deceitful, Trump excels at improvising.

Harris is tirelessly campaigning to win over white female voters who are unsure about Trump, capitalising on her unique benefit: abortion rights becoming a pivotal issue and her ability to vividly portray the threat that Trump and Vance pose.

Through linking her personal account of caring for her mother during her battle with colon cancer to her plan of providing Medicare support for some home-care services, Harris efficiently introduces a specific policy proposition whilst conveying her vision of a more compassionate America than what Trump is proposing.

His fabrications surrounding the federal reaction to Hurricanes Helene and Milton have serious implications. when Trump claims that individuals in red districts aren’t being aided by the government, they may refrain from applying for assistance. Additionally, his ludicrous assertion that he’ll become the women’s guardian is amongst his most outrageous fibs.

It’s worrying that Harris isn’t able to surpass Trump and emerge ahead. As Carville mentions, more action and less pondering is what is required in this critical period. She has to succeed to prevent us from facing detrimental effects. – This commentary was initially published in The New York Times.

Condividi