Since the debut of her self-titled show over 40 years ago, Oprah Winfrey has made a name for herself discussing the tragedy experienced by others. It appears that she has seldom strayed from this formula.
When Vice President Kamala Harris sat down with the well-known presenter, America saw a lengthy political advertisement with the singular goal of humanizing Kamala.
It’s best left to those with a crystal ball to predict if the string of softball questions veiled as political inquiry will change the outcome of the election. But one thing is quite evident:
She loses a lot of credibility as a presidential contender as a result of this type of interview. Her general competency is coming under more and more scrutiny due to the dearth of meaningful questions.
The Oprah Gimmick
This was not, in any meaningful sense, an interview. The scenario appeared more like a DNC rehashing, with features from Hollywood legends like Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lopez, Ben Stiller, and others, including campaign surrogates.
The Michigan event drew several hundred people, but most of them were not ordinary people looking to find out more about the qualifications—or lack thereof—of an upcoming presidential contender. With supporters from parties like Republicans for Harris, Swifties for Kamla, Black Women for Harris, White Dudes for Harris, Win with Black Men, White Women for Harris, and South Asians for Harris, they seemed to be Kamala’s fan base instead.
Every candidate can look calm, relaxed, and in control when they know that no difficult questions or thorny issues are headed their way. As Ms. Harris notches up a string of friendly encounters, the public is left wondering whether she has the capability to deal with anything more challenging. And these concerns are beginning to reverberate beyond the electorate.
President Joe Biden nominated his vice president and declared his withdrawal from the contest 61 days ago; throughout that period, she has not had a news conference.
When a candidate knows they won’t be facing any challenging questions or contentious topics, they could appear composed, at ease, and in charge. People are left wondering if Ms. Harris can handle a concept more difficult as she gathers a series of amicable experiences. Furthermore, these concerns are beginning to spread beyond of the voting electorate.
Pre-Packaged Topics for a Pre-Packaged Candidate?
Ms. Winfrey brought up a range of hot-button issues, from gun rights to abortion, with a brief sojourn into the economy. One might have hoped that the Democrat nominee would have been pressed to deliver concrete answers, but that was not to be.
Each topic was accompanied – in Winfrey-esque fashion – by an emotive story and “special guest” that allowed Harris to empathize rather than elucidate.
Regarding gun violence, a victim of the most recent incident at Apalachee High School in Georgia shared her heartbreaking story, which gave Harris the ideal opportunity to criticize ‘assault weapons.’
In reference to the possibility of abortions, the mother of a young lady who passed away from an infection that some claim wouldn’t have happened if stringent abortion regulations had not been in place talked about her loss and her agony. In response, Harris said:
This is by no means a sign that the Fourth Estate’s infatuation with the candidate whose name has a “D” next to it is completed. Yet, hostilities are getting worse. Todd Purdum, the former head of The Times’ Los Angeles office, bemoaned in a guest post for his old newspaper Harris’ lack of depth when answering queries. He said:
“I’m just so sorry … And the courage that you all have shown is extraordinary because also you just learned about how it is that she died … And Amber’s mom shared with me that the word, over and over again in her mind, is preventable. Preventable. That word keeps coming to her.”
Each topic was an opportunity to emote and display compassion. It was televisual schmaltz of the highest order, failing to demonstrate depth or substance.
The Fraying Fourth Estate Support
It’s no secret that Kamala Harris is the favorite of the conventional media establishment right now. Joe Biden was, too, until roughly ten minutes after his awful debate performance exposed the media to be complicit in his denial of his cognitive decline. And yet, people who love these kinds of celebrity connections paid little attention to what ought to have been the talk of the election season—that is, Oprah Winfrey’s debate with the incoming president.
The event had been reported by a single story—and it was much below the fold—on the digital front page of Washington, DC’s most well-known news agency.The New York Times only published one piece, which was located far below the fold. ABC had none, while CBS had one. Actually, the only prominent journal that published the
“Writing about politicians for decades has convinced me that direct, succinct answers and explanations from Ms. Harris would go a long way — perhaps longer than she realizes — toward persuading voters that they know enough about her and her plans.”
This was not a condemnation, however, but a plea for substance. He continued, In a campaign in which Donald Trump fills our days with arrant nonsense and dominates the national discussion … the vice president can’t afford to stick only to rehearsed answers and stump speeches that might not persuade voters or shape what America is talking about.”
The Job Is not the Interview
Kamala Harris has demonstrated thus far in the campaign that she is well capable of handling an atmosphere of hospitality that is filled with admiration and praise. And in certain respects, a campaign may be just that. She’s showing America that there are a lot of people who find her to be just amazing, and maybe—just maybe—you might join the joy parade.
Nevertheless, as anyone who conducted or even attended a potential job interview knows, the responses and persona we are given throughout the interview process frequently differ from what we receive when the task is due. Nobody would ever lose their job if they were.
She may, indeed, be able to handle the cut and thrust of the highest office in the land, but she is not demonstrating that to the public. In fact, she is showing the complete opposite. When one avoids difficult situations, it is a form of cowardice and immaturity. She may be sending out messages of hope and joy, but the signals being received are of an entirely different nature.
