One big reason why she's not the right pick for President is her terrible stint as district attorney of San Francisco. She sent a lot of men to prison who where proven to be innocent. And even then, she refused to let them out until forced to so. = See NY Times op-ed, Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
24
Lady candidates should "take strong positions" but definitely not "be strident." They should find the sweet spot where they are just exactly as vocally assertive as NY Times conservative columnists want them to be; that's how we will know they are serious. Mostly the lady candidates are too aggressive, except when they are insufficiently serious. Also, their tone of voice is all wrong. Why does the newspaper of record continue to provide space for this drivel? (I'd be thrilled to vote for either Warren or Harris and call her Madame President.)
22
Harris is a fierce warrior who has a keen intellect. The way she took Barr apart in the Senate hearings was impressive. I think she should let her "Xena, the Warrior Princess" shine through. America is ready for a 'take-no-prisoners' woman to seize the helm. There would be nothing more pleasurable that watching Kamala Harris go up against Donald Trump in a national debate.
53
Angry, unlikable Kamala Harris is INELIGIBLE to be POTUS (Article 2) or VPOTUS (12th Amendment). She is NOT nor can she ever be a Natural Born Citizen. She must be born to American Citizen parents. Plural. She is merely a statutory NATIVE born American. She was warned prior to running and collecting donor campaign money that she was ineligible. She is a fraud. Obama got away with it. She thinks she can get away with it. Not sure she will.
Read for yourselves. Facts are facts. Only the POTUS must be NATURAL BORN. The first 7 presidents were not NBCs but they were still constitutionally eligible. Do you know why?
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
I don't think Black men, especially undereducated Black will support Harris. I certainly will as a Texas born Latina in her 60's. Harris/Buttigieg have the edge!
3
Q white people always ask: "But she checks off so many diversity boxes, why don't people like her more?"
A from POC: Because she's a prosecutor! Because of substance, fool.
White people: Stare blankly, then write another think piece professing confusion about why Harris is not more popular. Repeat.
2
Michelle Obama would win in a walk.
3
Why no magazine covers? Can we say sexism and racism anyone? We don’t need another flipping “white man savior”, we need a strong competent fierce woman. Go Kamala!!! 2020!
10
Do you remember when Trump was lurking behind Clinton during one of the debates? I have a feeling that that wouldn’t have happened with Harris: she would’ve turned around and put that ignorant buffoon in his place. I hope that whoever the democratic nominee is that they go right for idiot’s jugular and belittles him to his face HUGELY.
17
It says a lot about the media that Kamala Harris has not received the gushing attention of Beto O'Rourke. It says nothing about Kamala. You're falling back on easy journalistic formulations Frank. Interrogate your guild and their strange predilections.
6
Why is there almost no coverage of another impressive woman in the race - Kirsten Gillibrand!
2
"As for Warren, my gut is that her worst patch — the DNA test — is behind her ..."
Frank Bruni, that's when Elizabeth Warren jumped the shark.
4
You've just reminded all of us that Democrats still view their political world by tired old identity subgroups. It's disgusting and most of America sees right through it.
5
She will be an absolute disaster as president.
5
"Strident," Mr. Bruni? I realize that's what you're saying others condemn, but you are at fault, too, in using such sexist language. Don't repeat what ignoramuses say, please. What troubles me is that smart and assertive women are called "strident" and not "smart" and "forceful." I don't think we'll choose the talented Elizabeth Warren because I think this is a country of idiots, who don't know how lucky they are to have someone like her in the Senate. Mature and experienced, she "persists," has a backbone, and has the folks in this country in mind as she states her ideas. However, I'd gladly vote for Ms. Harris, whose sense of humor just might might make "the medicine go down." Do not underestimate the voters is, I think, your message here. Wouldn't it be a treat to see Kamala Harris shred Donald Trump? Wouldn't it be a gift to have the rest of the world know we can bounce back from sleaziness? Just don't call her "strident."
8
Why can't the media, and the candidate, accurately, and truthfully, portray who they are - Ms. Harris is not the only example. That a woman, who has an Indian name, and is bi-racial (why instead isn't Kamala referred to as the Indian candidate), can't be accepted for her (smart, intelligent, diverse) true self smacks of the hypocrisy of racial political narratives (identity politics). If Mr. Bruni can't do fair and accurate reporting, as the NY Times always promotes itself as doing in its full page newspaper ads, he is in fact continuing of doing journalism and Ms. Harris a disservice.
2
Why? Because Mayor Pete and Bernie and Biden are more charismatic and people liking a candidate is the first step you’re forgetting in your unrelenting NYT push for another unelectable and unlikable female candidate. Find a good charismatic female candidate and we can talk. Otherwise your election agenda rings hollow.
4
Senator Harris questioning President Trump. Senator Harris questioning Donald Jr. Senator Harris questioning Jared. Senator Harris questioning Mike Pence. Senator Harris questioning Melania. Senator Harris ques................. I count the grifters at night instead of sheep. And as I drift off to sleep in these maddening times, I fantasize about this incredible woman doing what so many white men have failed to do - give these lowlifes the tough time they deserve.
6
Seriously, she just doesn't have it; and you can't prop her up. Not only that, Frank, but there is something close to a contradiction in what you're saying and you can't have it both ways. She came out on fire, her numbers spiked, she got a lot of attention. So, it's the medias fault we aren't taken by her? I've heard that one before. The irony is too thick too stick.
3
Now we need Affirmative Action for magazine covers?
3
She's a black woman. O'Rourke and Buttegieg are white men. That's all there is to it.
5
Kamala is the tuffest one in that top tier. She wants to win, let her bite the heads off a couple of Republican toadies.
4
Really? Do we have to go through this junk again?
4
I have higher expectations from a Bruni column. I'll score this a three or four. This article drips with cynical identity politics. I guess it's just taken as a given at this point. But the paragraph on Biden and China was spot on. A reminder why Bruni is perhaps my favorite columnist at the NYT.
1
What about a Biden-Harris ticket? They will kill Trump, dead on his tracks..
1
Frank, Frank, Frank..... Were you awake when you wrote this?
"But many Democratic leaders and voters experience her as too strident"
Or have you been hanging out on 4chan? Anyone paying attention knows that "strident" is a rightwing dogwhistle for describing female politicians.
7
Harris and Mayor Pete : Batwoman and Robin. With Trump as the dim-witted and demented Joker.
Yeah, let’s get it ON.
1
Bernie’s trundling? Isn’t he running second in all the polls? Harris is not an authentic progressive candidate for working people. She’s a candidate basically in it for herself. And I don’t care about the fact that she’s half Indian and half Jamaican. What does that have to do with how she will run our country anyway? You didn’t even mention any of her positions on specific issues. What a worthless column.
5
Strident or trifle smug?
Your bias probably isn't even unconscious. 'Strident'?
4
Democratic presidential candidates=circular firing squad.
Jasper
1
Frank, I find you strident. Check the sexism before you hit the keyboard.
5
If Mr. Bruni is seeking to medal in patronizing and sexist language and unsolicited advice he is in no way qualified to give, well he's definitely going for the gold. This is a despicable column. Strident? Really? Is that, like, the daughter of shrill and bossy?
4
Bruni is impressed by Harris reading pointless questions written by her staff at committee hearings? Yes or No?
2
Wouldn't it be cool if Trump lost to a black woman?
4
This is one of a number of articles by the media bemoaning the lack of coverage of female candidates in the media.
This is patently stupid.
2
By my lights Harris and Warren are whip smart, tough, and authentic.
"Strident" is usually applied by males, who, to use a dated and offensive cliche, "lack a pair," and are threatened by smart and accomplished women.
I will vote for my party's nominee, but I admire both of them for their intelligence and potential.
POTENTIAL! Isn't that why we elected Carter and Clinton. . . who were both untested until election. Gov of AK? Give me a break. It's all about potential. Suffice to say, Biden's was spent decades ago.
There's nothing to prepare someone for the Presidency. It's sink or swim on the job training. Why was a corporate hack and general all around fool like Reagan given the chance to learn on the job, while we question Harris and Warren's bona fides?
3
Wisely flying below media radar.
Californian here. Kamala's a gutless wonder who waits for the train to leave the station and then claims she was on it all along. She was a vicious anti-pot crusader as California AG and now claims to be for legalization. When she was in a position to do something about it, she allowed Californians to be thrown in jail and for legitimate dispensaries to be shut down. You can find the same talking out of both sides of her mouth on most other issues. She has no courage. She reads the tea leaves then pretends to give lip service to the cause of the day. She's the queen of tossing her hair, smirking, and saying, "We should have that conversation." Even CNN mocked her for that.
4
Anyone but Trump is my feeling.
1
Trying to compare Trump to Kamala Harris would be an insult to decency, she being a highly competent and honest individual, he a deeply flawed con man, arrogant as no one else, ignorant by choice, although a superb demagogue and liar, and a crook to boot (seemingly the largest tax evader, ever). A woman president would be a paradigm in these United States, and Kamala would be a great president. You know why she may not become our leader? Not of her own fault, mind you, but ours, as misogyny remains rampant. To everybody's loss. And our shame.
3
Yeah most men seem "flummoxed" by strong smart women.
2
Interesting. She has a great stealth strategy. Go into non-white communities, talk real talk and get the money.
Right now, let the bloviators go on about Bernie's core fan base and Joe's numbers. Harris should let Joe get all the buzz now. Why? Because Joe will be Joe and say or do something really stupid.
I expect that Harris and Warren will be the standouts of the debates.
4
Funny how this article replicates the NYT approach to the entire election: elevate empty suits like O'Rourke and Mayor B. (and then wonder how they got elevated); use every unflattering verb ("trundling"?) and photo possible to make Sanders seem unworthy of the support he actually has (among Black folks especially); disparage working class white people as if they live only to be white; nod toward Warren while being clear that she can't be it (while, of course, denouncing sexism and praising diversity)...and wind up in the center-right of the DemParty-- Harris and Biden. Familiar and wrong no matter how you package it.
2
Kamala is running for VP. She's leaving herself open to run with whichever white guy gets the nomination.
1
One is left to wonder whether Buttigieg's failure to connect with black voters has relatively little to do with the former chief of police in South Bend than with the fact that he is gay and as such his lifestyle runs counter to their traditions. It is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and black voters who feel this way should just clear the air so that Buttigieg doesn't spin his wheels trying to win them over.
2
Mr Bruni
Ever a schill for the Dems, With this many primary candidates I wonder who will run against Trump, however it should be exciting to see Mr Biden if he wins explain away that his son Hunter got a billion to invest from the Chinese bank based on merit alone.
Elizabeth Warren is strident? Who says? Or is that just your opinion?
2
just revealing your unconscious misogynistic bias here, Bruni. I mean, is trying to change the world "strident"? When have you ever heard a male candidate described that way?
2
I have disdain for Beto and Pete, but you know Bruni is desperate when he brags about her 7% percent among Democrats. Bruce Springteen or Kendrick Lamar or Oprah would get over 20%. And all the credentials he cites are racial.
Biden/Harris 2020.
2
Kamala Harris is not a leader. She has terrific political timing. Here's one example where she missed an important opportunity to display her "leadership" skills:
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/kamala-harris-mortage-crisis/
7
To me, just another DNC insider spouting the same platitudes about identity politics while ignoring the economic plight of working people.
1
I expect Harris is realizing the problem she has with corporatism and her progressive cred. The notion that she would win the black worker vote as a corporatist is most likely wrong. Obama taught us that being corporatist negates identity and is fundamentally against workers. The media fling with ORourke was ridiculous. An energetic New Democrat corporatist shill with nothing real to say. So what? Buttigeig? Also a smart guy like Harris is smart. I like smart candidates. But Buttigeig seriously misstepped in cozying up to big money and the democratic party establishment. He's not the guy, he's a corporatist.
There is bias. But is a time cover that meaningful? Not to me. Vanity Fair maybe a bit more but a cover story puff piece isn't that meaningful, especially early on.
Sanders will take all of Trump's populist cred away form him. He is by far the strongest candidate against Trump for the constituencies that will matter. That democrats need. Everyone who is not wealthy is increasingly understanding the meaning of Medicare for All as an economic justice equalizer. Black voters are getting what it means more and more. Workers and poor voters are getting it. Progressives already do. Who worked for actual wage increases? For ending the power of the financial elite to call all the shots? For treating workers decently? Trump will look really bad facing Sanders. There is no populist jab he can make stick against Sanders. But he can with a corporatist. Ironic but true.
2
Harris campaigned, won, and served, as a tough-on-crime prosecutor. Now she is trying to run as a woke progressive, apparently to capture the Black vote, but it’s ringing false. It’s a mystery to me why there are no candidates challenging Biden in the moderate lane, especially now that he’s so dramatically ahead in the polls, including among Black voters. Harris seems well suited to do so if she’d go back to her old - and, it appears, honest - self.
Eh, I don’t know, because both Beto & Pete came out of nowhere and she’s a sitting senator gradually ascending to fame?
1
I don't get Harris and find her uninspiring primarily because despite her stinging attack mode in questioning witnesses, she fails to project confidence and the certainty that she is comfortable in her own skin, unlike say Stacey Abrams, Elizabeth Warren, and yes Mayor Pete, each of whom are wicked smart and possess and project self-confidence. I vow to take a closer look at the Harris campaign and will listen to her hold forth at length, but as of now, she would not have my vote in a primary. Like a pig hunting for truffles, Trump is a master at sniffing out weakness, giving it a name, and pressing his finger in the wound until his opponent withdraws vanquished and embarrassed. A prosecutorial approach to Trump especially in a debate will only feed the false notion he stokes that he is being persecuted, and will play to his strength: he is unrepentant and smirks and lies his way out of trouble which appeals to everyone who has ever talked his way out (or wished he could talk his way out) of a traffic ticket. Confident, smart, patient, empathetic, and real is the best arsenal to bring to go up against a psychopath. Be the candidate who can deliver the goods as Trumps' demeanor makes the point that while he disrupts the status quo, he's just not worth it.
O’Rourke and Buttigieg are blue state, media-friendly packages—one looks like Bobby Kennedy and has a quirky, hippy-ish backstory, which the other is a married gay guy who is a Rhodes Scholar with mad language skills. Exactly the kind of guys who would appeal to the Vanity Fair, New Yorker crowd.
Harris checks a lot of boxes—she’s smart, experienced, a minority whose worked within the system, stylish (i.e., media friendly) and well spoken. But she needs a strong theme to symbolize what she and her campaign are about. When Trump ran, MAGA became his theme for going back to an earlier time when whites were in charge and rich guys decided what was best for everybody else. Whether you hated or loved Trump, everybody understood what it meant and it symbolized what he stood for.
Harris needs her own MAGA to separate herself from the 20 other Democrats running against her.
1
Candidates should look at Barack Obama and do what he did as a candidate:
1. Listen to people and work to improve their lives
2. Explain that the USA is a fundamentally good country and you love this unique multicultural nation (warts and all)
3. And you are thoughtful, pragmatic, pro-capitalism, pro-free trade candidate that believes in the mega-wealthy paying fair taxes
It's sad to see how the media, even after Trump-centered/lazy reporting of the 2016 election and Trump's shocking victory, still give the spotlight mainly to men and overlook the women.
The predicament of Kamala Harris’s candidacy is not particularly mysterious. E. Franklin Frazier’s landmark study, “Black Bourgeoisie” (1957), describes the evolution of the black middle class from the segregated South to the integrated North and the dilemma of becoming increasingly detached from its roots while not being fully accepted by white society.
Harris shares with Obama an authenticity issue, namely, that her identity as a black woman is rooted in the immigrant experience rather than the historical black American experience.
Working-class voters identify viscerally with politicians who are “organic,” those who hail from their own class. Harris is a West Coast liberal, whose household income qualifies as the mean among California’s top one percent. Black working-class voters will not necessarily identify with Harris because of disparities in education and income. In Harris’s defense, most Presidential candidates are elite.
Harris, like Gillibrand, is perceived as waffling on key issues, a habit nowhere more evident than in the recent Democratic town hall, where she repeatedly parried questions on controversial issues with the rejoinder, “We can have a conversation about it.” Rather than staking out positions based on research and conviction—like Elizabeth and Bernie—she is seen as attempting to scope out what various constituents desire—or the correct answer.
Why no coverage of Tulsi Gabbard? Tulsi is at least as well-spoken and charismatic as Pete.
1
Well put and insightful, especially the part about serioualy flummoxing Trump in a nost-to-nose. That may be just as important as a coherient policy in electability.
@Darrell Did her DA job description include railroading an innocent man (Cooper) into prison (by withholding evidence from the defense) and then cruelly blocking every attempt to reopen the case (Cooper was finally acquitted and released).? That is not what I call character befitting the highest office in the land. Shame on Bruni for failing to even mention this fact.
2
You refer to Elizabeth Warren as “too strident”? How many male candidates are referred to in that way?
2
Surprised at the pedestrian and low-aim analysis here, Frank. Where you see admirable "trailblazing" ethnicity, I see that many voters are over those issues. Where you see incisive questioning in Senate hearings, I see insufferable rudeness and arrogant self-righteousness also. Where you see glamour unrewarded I see hope the American people are getting past being hoodwinked on slick image, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama.
I think Harris's deceleration is due to people catching on to her obvious personal ambition and naked climbing, which has marked her for her whole adult life and resulted in wild variations in policy approach. And she still hasn't offered any real explanation for letting Steve Mnuchin slide on foreclosure fraud. She's on the make, and as most pols are these days, passively on the take, in the sense of being co-opted by the power and big money when it counts. I'm not voting for any more complicit "talk the talk, but not walk the walk" politicians.
I think you need to get real, and get deeper than this.
3
She shoots from the hip when she should keep her rhetorical holstered. See: Jesse Smollett.
She's overly cautious when she should be unholstered: See: Ilhan Omar.
She's a first-term Senator running on her biography when she should be building a record of achievement. See: her biography is no AUDACITY OF HOPE, and this isn't the Obamas.
She takes not one unexpected position. See: What's her Sister Souljah moment?
"“No other matchup would be as riveting — or as revealing — as Harris versus Trump.”
Absolutely!
Kamala Harris is well educated, well spoken, and thoughtful in her replies to difficult questions.
She would mince Trump in a debate. It would be fun to watch indeed.
These other guys, lightweight Beto and the two Buttigieg's on the cover of Time, have no chance at all with the overall electorate.
Beto is a low accomplishment, light weight, somewhat confusing speaker without a clear message except that he has apparently never had a job.
Buttigieg does have good speaking skills, but, his campaign might inspire more joking in America than any other in history. It won't get votes.
Kamala Harris for President. She would be a good one.
2
Why does anti-democrat Senator Harris's get a pass? Why do all the Democratic presidential wannabe's get the same pass? Every last one of them is on record opposing self determination for indigenous people. Why doesn't this yawning flaw draw the attention of opinion writers? For a century Palestinian people have been denied the most basic human right - the right to elect the government that regulates their daily lives. No aspirant for high office in the US is qualified to lead who is not a true democrat.
What strikes me as incomprehensible is how easily Trump supporters ignore his own lack of specificity and moral lapses but grab on to and magnify every perceived weakness of other candidates, such as Kamala Harris.
It’s almost as if they themselves have inconsistent standards, or no standards at all.
It would be oddly satisfying of Ms. Warren wins the nomination, get's called Pocahontas all the time by Trump and then blows him away in the elections because she is all substance and he isn't.
You do not want to beat Trump on values and feelings (That's what Clinton tried). You wan tot beat him on the abhorrent effect of his policies. Ms. Warren is by far the strongest candidate to win that battle. I'd like to see her tear him apart when they discuss his 'beautiful health care'.
2
Maybe because she comes across as arrogant and insulting? In the extremely remote chance she makes it to the final debates, I'd love see her crumble in front of Trump. Vanity Fair and Time will then give her some press time.
Can't exactly put my finger on it, but there's something about this article that seems quite disingenuous, almost as if it could be described as an advertorial for one particular candidate.
Ironically, at least to me, its result could backfire against the candidate since it appears to palpably air a whininess that seems
contradictory to what I've come to believe the candidate is all about.
Hopefully, I'm the only one who feels this way.
Strident? Really?? Warren and Harris both deserve better than your paternalizing, back-handed handicapping of race that hasn't even had its first debate. Your word choice betrays not-so-subtle misogyny. And your good intentions frame unequal standards being applied to female candidates.
2
Stacey Abrams should be the vp candidate. She has everything Kamala does not: she is charismatic, her smile lights up a room, she is relatable, and she is African-American from the south.
Perfect.
1
Strident? In this groundbreaking #MeToo election season, we’re going to use the word “strident” in connection with Elizabeth Warren? Or is this an “I’m not saying she’s strident” strident but a “many Democratic leaders and voters” say she’s strident? Like Barack Obama is “uppity?”
Or am I being too politically correct? Mr. Bruni is a sensitive wordsmith, so I can easily allow he was intending to be factual and provocative at the same time. Undoubtedly, there are Democratic leaders and voters who would use that exact word in evaluating Sen. Warren. (Although the “too” is intriguing. Is it OK for women to be strident now, but not too strident?)
My concern is the misogynist who reads that and finds affirmation. Perhaps we can make moves this election to de-genderize the word. I, for instance, find Mr. Trump extremely strident, in the dictionary definition of “loud and harsh; grating.” But there can be only so many adjectives, so maybe belligerent, dishonest and uninformed take precedence.
As for me, I find Sen. Warren to be smart and passionately committed
1
And what of Harris's policies or ideas for actually leading our country? Yes, I know she checks your beloved identity politics boxes as a woman and a minority, but what does she stand for? What would she do when elected? She can't even decide if she's for single payer healthcare or against and she hasn't even hit her first debate.
Your argument for her largely comes down to saying, "Well, she has some qualifications and is brown and a woman, so if you don't like her you're a huge racist, sexist, meanie!"
Biden (my pick) is clear in running as an unabashed moderate who won't pursue free college or single payer healthcare, but will strengthen our democratic institutions which have been damaged by Trump. Sanders is an unapologetic socialist who has been calling for years for a free college program and single payer healthcare (and would likely support the green new deal). Warren has distinguished herself with all sorts of distinct progressive policy proposals such as a plan to cancel student debt and a childcare proposal.
But what does Warren stand for? If she can't even answer that question (much less answer it with something that appeals to me as a voter), she doesn't deserve serious consideration for president.
1
It's May 2019 and we are in for a year and a half of these horse-racey columns. But here goes: Kamala Harris presents well and could probably keep Trump from getting thuggish with her. But her policies aren't worth supporting and won't move us ahead.
Mr. Bruni may be tired of Bernie Sanders, and I suppose the decimation of the planet and the safety net seem like "one note" to someone as insulated as Bruni.
Finally, is it now called "linguistic dexterity" when you show off your smattering of languages (and your modest piano chops) like "Mayor Pete"?
"Certainly I agree with .... The Atlantic this month: “No other matchup would be as riveting — or as revealing — as Harris versus Trump.”
No surprise here, you support the neo-liberal big money corporate wall street connected candidate who, as a prosecutor and Attorney General supported and enforced locking up parents for their children's truancy!
Locking some poor working mother of five for her teenager high school student going to the beach instead of school?
Who criminalizes truancy? Kamala Harris, and persons like her.
Just another corporate identity candidate here. I am not interested in supporting at all.
In my view, your favorite target of disdain, Sanders, and Warren are the only two well known candidates who consider to be honest about their policy positions. I have some leeway for the lesser known Julian Castro along that line.
Your incessant Sanders bashing, carried over from 2016 apparently, and your focus on Warren as tailoring her message and movements seem a bit belittling, she like Sanders has a developed set of policies she has promoted for years.
How about supporting a candidate who will help the average citizen, by supporting medicare for all, no more wars, stay of the regime change in Venezuela, and so on.
Why aren't you writing about our war on the Citizens of Venezuela, where the poor support Maduro apparently, and we support Big Oil and Canada supports Big Mining and Gold Digging and the rich.
us army 1969-1971/california jd
2
Realizing that this article is about Kamala Harris, I still want to know why the NYT has had no coverage on Tulsi Gabbard. I
find this omission to be deliberate. About four months ago
the NYT did front page coverage on four not five female Democratic candidates. Photos of Senators Harris, Warren
Klobachar and Gillibrand were prominently displayed. No Tulsi.
Last Sunday another article appeared featuring all the women
Democrats running. No Tulsi. My attempts to find out why have been unsuccessfully met. Maybe Frank Bruni can explain to the readers why Rep.Gabbard is not being covered. Her campaign focuses on War and Peace issues.
She has an important,vital viewpoint on our military interventions around the world. No one else has focused on
foreign policy. Go figure.
The reason for the disproportionate interest in Beto and Mayor Pete over Harris is 2020 is shaping up to be the year of the white man just like 2018 was the year of #MeToo.
Trump must be beaten. Period. All other woke, appropriation or cultural issues MUST take a back seat to that fact.
Therefore, for the Democrats and their White House prospects, the TRUE trailblazer needs to be a white man,old, who doesn't spend every minute like a school kid on twitter.
Black and Latino men, a key and core democratic constituency, will not vote for a gay, a Jew or a woman in sufficient numbers for Democrats to offset the white voting power of the GOP candidate.
All constituent identities in the Democratic coalition MUST make way in 2020 for White Man Walking.
She’s an algorithm that needs reworking by her programmer.
Biden + Harris, or Biden + Warren
Either combo works for me
Harris is THE candidate who can take on Trump in a calm, cool manner that will expose his vulnerabilities. He would likely respond with his cliches and slogans.
17
She will make a great Attorney General but the jury is still out on the very subjective quality of likeability, HRC's Achilles heel.
Wow can she cross examine though.
1
The same group that embraced Hillary Clinton in 2016 are now working relentlessly to maintain control of the DNC election. They understand that in order to beat Trump it’s going to take winning back all those moderates that simply could not embrace Hillary, but also keeping the fringes happy and content with the nominee.
That’s exactly why Biden is leading, and exactly why the nomination will be stolen from Bernie Sanders a second time. Unfortunately, Biden has about as much baggage as Hillary with the scandals involving Ukraine and China and his son. Bernie is the only one that can survive and appeal to the majority in the left wing. Can the moderates support him...and not do to him again what they did in 2016?
1
I'd love to see former prosecutor Harris in a debate with DJT.
Whoever the candidate is must not be bullied down from shaming him for trusting the words of Putin over those of American law enforcement and intelligence (in Helsinki and again this week!) This is a key point, that when properly argued, will change his voters' minds.
She is the only candidate so far who seems capable of such a confrontation.
2
This field has to get narrowed down and fast. I'd love to see Sen. Harris get in. I'd also like her to become more visible.
6
Kamala Harris has a record as a prosecutor and California AG that will not please the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party, but could help her with more moderate voters. That record would also inoculate her from charges of being a radical Democrat that Trump and the GOP would try to throw at any Democratic nominee. In addition, as her grilling of William Barr showed, she can be a tough no-nonsense interrogator who understands what Joe Biden does not: that congressional Republicans or members of the Trump Administration are all bad faith actors.
11
Obama spent years trying to understand and write about his relationship with his father. It served him well. He told a compelling meaningful personal story and voters could connect to him. Kamala Harris has a wonderful personal story but she doesn’t know how to tell it. She seems to be authentic and so she’s half way there already. It would serve her well to communicate why her personal story is meaningful to her. We need to understand her to make a connection and therefore ourselves.
I hope she finds a way there.
3
As of now I see a Biden/Harris Ticket as the best chance of defeating Trump in 2020. They would attract at wide range of voters and I think get people out to vote. I don't want to lose any Democratic Seats in the Senate so Harris is really the one senator we can afford to "lose" since another Democrat will represent the state.
6
This article completely fails to address the issue which will most affect our fates if a Democratic candidate becomes President. Is there someone among these candidates who could competently protect the people of the United States by conducting a foreign policy which is up to an appropriate level of wisdom? In my opinion, all of the candidates represent a wasteland of relevant experience, intelligence, competence and wisdom when it comes to international relations. This should be the issue for all contestants to assume the responsibilities of President.
1
I saw Harris at a town hall meeting in Keene NH and was even more convinced of her presidential mettle than before. Her main message is that we count, that our opinions matter to her and that people need to reclaim their power and work together. She demonstrated this by graciously coming into our overflow area and talking with us informally on the floor before heading to the stage in the auditorium. She appears to be fearless, is warm and is tough as steel. She listens carefully to questions and thinks for a moment before responding. When a young girl asked her what it takes to become a leader, she responded that she feels that everyone has the capacity for leadership and that it just needs the right moment to emerge and suggested that this girl also had this capacity. She had just the right touch: warm and respectful, which is exactly what a child needs to hear. I find myself agreeing with everything she says, especially that as an aspirational people, we need to keep working towards justice together and not see the present challenges as the end to our democracy, but a stumble along the way.I look forward to her restoring civility and dignity to the presidency. She has my support 100%.
13
I like intelligence in a candidate. No one is as appealing to me as a thoughtful and informed individual. Unfortunately the US has an affinity for bumper sticker populists from either the left or the right. Demonizing the government OR corporations leaves no room for nuance and is often convenient thinking. I am liking the intelligent and charismatic Kamala more each day.
7
She is my top candidate so far and I want to hear more from her on policy and about her. I could settle with her as vp, but I struggle to see why I should. Is Biden so great that she needs to be his second? I think it would be an ok compromise but I would like more!!!
2
Since the American electorate overall still has a problem with a woman filling the number one spot as leader of the free world, Ms. Harris would make an awesome VP candidate which would conceivably make a presidential bid at least a little threatening to a portion of voters.
No idea who will ultimately win the Democratic presidential nomination but I suspect that it won't be Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Bernie's finger waving angry old man persona doesn't seem like the appropriate antidote to Trump. The smart and highly capable Elizabeth Warren carries the double whammy of being a woman and sounding too professorial and not very exciting. So, it will probably be one of the remaining 17 or so candidates who wins the nomination. Either way, the winner will either be too progressive or not progressive (too centrist) for some portion of Democrats, leading to another 3rd party candidate to steal enough votes to help Trump win. Impeach him now before the 2020 election.
2
I'd like to see the Democratic field narrow to about 3 to 5 candidates with Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris in the lead positions. I would like to see other candidates work hard in their current positions of the good of the country. We can't afford to lose them in the roles they are serving. And for outliers like Bernie and Beto--please stop with the vanity tour. Now is the time to put principles first and support the best candidate who can win for the country.
6
I've really wanted to get behind Harris. I think her experience as a prosecutor and DA could be a big asset - she could have pitched herself as not-your-typical-Democrat. Instead, she just seems to have inadequate preparation, bad campaign management, and poor instincts, as illustrated by: (1) advocating the end of private insurance as part of Medicare for All then walking that back, (2) saying current prison inmates (including the Boston Marathon bomber) should be allowed to vote before sort of walking that back, and (3) speaking favorably of reparations for slavery.
Major party nominees generally don't make such huge blunders in the span of a few months. I haven't heard of any of the other candidates making as many in recent months. It's still conceivable that Harris could turn out to be good, but she strikes me as someone who might say something that hands Trump the election. She is trying so hard not to alienate anyone on the left that she's often staking out positions opposed by 60+% of Americans. That's a recipe for four more years of Trump.
4
During the 2016 Presidential campaign, an African-American man being interviewed stated, "I got no dog in this fight." Contrast that with the groundswell of African-American women voting in the 2018 mid-term elections, and there is a path to success there.
I voted for Clinton in 2016 because I could not perceive Trump as truthful, or honorable, or effective for most Americans, and this has been borne out by his actions. Having said that, what I disliked for many years about Clinton's approach was her attempts to please all factions and offend no one. That is not possible. "You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all the people all of the time" (Poet John Lydgate as made famous by Abraham Lincoln). I want a candidate to say what he or she really thinks, and let the chips fall where they may. This applies to all candidates, including Kamala Harris.
4
Nothing about foreign affairs, at, the bloated military budget from any of these candidates?
2
@Kathy Barker**** Elizabeth Warren & Bernie Sanders were two of the seven Senators that voted against the 715 billion military budget. The other Senators running voted for it, and Biden who's always been for expanding the spending.
Only Elizabeth Warren quotes policy, understands economics on all levels to get a true handle on the country.
Kamala disrespects the African American female work ethic because of her climb with Mr. Willie Brown, sorry. She is as someone wrote, like Obama using the skin color but not really feeling the pain for the history where she and Obama, first generation blacks make it to such heights. There are strong pains left in the economic stability of all Americans.
Only Elizabeth Warren communicates that. Ms. Harris needs more time in the Senate, perhaps a Cabinet Post. Yes, we learned from Obama, it gave us Trump.
6
I find Harris wishy washy and equivocating, and am very troubled by her record as AG of CA. What i don't understand is how someone who was really great in the Kavanaugh hearings like Amy Klobuchar, who is certainly authentic, who has lots of great policy ideas but thoughtfully doesn't instantly jump on every progressive bandwagon, is ignored, or worse, counted out because she ate her salad with a comb?
7
The Democratic nominees represent an embarrassment of riches. As long as Kamala hangs in there over the next 6 months, she stands a good chance of being nominated. Much better to find your footing early while there are so many in the field rather than make a big splash initially and flame out.
She is a winner by her amassing biographical data, intelligence, age and experience. The Democratic base will gradually see the benefit of nominating a person with these skills to run against a fat loser like djt.
We need a female President.
2
Strident??? Frank, here are some other words for women candidates.
Powerful
Brilliant
Impassioned
Energetic
Crackling intensity
Radiating integrity and social commitment
Laser-focused
Heroine
Warrior
Unafraid to Lead
Compelling
LMK me know if you need more. I'll throw you a 2nd batch.
7
I think the “Vanity Fair” test says more about fading magazines than it does the candidates.
I think Warren’s problem is more than the DNA test: it is poor judgement in gaming the affirmative action system by presenting herself as a Native American for years.
The Democratic candidates will sort themselves out through debates and primaries. Most of today’s headlines will be an afterthought in 12 months. Let’s see what the candidates have to say.
2
So the brilliant and passionate Warren is "too" strident.
Tell me, Mr. Bruni, how would you define just strident enough?
10
Warren is too far to the left. A Biden/Harris ticket is the winner.
Harris was a prosecutor and her exceptional skill showed when she was questioning Barr. But she has so far failed to come across crisp and thoughtful when she is campaigning or answering questions at town hall. Her answers are not clear or direct. I still don't know why she is running and that reminds me of Hillary Clinton. No one should run on a gimmick -- being a woman and being a minority. It is insulting to the women and people of minority. Did she ever consider just being a great senator?
3
An interesting, if somewhat one-sided review of the current Democratic field of candidates. Of course, others may still forge forward, but the primary race probably will work out as Bruni has chosen to emphasize.
But what about Kamala Harris? Mr. Bruni has somewhat skirted (apologies, etc.) any pinpointing of problems, of which there are a few. Harris has some historical flotsam behind her, not least of which is her affair with California king-maker (queen-maker?) Willie L. Brown. Then there is her rapid wooing, along with O'Rourke, of major, mostly Wall Street contributors
Bruni does dangle a truly tantalizing morsel in favor of Kamala Harris - the prospect of seeing her and Donald Trump on a debate stage together. Can't you just see the gimlet-eyed, humorously scornful look on her face! The Jimmy Kimmel, Steven Colbert, et. al. audience would be in her lap, along with their votes and dollars.
The question from which Bruni would distract us is what kind of President she might be. Is she a progressive or a reactionary? Will she seek to continue the relationship of the Democratic party with it's Wall Street funders to the detriment of electoral financing reforms and overall tax reform? Will she champion a capitalist-corporate approach to health care and climate change? Will she naturally tend to preserve the backroom stage managing of politics which has benefitted her rise?
How about a bit more narrow of a focus on your candidate, Mr. Bruni?
5
I'm interested in seeing her communications strategy on display as the race develops. Ms. Harris very actively appeared on all the media outlets after her very acute, expert questioning of Mr. Barr last week; there definitely exists a mechanism within her campaign and the media to make things happen quickly. I watched many of her appearances and was waiting to see if she could capitalize on that and then hook that onto a larger narrative or something kinda stadium big lights/rhetorical flourish to hook me back onto her candidacy, or just a glimmer of...something else. She has shown that she is highly effective in the line of prosecutorial questioning, but I'm not getting anything to believe in. Many of the senators running for POTUS display the classic traits of big ego with varying middling levels of charisma and self-awareness, and if anything, Mr. Booker should have thrown in his hat, geez his 7 minutes were basically disqualifying. Kamala went after&let her intellect be known..again in a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing. I have no doubt about her knowledge and command of the issues, but I feel a bit of this lull may be attributed to her campaign team outreach. Are they actively courting media and long-form magazine fluff pieces, what's the main messaging beyond Competent Senator, perhaps they are more into the ground game and have a schedule of rollouts we just have to wait and be patient for. At this point—with most of the other candidates—serious neutral face emoji.
"Many people" view Warren as too strident? Listen, it's time to stop using this word when talking about powerful women. It's like calling black people "articulate". Just don't do it.
13
Mr Bruni, you've written a lovely vanity piece entirely lacking substance. Nothing about Senator Harris's record as A.G. of California and record of legislation as our junior senator.
Could it be that Senator Harris really has nothing special to offer? her record as A.G. was lack luster, except ahead of elections, and as senator, another zilch.
Ethnicity, color, race, sexual orientation & religion should not be a part of the discussion regarding any elected officials. Instead, track record and proven ability as a legislator and elected administrator should be the metrics.
14
Julian Castro would be the best candidate for president.
1
Her political career began by having an affair with an older married man, who represents the D establishment in CA- Willie Brown. Look up Bologna family murder in San Francisco. Or the fact she has zero legislative achievements as a Senator. These are the reasons she won't register with a lot of voters, Frank. Not racism, sexism or any ism except careerism and opportunism.
12
Mr. Bruni, Can we please just stop calling passionate women strident???? Even in presumably saying that OTHER people might think that way? You're just reinforcing an extremely biased and unfair label.
Would you say this about ANY of the men??? 'But, many Democratic leaders and voters experience him as too strident...'
10
It bothers me that Senator Harris isn't more careful with usage of her native tongue. She is a lawyer after all. In questioning Attorney General Barr in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 1, she confused the words "inferred" and "implied":
"'Has the president or anyone at the White House asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?' Harris asked…. Harris offered: 'Perhaps they've suggested.' Barr dismissed the notion.
"'Hinted?' Kamala asked. Barr said he didn't know.
"'Inferred? You don't know? OK,' Harris said before moving on to another topic...."
"Imply or infer? We imply something by what we say. We infer something from what somebody else says. The main difference between these two words is that a speaker can imply, but a listener can only infer. … " Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus
In the stated context, "...the President or anyone at the White House,,,," could only have "implied" as an alternative to "suggested."
2
Oh please. Tell me you have never misused a word under pressure? Your point is petty.
1
In California, we know Kamala Harris as the individual who negotiated with Mexican authorities to reduce drug flow into our state and the person who stood up to the big banks and reached a settlement to benefit Californians harmed by the banking crisis. She also created the Back on Track program to help convicted felons re-enter society successfully. But, at the national level, she is still defining herself. The Democrats have a weird choice between old White guys who seem a bit out of touch and young, exciting candidates who need more exposure. Let's hear more about Kamala (and others)!
4
Ms. Harris is smart enough to not go solidly toward socialism to the point that she appears angry about it. She said enough to establish her position and stopped there.
That decision should work out well for her as some of her competition make enough errors to work their vaious ways out of contention.
This race is for First Loser to the Trump re-election and the better thinkers see that already. I see her as already figuring that out.
3
So this is where the Dems have arrived at - ala Frank Bruni - the primary selling point of a candidate simply has to be the color of their skin and their gender.
4
There’s a good reason why Ms. Harris doesn’t broadcast her background. She’s running as a Black woman (note: Black, not African American; she has no family connection to Africans brought to America for enslavement, the group to whom the appellation African American is applied) but her cultural, economic and social background has almost nothing in common with the majority of African Americans. Her formative years were spent in Canada, and she spent summers in India in the very comfortable government bungalow of her maternal grandfather, a high-ranking Indian civil servant, no doubt attended by actual servants. Her parents were both academics, serving their careers in prestigious universities. Her life was one of relative privilege. And her political career was launched following her relationship with Willy Brown when she was in her 30s and he was 2 decades older and married to boot (a piece of personal history she omitted entirely in her recently published biography).
Hardly a resume that is going to resonate with any of the groups she is seeking to establish commonality with.
5
There is some serious anti-Harris propaganda out there. The more vehement the opposition the more serious the candidate.
4
@Benjo
By that standard, Trump must be the most serious candidate in history.
Who sees magazine covers anymore besides Manhattanites? Ms. Harris has youth, spine, intelligence and an intolerance for hypocrisy that seems unrivalled among her peers. This reader would be glad to see her go all the way, even if, like LBJ, that ultimately means swallowing her pride and accepting Biden's offer of VP - a winning ticket for a winner future.
3
Please, NYT and other major media, stop the cheap drama about intelligent leaders and focus on their accomplishments and goals.
Get serious.
Harris has leadership ability and could get us out of this mess and restore dignity.
Write that.
1
“Strident”? Really? If I had a nickel for every time a smart, competent woman was called “strident” for expressing independent thoughts, I’d have more money than Trump has lost.
15
Precisely. I hate overuse of newfangled social terms like "mansplaining" and "white privilege" and "tone-policing," but this is a really great example of what tone-policing was actually intended to reference. Women get called things like "strident" and get accused of having "screechy" voices. A lot of "harpy" signalling. Men don't get that unless they are "effeminate," which further shows the gender bias.
5
First Ms. Harris, stop any hint of apologizing for your resume'. You should proudly declare the people elected you to be the Attorney General of the most populous state in the country.
Before that you were a district attorney, a position we need like never before in the lawless era of Trump, Russian interference and an addiction epidemic with persons of all classes and races at risk. Push back against your critics who want to make you unacceptable because you sent wrongdoers of all races and classes to prison . If a Democrat wants to be President, standing for the rule of law AND due process AND justice reform is the way to go.
Then demonstrate you are more than someone chasing African-American votes, have broader appeal and stop appropriating anything the left wing of our party comes up with before you've even thought it through. I'm not hopeful you'll do any of this. Unlikely therefore that this voter will be joining that seven percent in the poll unless it comes down to you and your Senate colleague and his cult of inexperienced millennial's and geriatric socialists. He is un-electable under any scenario.
1
As a San Franciscan I've known Kamala Harris for many years and read her recent book. I am familiar with her legal skills, her warmth and humor, and her intelligence. I thought her kick-off announcement in Oakland went well.
I think she has lost momentum giggling during interviews with talking heads - e.g. Stephen Colbert (she came off as being flirtacious!). (I haven't watched all of her interviews). Harris lacks publicly visible administrative service, or at least her campaign has not produced videos illustrating such administrative and leadership skills.
Harris headed the Justice Department in CA for eight years. What goals (like reducing incarceration for African Americans imprisoned for marijuana possession) did she accomplish as AG? California was overwhelmingly Democratic during her terms as DA in SF and AG in CA. Yet I can't name any of her policies which provide evidence of what her strengths as President would be.
I'm open to her. But thus far, I financiallly support Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobochar, and Pete Buttigieg. I'm currently most impressed by Pete. It's early in the primary but I think that Kamala is not staking out clear strengths for would-be supporters as clearly as she needs to to win the Democratic Primary decisively.
Her demeanor while questioning people in the Senate is impressive. But what would she be like as a Commander-in-Chief? President?
Will black male voters come out to vote for her as they did Obama or are they too sexist?
@BSmith
Implied demeaning of the black male voters is sexist too.
1
I was impressed in the Sessions appearance before the Senate subcommittee when she dissected his testimony and began to pin him down until he panicked as he realized that she was lining him up for a perjury indictment down the line (until the Republicans rescued him). Her calm and measured evisceration of Barr was also striking. I don't see any other candidate who has as impressive a background and who is as strong as candidate
1
kamala Harris has chops. However, she should
stiff-arm the Left,
fire her sister as Campaign Manager,
decide firmly on what her views are,
swear to never say again "...We need to have a conversation..."
and speak more directly, using more simply-structured, plain-English sentences. This last point is critical.
As one of the lawyers for whom I first worked told me while striking out a qualifying clause I had written-
"...You never want the deal being disputed on the placement of a comma...".
KH has the skills, but she has got to get down to business.
AS dpor why Beto got VF? Well, at the time, he looked like the Real Deal. And the VF piece basically blew him out of the water with the inane "...I was born to be in it..." line.
As for mayor Pete and his two covers notwithstanding obvious problems with minorities?
Come on, Frank, we all know why that happened.
So Monday’s poll shows: Biden 40, Sanders 19, Warren 8, and Harris 7. Yep, she’s a shoe-in.
1
Harris and Klobuchar should run as a team. Each of them individually could knock the pretender of his throne. Times are changing, why not co-presidents?
1
I love Elizabeth, Joe, and Bernie, but I really think Harris is the most presidential of the field. (I just noticed that she's the one I think of by last name - prob b/c she has the most gravitas.)She'd easily get this old white lady's vote. Joe and Bernie are just too old; Elizabeth is on fire and definitely "for the people" (Harris's slogan but Warren's life mission). But I think it's Harris's ice that in the long run will suffice. (And her ethnicity will probably help.) Willie Brown won't be a problem for her although racist Republicans will try to make it an issue when she wins the primary.
1
It'd be helpful if she learns the difference between "infer" and "imply."
3
Harris remains my first choice. She's by far the strongest candidate in a head-to-head against Trump.
But even if she weren't, she stands apart from the others.
Kamala Harris is valuable in the Senate. She's a new senator. She's said what she wants to do, and she can accomplish much in the Senate.
She should let the other couple dozen hopefuls spar about being president this time and build a good record on the Hill. There will be more presidential campaigns for her to win.
5
Harris and Warren are the two most qualified candidates for President.
1
Frank
When I read, “She should take firmer positions, even at the risk of angering some voters. It signals character and strength, and sometimes the best way to win is to be willing to lose.” I thought to myself, “If a candidate needs this kind of advice he or she just doesn’t deserve to win.”
Someone who needs to be told what “signals strength” is not someone who truly possesses it. I’m looking for a candidate with the inner strength and integrity to say what they mean and try to do what they say. Know anyone?
1
So Harris thinks she doesn't have to take a position or doesn't have a genuine plan for the country. But she can run on the "anyone but Trump" platform. Sorry, I'll stay home and let Trump win again if that is the case. If you don't take a position but instead talk well or look pretty on TV, you don't get my vote for sounding intelligent and looking pretty on TV. I'll make the assumption you are a friend of Wall Street like the Clintons and Obama and vote for Bernie or Andrew Yang.
2
When Kamala Harris was California state attorney general, her deputies were threatening the medical licenses of physicians who spoke publicly about the medical uses of cannabis. I know this because it happened to a friend, a past president of the L.A. County Medical Association. When I hear Harris joking about her recreational use of marijuana, my blood boils.
5
Maybe neither magazine is influenced by Willie Brown, the married man 30 years her senior with whom she had a years long affair? Gary Heart lost the nomination for less. Judge people as they act; we know what Ms. Harris will do with a man old enough to be her father to gain power. She has not sought absolution for her illicit, immoral affair with a married man. Why would we take her seriously?
6
@EWG - Did Trump seek absolution for his multiple affairs ? Why tar Harris ?
If Trump is “defeated” but the policies, laws, and personalities that created a situation where enough voters were willing (or more than willing) to make him president, then the nation’s energies will be further squandered in bitter election cycles. FDR was also hated, but the policies were mostly agreed to for four decades because there was a middle class - not simply swing voters.
3
Frank, I absolutely agree with you that candidates like Beto and Pete stand out as outstanding examples of men who can lead a nation like ours in the right direction. However the POTUS office is a celebrity contest. People don't vote with their brain, they vote with their gut or whatever. That is why Kamala and Trump looks like a better draw than say a Pete vs Trump or a Beto vs Trump. The other major factor is how will you motivate the fairly large percentage who just sit it out? It is my thought that some people like a (pardon my pun) black and white choice. When things grey out a bit, a few needed voters sit it out and we get a Trump victory by a sliver of the electoral college vote. All it all I hope that Trump gets beat this time around! But ...?
1
Biases are biases. Deal with it. I can't believe this piece suggests that any candidate should get more if a look simply because of their sex or ethnicity. I think Kamala Harris has plenty to show if for nothing else than that she is the best at grilling the likes of Barr and others.
So why doesn't she get more press. if her second town hall was any indication it's because she articulated no depth of position. Like Bruni, it seems everything turns back to her very valid claim that ethnicity gives her a different perspective, duh.
Simply put, more, please. Give is a reason to break all kinds of barriers other than the barriers themselves.
Frank, Frank, Frank . . .
Elizabeth Warren is "too strident?" I know you were reporting others' alleged experience, but you should know better than to repeat such a sexist characterization as though it has some merit.
If you had to mention it, you owed readers either "strident" to indicate your disagreement, or a comment acknowledging the sexism inherent in those voters who would see her that way.
6
Pete Buttigieg speaks the truth and that's rare for any politician.
He has my vote.
2
On the other hand, media outlets such as this paper seem to think that her ethnic heritage and gender give her natural advantages. Which is just as judgmental and wrong as thinking that a candidate's whiteness and maleness gives him natural advantages.
3
Support Harris? I think we need to have a conversation about that. The more I see and hear, the less impressed I am.
4
Of all contenders Harris seems best. She is sharp as a razor and has the potential to be hard as as a nail which is what the Dems need. The other party has become like a criminal enterprise and needs to be handled like a criminal enterprise. No "reaching across the aisle" which was Obama's fatal mistake. I like Warren probably better policy wise but fear that she may end up losing. As far as Biden goes, it's sad to see he polls 40% among Dems. Calling Cheney a "good man"? You got to be kidding!
2
Harris has been her most impressive when questioning witnesses. She can turn on the stern no nonsense prosecutor persona on a dime and she is effective. I can see her putting her ability to be tough while fair to good use when dealing with foreign heads of states.
She shows up with her homework done, her ducks in a row and her temper in check. You’ll never see her throwing a Lindsey Graham temper tantrum.
But, she isn’t a cool person when warmth is needed.
Add to that brains, a long history of leadership (where things did not always go right but she’s learned from the past) and, maybe most importantly, the ability to learn and listen to her constituents and change course when required.
I think she’d make a brilliant president. She’d make a brilliant VP. And she would make a responsible and courageous Attorney General should she be tapped.
Kamala Harris is no ones toady.
At the same time, a lot of talented people are in the race; a good presidential candidate shouldn’t be a problem.
The real problem is getting people out there to run against vulnerable Republicans. Mitch McConnell’s polls are in the dirt, he can be stopped. Why don’t we have a candidate?????
1
I am concerned about the Senate. It is a big uphill climb in 2020 under any circumstances, and the Democrats need to put up their best candidates in every contestable seat. Without Senate control, Sen. McConnell will continue to obstruct just as he did for most of Pres. Obama's tenure.
* Gov. Hickenlooper is a quixotic presidential candidate but could replace Sen. Gardner in CO. Hick has said he would hate being a senator. He comes from the executive side, and maybe being one of 100 doesn't appeal. But he should put those reservations aside and do what's best for the country.
* Like Hick, O'Rourke's quest is futile. Unlike Hick, he has no executive experience, has served in the House, and ought to go up against Cornyn in TX.
* In AZ, Sen. McSally is an appointee, and the right Dem could win that seat.
* In KS, Sen. Roberts is not running for re-election, Pompeo has declined to run to replace him. KS is perhaps doable after Brownback and Kobach have so thoroughly befouled their party.
* Sen. Collins has worn thin with Mainers after pretending to consider the alternatives but always voting with the current regime.
If Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Booker, or Sanders were to prevail, their Senate seat would be safe with a Democratic replacement (or whoever replaces Sanders). MA has a Republican governor, what happens if Warren prevails?
She makes $2 million a year. In no way does she speak for the "working class," no matter what race or sex one ascribes to it.
5
Who reads magazines anymore? The important thing is for Harris to give people a bunch of policy reasons not to vote for Sanders or Biden, and so far, splitting the difference between the two isn't getting the job done.
2
"That’s Buttigieg’s great challenge, one complicated by complaints that he was insufficiently sensitive to people of color as mayor of South Bend, Ind."
Not nearly as loud or offensive as the complaints of Harris's record as DA in SF and her history of corporate love. Seriously, how is anyone surprised by her campaign floundering given her horrendous record? And her "performances" during senate hearing would be more impressive if they served a purpose other than brandishing her star.
And PS, Buttigieg's $7M haul in the first quarter was done almost entirely in the final week of the fundraising period. Pretty darn impressive.
3
I can totally visualize Harris on the debates stage with Trump.
Poor Trump.
5
I think you are correct about Harris, and that she is certainly not being treated the same as the men she is running against. However, if you truly wish to make an argument for Harris being treated fairly, how is it in speaking of Elizabeth Warren that you dismiss her on the grounds that "many Democratic leaders and voters experience her as too strident"? We have in Trump a thoroughly corrupt racist and misogynist, who is also a vile, incredibly nasty, raving lunatic, and yet over 40 percent of voters think he is wonderful. In contrast, in Warren we have a brilliant woman who is assertive. Since when does smart plus assertive equal strident? It doesn't.
Neither Warren nor Harris are strident (loud and harsh; grating, and presenting a point of view, especially a controversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way).
I'm not big on being part of some sort of speech police, but this is a truly glaring and insidious problem. Everyone has to seriously examine how they speak about women seeking elected office, and stop constantly labeling and then vilifying smart women as "strident" simply because they do what any normal man does, namely open their mouths and tell us what they know, as opposed to sitting in a corner and remaining silent, or perhaps murmuring in dulcet tones, so as to be sure to remain always sweet, soothing, mellow, honeyed, pleasant, and most of all agreeable.
4
She's got my primary vote. Ultimately I will vote for whomever wins the nomination, and I implore Dems (and Bernie bros, to the extent they aren't Dems) to rally behind the nominee and avoid the infighting that helped kill us last time.
I would pay money to see Kamala savage Trump at a debate, and she has the right combination of pragmatism and resolve to turn our trajectory around. But I'll vote for a cantaloupe over Trump.
5
" She should draw on her life story".. The problem with that is her life story includes an affair with Willie Brown, then Mayor of San Fran to advance her career. And there's more than a few people in jail with long sentences she knows shouldn't be because of found evidence she refused to acknowledge as prosecutor. She doesn't have the strength to reverse herself & say I was wrong. Plus she just seems angry to me.
3
"As for Warren, my gut is that her worst patch — the DNA test — is behind her and that she’s on an upward swing. She has been very smart about tailoring her message and movements around who she is: a proud wonk. In that manner she is achieving the authenticity that so many voters crave.
But it’s my sense that Trump would have a harder time campaigning against Harris in a general election — that he would be more flummoxed by her — than against many of the other Democratic aspirants."
I like them both, have donated many times to Warren, and think both would be good presidents, even as I'm a little uneasy with Harris's tough-on-crime stances in the 90s. Mayor Pete is good too, but he is a white guy, Beto is Beto, I can do without Sanders and Biden. In the end, I like Warren the best, her policies are smart and workable. I saw her speak live in 2016, and proved herself to be the real thing even then. So I agree with you. Mr Bruni about her, and about Harris as well.
1
I take issue with this right off the bat. Elizabeth Warren is not taking money from big donors. She & Bernie Sanders have renounced that. Bruni mischaracterizes with that statement," scares big donors".
5
I wish Sally Yates would wade into the waters. I was very impressed by her strong committee appearance where she described her give and take with the President. She showed that she is reliable straight shooter willing to stand up for the Constitution. Harris and Yates: my dream team!
3
If Harris had as many well thought out policy proposals as Warren, she'd be formidable. Smart, tough, sense of humor. Warren is showing the way in my book.
7
Many of us Dems in CA prefer not to vote for her, given the very short period of time she has been a senator. It appears that California is far down her list of priorities, and the is unacceptable. We need help here, not a President from California!
6
Actually, Frank, the real matchup that would be uber riveting and revealing would be Stacey Abrams versus Trump.
But I don't think that's currently in the cards.
3
@Glenn Ribotsky
As I mentally flit among my top three choices for President, Stacey Abrams is and has been my only thought for VP. I sincerely hope that whoever becomes the nominee gives her a good long look as a running mate.
Kamala is smart, tough and quite inspirational, however my gut says a woman at the top of the ticket is the best idea this cycle. If my fellow Dems disagree and nominate her I'll proudly support her all the way.
No doubt she'll at least be on the short, short list for VP.
It is a poor reflection on voters that the Elizabeth Warren, the one Democratic candidate who is skilled at crafting policies is not a popular candidate.
19
@Asher
I agree. Elizabeth Warren is the president we need.
7
Some people are very turned off by her record as prosecutor for good reason - she needs to explain better and talk about criminal justice reform and why she can make difference now as opposed to when she had a chance. And clarify her relationship to Herbal Life.
5
As this very paper has reported, as a prosecutor and AG she did many things that directly contradict the principles she now espouses: turning undocumented juveniles over to ICE, keeping innocent people locked up on technicalities, taking the police officers' side against the law requiring them to wear body cameras, opposing marijuana legislation, defending the death penalty and civil forfeiture, and refusing to prosecute Steve Mnuchin's bank for predatory lending despite a recommendation to do so from her own department. I've heard her defense of these actions, which at a recent town hall resulted in her saying repeatedly "the system is flawed." Well, okay, but the federal government is also a flawed system, so the question is: which Harris is going to show up in the Oval Office - the one who fights for the principles she now gives lip service to, or the one who consistently acted out of political expedience in California?
This is hard for me: I do like a lot of her positions, and I admire the way she asks questions in Senate hearings. My concern about her "electability" has nothing to do with her race or gender, but with her contradictions. I think what did Hillary in in the purple states was the perception that she was a "coastal elite" who calibrated every utterance for its political effect and had no real principles.
Perhaps she should switch parties. In the GOP she could directly take on Trump as a tough-on-crime centrist who wouldn't have to apologize for anything.
4
Regarding Ms. Warren you write: "...and she scares big donors, especially those in the financial industries" And your point? You make it sound like this is a bad thing. Just as the Republicans have Grover Norquist and his anti-tax pledge, I wish Democrats had a No Corporate, No PAC pledge.
10
I can think of at least two African-American women for whom I would wholeheartedly cast my vote. Kamala Harris is not one of those two women. You refer to her "intelligence and poise" when grilling witnesses before the Senate Judiciary Committee. To me, she is constantly badgering the witnesses, and not allowing them the time to respond when she has slashed at them verbally. To me, she comes across as a bully.
4
She is NOT African-American. She is Indian and Caribbean from a privileged background.
For many of us in the Bay Area her "ancestry" and "blazing trails" identity shtick does not trump her record in public office here. There are a lot of troubling questions there so we're immune to Bruni's "what it says about us" snark.
12
Whoever the nominee is will need to win by a Barackian margin of 7 points to overcome the vote-flipping that will occur in the electronic tabulators (see Waukesha County, Wisconsin, 2016).
3
Getting magazine covers shouldn't be a problem. Hire the right people to make it happen. Are we sure her team is as good as Beto's or Mayor Pete's?
4
When I think about who I would want as President I don’t give a fig if I would want to have a beer with them or if they are likable. I think “would I like to work for them”? I like smart tough bosses who think things through before acting. Those kind of bosses make me better and that is what I think of Harris. I see smart steel there and I like it.
125
I still go with candidates I'd like to have a beer with. Why? They connect with ordinary people like me. I wouldn't be intimidated by them. I want to talk to people who will listen rather than be talked at. I'd be comfortable having a beer with Harris, Buttigieg, and yes, Hillary. I want to learn but also not be seen as just another voter.
4
@C. Neville
Absolutely right! She's the right age, is attractive, very quick-witted. In a debate she'd slaughter Trump.
4
Kamala Harris is pointedly competent and also electable. And likable. I can tell you from personal experience that she is willing to take on big corporations on behalf of ordinary citizens. The hit piece criticizing her role as SF DA and published by the Times recently was just that, not a balanced or even particularly informed view. In my opinion, she won't come on strong until the field has been narrowed somewhat and her campaign can see what she really faces. Like I said, pointedly competent. In the meantime, she is keeping her powder dry.
2
This is an odd column that basically relies on tribalism as a reason that Harris should make a good contender. Nowhere is there a mention of any qualifications based on issues, ideas, achievements or leadership qualities. I have done a preliminary background search, and frankly I can't find anything that would attract me to her as a main choice.
This will sound parochial, but I think Elizabeth Warren has a much better track record of achievements and innovative ideas. Unlike the average voter, I'd also like to hear candidates express their foreign policy ideas, especially towards China and Russia.
15
The biggest issues facing Americans right now are literally life-and-death - climate change, healthcare, and gun control. In this regard ANY of the democratic candidates running are exponentially superior to what we have now. There is one candidate I really support, some I like enough, and a few I don't care for. But in the end it really doesn't matter to me who gets elected as long as it's not the incumbent. Heap praise on your favorite candidate(s), but not at the expense of others. No additional ammunition needed.
5
Dems are going to need a candidate who can take tRump down face-to-face in the debates.
The question of who that might be is still open but Ms.Warren certainly warrants serious consideration.
She totally had control of Barr, even getting him to admit that he hadn't read the evidence in Mueller's report.
3
Ms. Harris, you mean!
And then there's the only candidate who has anything even approaching an immigration policy - Julian Castro, the former chief executive of the 7th-largest city in the country.
I notice he doesn't merit even a passing glance in this column.
Biases and receptiveness indeed.
4
I think Castro is being ignored a little too much, too. Maybe because immigration is such a hot button issue and he is centered on it more than anyone in the left? I left about ceding immigration as a political issue to the far right. A lot.
2
Sorry, meant to say that I "worry" a lot about ceding immigration to the right.
"She also needs to find better ways to draw on her life story and let voters in."
Fascinating. Especially if she goes into detail on how Willie Brown... sponsored her so enthusiastically.
6
"What’s distinctive about her message and credentials?"
Sorry sir, your "one answer" to that is no answer at all. Ancestry and trailblazing isn't a message, and those aren't credentials. It's what your record is and what you've accomplished since you've gotten yourself elected. She doesn't have a whole lot there in terms of bragging rights. Unless she was running on a Republican ticket. And she's got the corporate and Clinton donors to back that up.
A greater mystery to me is why Cory Booker is being relatively ignored. A much more substantial candidate, even with plenty of baggage and a mixed record as well.
6
Booker is being ignored for the as reason as Harris - no depth on position or conviction. Booker also has the handicap of trying to tell everyone what they want to hear. Every time I hear Booker, I want to be able to go up to him, and say BE YOURSELF.
7
Re Booker, I can’t get past that Spartacus moment nonsense during the Kavanaugh hearings.
1
@Tom
He can come off as full of it to the brim. And no stranger to grandstanding. But you know what? Ask the guy serious and substantial questions, and he actually knows what he's talking about. I remain unconvinced that Harris, Beto, or even Buttigieg do.
I find it interesting that the article refers Kamala Harris as an "Asian American," from her mother's Indian heritage. Strangely enough, she hasn't done much to embrace her Indian side, while she has consistently identified as an African American, from her father's side. This is the reason that most Indian Americans aren't even aware of her Indian heritage.
If you want to expound on race, why not ask the question that why Andrew Yang hasn't been on the cover of a major magazine, even though he has been drawing huge crowds and is one of the few Democrat candidates who have cleared both the national poll and the individual donor criteria for the first round of debates. And most important of all, he is the first bonafide Asian American to run for President.
NYTimes did a video on him just recently, but he was framed as a fringe candidate with an online following. He is more than that and he has some great ideas.
And please don't forget about him when talking about race in politics, as Asian Americans are often the forgotten minority in political discourse.
5
Kamala Harris will be a serious contender for a Democratic Party nomination, primarily because she is black. She will win all southern states, Texas and California. But, she will not win the general election. The southern states go to Trump as well as Texas. California is a Democratic state and Republicans essentially write it off. She has to show, she can win in northern states, especially Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Otherwise, nominating her is a sure bet for Democrats to loose the general election. I think Biden, Sanders and Warren are the serious contenders in general election.
7
@Kodali
"I think Biden, Sanders and Warren are the serious contenders in general election."
I'd bet Harris has a lock on VP though. I'm not saying that's a good thing.
Like Beto, Harris has an authenticity problem to overcome. Her present positions do not match up well with her record, leading to questions of whether she actually believes what she now says or is simply catering to the current market. Watch the video of her smugly bragging about using prosecutorial threats to coerce low income parents into exercising more vigilance on student truancy. It's an eye-opener.
Harris is a bright, articulate and rather young candidate within a large and talented field. Her ambition was to get a jump on the competition by converting her battle-ready senate campaign organization into an instant juggernaut to pursue her demographic claim to the Obama mantle. That plan has now been slowed down. But if she truly is the best candidate for the moment, she will surely surmount any temporary setback. It's early. Every major candidate needs to be tested. We still have plenty of time to perform due diligence.
4
Biden and Harris. The combination of both should keep both factions of the Democrats, i.e., the identity and moderate wings content enough to work together. It will also elevate a woman, and of color as well to the national level. Given Biden's age, he may not do a second term, but having Ms. Harris already in the national consciousness for four years as an established VP, with Senate experience may prove very beneficial to her in 2024 and a run for the top slot.
6
I don’t see Senator Warren as strident. She seems confident in the soundness and practicality of her core ideas to me. She’s for well-regulated financial products and protecting against abuses of market power.
People often talk about how the country has gone so far right over the last 40 years that people like Ike would be considered liberals today.
Well, this is what making capitalism work for Main Street and for average folks after the fashion of Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and Ike and Democrats like FDR and LBJ looks and sounds like.
This is not stridency. This is a straightforward and confident call for a return to tried and true and deeply American ways of looking at American politics and the American economy.
18
@Jack...
I don't think that she is too strident.
I think that she is too earnest.
Like a Junior High School English teacher.
I don't think that many American males will elect her to be the Commander And Chief of the greatest Military in the world.
If Democrats go with either the firm Centrism of Biden or the Firm Progressive Socialism of Sanders, they will lose the other side of the party through poor voter turnout, and they will Lose to Trump.
Only a candidate that can pull from the entire Democratic coalition has a shot.
Sadly, I think centrists generally want Republicans over the left, and the Left wants a purity that does not have a wider coalition to win a general election.
Maybe, Harris could be that person. But honestly I think the Democats are too busy trashing each other to care. (or be that candidate themselves)
Like, 2016, they think they will win regardless of who the candidate is. That they don't need voters, that they don't need a coalition. That they don't need an energized base and that just being not Trump is enough. It isn't. But I doubt most Democratic politicians of any stripe are wise enought to see that.
I have followed Kamala Harris ever since she was SF's district attorney. She is a force to be reckoned with. I would predict that the nation at large will see first hand at the first primary debate how intelligent, experienced, and progressive she is. She has moxie; she is a woman, a brown-skinned one who understands the plight of the African-American and the immigrant.
Remember not too many years ago when a young unknown junior senator of mixed race threw his hat into the ring? Not only did we not know Barack Obama, but we also could not even pronounce his name correctly. What I am trying to say is that it is too early to predict or prejudge. I know one thing: This voter hopes that if she is not nominated to be our next president, she must at least be chosen as the vice-presidential nominee. I fantasize how she would out-wit, out-smart Mr. Trump. Think about what she would do to Mr. Pence. Boy, would I like to see either of those two debates. I would be standing and cheering the whole time for my Senator Harris.
10
Kamala Harris is getting less attention because she is from California, which has no political power. Our state is disenfranchised. The Midwest seems to constantly whinge about getting enough attention, but do presidential candidates ever come to California? No, they are focused on getting the 100,000 undecided Midwestern votes that will decide the 2020 election. The media assumes that you have to be from the Midwest to garner those 100,000 votes. It's a reasonable assumption.
9
I agree with another comment I read, that she seems like an opportunist. That's why I've never really liked her. I do like Warren, her seriousness and her expertise, but not sure I go along with the policies she's been promoting. For now, I'm with Joe, and I do agree: beating Trump is the only thing that matters now. All of these progressive policies can wait. First, you have to put out the fire.
5
Harris/Warren
Warren/Harris
Harris/Castro
Harris/Sherrod Brown
Warren/Gillum
Harris/O'Rourke
Warren/Abrams
Warren/Castro
If she announced she was running then Stacy Abrams would also be a terrific choice in either position.
Are all good combinations of President/VP tickets.
My favorite would be the Harris/Warren combo (either /or)
3
Harris : O’Rourke
@Tim...
Biden/Harris
Yes, it's the matchup I want: Harris v. Trump. She's the one person who I'd feel confident can get on the debate stage and cut him down.
5
The twenty plus are of plausible personable POTUS quality, and more
choices for everybody to pick from than usual.
And worthy cabinet secretaries also.
Donald's reign, besides the demagoguery, has been ... incendiary and his
running the nation are amazing and horrifying.
DJT turns politics upside down, and the comments published are
frequently interesting to skim through.
I'll vote for the nominee, and surely that's a serious pledge for our
twenty plus to try to re-unify from the horror show that even a Mel
Brooks wouldn't dare to seriously satirize with Alec Baldwin playing
the lead, please do ...not make the mad man madder.
2
The twenty plus are of plausible personable POTUS quality, and more
choices for everybody to pick from than usual.
And worthy cabinet secretaries also.
Donald's reign, besides the demagoguery, has been ... incendiary and his
running the nation are amazing and horrifying.
DJT turns politics upside down, and the comments published are
frequently interesting to skim through.
I'll vote for the nominee, and surely that's a serious pledge for our
twenty plus to try to re-unify from the horror show that even a Mel
Brooks wouldn't dare to seriously satirize with Alec Baldwin playing
the lead, please do ...not make the mad man madder.
1
I think you are missing your own point. By referring to Elizabeth Warren as "strident" you are perpetuating the tone-policing of women who are direct, forceful and have ideas. Of course Warren is scaring big donors - she's not taking money from them!
From Rebecca Solnit:
"Is trying to change the world strident? Are ladies just supposed to sit down and speak in soothing tones about dainty domestic matters? Then tiptoe to the kitchen to fetch some warm milk for male fragility?
It's not even accurate for Warren's cheerful, folksy tone and we can do it attitude.
stri·dent
/ˈstrīdnt/
adjective
loud and harsh; grating.
"his voice had become increasingly sharp, almost strident"
synonyms: harsh, raucous, rough, grating, rasping, jarring, loud, stentorian, shrill, screeching, piercing, ear-piercing; More
presenting a point of view, especially a controversial one, in an excessively and unpleasantly forceful way.
"public pronouncements on the crisis became less strident"
17
@Blair
Seems "strident" is on the wrong-wokethought list for women. Won't be long and NYT writers and editor will banish the word from any copy about women DNC candidates. But she is "strident", no question about it.
She has a book which makes it very clear where she's coming from and what she's made of -- a deep commitment to working for the people.
4
Quote from this column: " More important, she struggled then — and struggles still — with a question of transcendent importance in a field of contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination as bloated as this one: Why her and not one of her many rivals? What’s distinctive about her message and credentials?"
Exactly. When asked why she is running for President, she really doesn't set herself apart with an exciting answer. When asked about her policy proposals, she answers like she hasn't thought much about them. Fact is, she is not that able.
All the identity check boxes are not going to get her one vote. The Democratic presidential field is great. Women, men, gays, several racial minorities. This is the way it is supposed to be. Ability and policy proposals are what people are going to look at in voting in the primaries. Not various identity check boxes.
4
I like Harris and Warren. I think either would be a good President, and I agree: the coverage is skewed in favor of men, as usual. Press coverage of women candidates is always different from coverage of men on the basics. Warren is not more "strident' than Sanders and Harris is not more vague than Biden. That said, the media has a lot of people to cover in the run-up to the nomination. Each candidate must learn how to make themselves seen and heard despite the obstacles.
8
Hard for me to agree. We learned via HRC that the most qualified is not the most electable. Listing reasons why Harris should be front runner is not enough. I for one would like to hear the reasons or justifications for her apparent, or suggested, cruelty while a prosecutor.
We have issues with who inspires, who inspires the younger half of voters, who makes us feel good; this is what Obama did. Look at the candidates with a fresh eye and tell me who is most likely to make you feel strongly that they care, that they care for younger people growing older, that they know most about our 'common' people. Let me know.
2
Here is why this Californian won't be supporting Kamala Harris' presidential bid. She declared her candidacy exactly two years into her six-year Senate term. During her Senate race, she neglected to inform California voters that she was simply looking for a springboard into national office. If voters had an inkling that her ambitions lay outside California, then many of us would have opted for the other candidate, Loretta Sanchez, who is also a Democrat. Sanchez may have been more willing to stick around for longer than two years in order to actually serve the people who voted her in. As others have stated, Harris is an opportunist and it's glaringly obvious. I don't trust her one bit.
And yes, I do feel the same way about other one-termers in the race.
Sanders and Warren are the best of the crop.
15
Elizabeth Warren is the most fearless, intelligent fighter I see right now, and that is exactly what is needed against Trump. You know it will be a knock down, drag out fight. Not for lightweights. Warren knows exactly what is ahead - she has been taking heat from Trump for a long time already. She seems even more energized now. A beautiful thing.
21
@Paul Shindler
Warren (or Sanders) is my candidate of choice as well, but for different reasons than yours. I'm not really interested in who can fight with Donald Trump. I'm interested in what a candidate will do if they win. I'm pretty clear on what Warren (and Sanders) will be fighting for and whose back they'll have (mine, for one). Not so any of the others, i have no idea. (But i'd put a fiver on their donors.)
3
Look, she is a former prosecutor. Expect her to be cautious, but aslo smarter than people actually imagine. I think she is the one. I have thought so from the begining.
5
I’ve watched most of the town hall broadcasts and I come away thinking the only two Democratic candidates out there who really have the fire in their gut, and the courage of their convictions, are Warren and Sanders. I would love to latch on to Kamala Harris because she seems the prototype candidate to beat Trump, and make him look bad doing it in debates. But she seems opportunistic in a way that kind of reminds me of Hillary, and her uncertainty about what she really believes I think may be her undoing. I predict Warren will emerge from the pack in the debates as the most formidable force; because of her fire, conviction, intelligence, and common touch, which goes rarely commented upon, but was unmistakably there in her Mississippi town hall.
18
I adore Senator Harris and want her to be the next president. You may have a point about her need to "take firmer positions". I'd like that too. I agree that she would be the best "matchup" against Trump.
What concerns me is, if Biden (right now the majority favorite) selects her as his VP, we lose her from the Senate. If Biden continues to be "the top favored", and goes on to win the nomination, Harris is the obvious choice for VP. I want Harris to take firmer positions for the reasons you state, and I want her to be the next president. It's not that I won't support any other Dem for President, it's just that I'd like to let Joe fizzle out due to "old-school" thinking, let Bernie take a back seat because he doesn't resonate with women, let Beto go because he's a mish-mash of indecision, set Buttigieg aside because the middle of the roaders will never accept a guy with a man as a husband.
This woman is tough as they come, and I hope she meets her destiny as President after the disaster we've been living with for (what I hope is) a one term presidency.
1
A life of public service holds a candidate to scrutiny for sure. But Senator Harris has been a champion for equality and fairness throughout her career. She’s worked tirelessly for justice and people can criticize from the sidelines all they want.
Kamala Harris is a compelling and magnetic leader, and I hope she will take us closer to the the mountaintop.
The ideal ticket: Kamala and Mayor Pete, Spice and Sugar, Bad Cop, Good Cop. Coastal and Rustal. District Attorney and Small City Manager.
Both are blindingly articulate. Both appeal to a wide swath of diverse voters. Neither is wedded to ideology. Neither is Trump. Both point toward a better future.
6
She a very good friend of Willie Brown's and, therefore, a Lenin's Bay Area favorite--with the anointing by Boxer to ascend to the Senate, replacing her. But that's about it for her record beyond savagely badgering Kavanaugh.
12
Kamala Harris is a Trojan horse in pleasant, trendy packaging. She's a long-time corporatist, careerist politician steeped in big-money California politics who's now masquerading as a populist in the Democratic primary's race to the left. How else to explain her New York Times guest op-ed where she talked all about her mother's struggle with cancer and nothing about how she planned to fix our health-care system? Is there any doubt that her "Medicare for All" "plan" is nothing but an inauthentic platitude to distract us from the tough but doable reforms for our health-care system? Is there any doubt that her proposal to cut middle-class taxes is not about fixing what ails America today but is rather nothing but recycled 1992 "Third Way" Bill Clinton?
Then there's the cynical, entitled expectation that minority voters are obligated to support her because of who she is rather than her record or what she stands for. She's the perfect amalgamation of modern Democratic strategist cynicism: an ethnic background similar to Barack Obama's, the gender of Hillary Clinton, with a campaign message intended not to unify Americans but to micro-target and pander to different Democratic constituencies.
218
@Mitch Gitman Spot on.
33
@Mitch Gitman
I agree with you, though I am sorry to have to be so cynical about Senator Harris and many of those running in the Democratic field. Corporate and wealthy donor campaign contributions have done a good job of corrupting our system.
22
@Mitch Gitman
You do know surely that Troy won that war, and the horse was the key strategy?
And do you think she should have chosen her parents and her gender with better care to avoid the strategist cynicism?
39
I am not a media basher, but by "us" I assume you mean you and your cohorts, not me and mine. At this point, it's just click bait and churn. Watch "Network" one more time and get back to me in a few months.
6
There's no mystery to Kamala Harris. If she's on the ticket, the Democrats steamroll Trump. If she isn't then its going to be a steeper climb to get there, but the Democrats get there.
1
Someday, I hope to live in a country where the op ed columnists care about policy.
Kamala Harris' policy choices have been horrible. Her career as a AG was cruel. She is devoted to AIPAC. She is the toast of the Hamptons fund raising circuit and the beneficiaries of our current plague of income inequality.
I am not going to vote for anyone who brags about putting a homeless woman working two jobs because her kid was a truant. I'm not going to vote for anyone for whom Wall Street shows anything but terror.
16
I support Israel and I am glad that Harris has effective experience in the judicial system. Perhaps worry less about progressive boogeymen and more about competence. I am starting to think that a "corporate Democrat" is a good thing the way every Sanders supporter throws the term around. We need someone who understands all of America. Even Big Business. This emphasis on tearing the rich down is disturbing to me, and I'm not rich. I would rather build everybody up than try to knock down the "elites." Progressive economic policy is just more of the populist "zero-sum" delusion about economics which Trump endorses.
3
I like Frank Bruni, though there are so many references to group categorisation in this article that it physically pained me to read it.
5
Any Democrat will do in 2020. Any one of them.
Doesn't matter one bit which one.
Just get rid of the con man.
Period.
12
@Will. "Any Democrat will do in 2020?" Um...there's this thing in our Democracy called a primary election. Those of us who vote in it need to make decisions between the Democratic Party candidates based on substance. Your attitude is just great if you only intend to vote in the general election so good on you! Meanwhile I hope you won't mind if the rest of us try to figure out which Dem has the best chance of winning AND THEN IF THEY DO WIN also
the best chance of actually governing well.
3
She is at the top of my list, along with Sanders. Love her when she’s grilling a liar, er, I mean witness. She’s great at it.
4
In 2008 Kamala Harris kicked down my front door claiming she was looking for a gun my son had purchased for self defense after a tenant in an apartment my son owned attacked his wife with a hammer while the tenant was high on methamphetamine. The most conspicuous item on the search warrant was my son's tax records. Kamala Harris was developing a scheme to support a million dollar lawsuit against my son. It was a simple situation made complicated by obfuscation by Harris. Nobody in the case was clean. The order of culpability for bad behavior was Harris, the tenants, and my son. In the end my son was made to pay the tenant $10,000.The tenant had a large chest filled with pornography so the judgement provided means to support his interests. Harris covered up all of the information concerning the violence and drugs. She also covered up the fact that another plaintiff literally lived on lawsuits against his landlords and never worked in his life.
10
You talk about unconscious biases, but call Elizabeth Warren “strident”??
14
Frank Bruni, you're fired. Take your sexist assessment of female candidates and go to your room. I voted for Warren for senator, and I will vote for her again for president. I've been waiting for the opportunity to do just that for years. Time out for the dinosaur.
13
Did Frank Bruni really just refer to Elizabeth Warren as "strident"? Did he find it too hard to fit "harpy" into a sentence? Bruni's use of loaded, antifeminist language is a small example of the uphill battle women candidates have. Bernie Sanders espouses many of the same positions as Warren.
16
Why is it that no commentator here noticed that Bruni is REPORTING that this is what others call Warren? Yes, he’s using “that” word because many of those who don’t like Warren (for the record, I do) use that word (very unfortunate). That’s not his description of her.
The Democratic candidate, in order to win, will have to connect with a broad swath of voters, in a visceral way, in order to defeat Donald Trump. Voters will feel a passion about her/him. Think Bernie's voters in the last election. Or, a more unpleasant example, think Trump's. I don't find any of the Democrats exciting that passion yet. Even Bernie feels a bit too familiar to be as exciting this time. Yes, they have personal histories, or accomplishments or policy ideas to be admired. That is all different from them being able to excite most of the voters and maintain that excitement through the long run-up to Election Day.
1
While the entire democratic field is better than the current occupant of the WH, it would indeed be very interesting to watch a contest between Harris and Trump. Being the misogynistic that he is, imagine Trump’s fury when he realizes that he could lose to a woman who happens to be black.
LOL
6
Ms. Harris seems like a very honest straightforward type. Liz Warren is gr8 also but I feel Kamala has a better chance against Trump.
"She can lay claim to blazing trails in a way that many of them can’t. Her ancestry is Jamaican on her father’s side, Indian on her mother’s, and she was the first black woman and the first Asian-American woman to be the district attorney of San Francisco and then the attorney general of California. She’s only the second black woman elected to the Senate."
Before reading this, I had hoped that the country had moved beyond the identity politics inherent in citing hyphenated-American firsts as qualifications to hold political office. Apparently not.
11
I do not agree. Hillary would have won were it not for Russian meddling. Based on the popular vote, as we all know, a woman won in 2016 by 2.9 million votes. The country was ready for a woman then and, I wager after 2 years of Trumpism, even more ready for a woman in the White House in 2021. All of the women running in the Democratic primary could run intelligent, agile circles around Donald. I would celebrate a woman winning by a landslide and I am convinced it is possible.
6
Some are having a hard time with the word "strident." It's an irritating quality in those who take themselves a little too seriously, with not enough sense of humor, a severe demeanor. It's just another way of saying that Kamala Harris is more likable than Warren, regardless of policies.
2
Elizabeth Warren is a rock star. She is accessible and explains complicated policy in terms that everyone can understand. “Strident” is a throwback cliche that Bruni should know better than to use in describing a woman in politics. Based on Warren’s packed college lectures and campaign stops she’s popular and connecting no matter the gender of the voter.
13
Provocative, Frank, but no mysteries unearthed or exposed. You barely even mention what we do know about Kamala. Maybe she'll get that big mag cover spread someday and we'll learn then.
4
STRIDENT? seriously? Warren is one of the most serious candidates out there and has stated clearly that she does not want the usual corrupting influence of big donors. How privileged you are! You need to seriously look inside and look at how you wield your "bully pulpit" against a serious, policy-laden candidacy from one of the most experienced candidates in the race.
16
Here is one "middle aged" (ok, Im 65), white (admittedly born to enormous privilege), mid-westerner (I live in Missouri) who has enormous respect for Ms. Harris and considers her to be the clear front runner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination based on her fierce and smart role in investigating the current (utterly corrupt and literally contemptible) regime and sensibly progressive solutions to the US's obvious problems. While it's way to early for me to commit my primary vote, I think it's a mistake to assume that candidates like Ms Harris can't win over "people like me". All a candidate need do to get me to pledge my vote is to consistently and convincingly express clear-headed solutions (instead of "feel good" slogans) and be willing to ask tough questions about actual performance (which the GOP can no longer answer). Ms. Harris has so far come the closest to articulating this approach and I say Brava!!!
Along with Frank Bruni I lament the media's tendency to try to turn this crucial Democratic primary into a popularity/personality contest (shame on you Vanity Fair! You can do better!). Its time the media recognized that while many too many Americans have regretable biases, we also have ears and brains. Let's please have more focus on the latter, and less of focus what divides us on the left.
3
I have only two criteria for choosing a candidate. First, can they govern? And if they can govern, can they be elected to do so?
The Democratic President-elect will face enormous challenges, such as how to force the return of imprisoned children to their parents. They will have to face down a number of “law enforcement agencies” that are no longer responsive to the rule of law. And that’s barely the beginning.
This is not a job for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or any of the other Democratic lightweights.
Kamala Harris could do it though, as could Amy Klobuchar, Jay Inslee or John Hickenlooper. They may not pass the purity tests so beloved of our social justice posers, but that’s because they have held real responsibility, where compromise is both ugly and unavoidable.
5
Voters have a sharp ear for any insecurity they hear in a candidate's delivery. I never doubted Obama could win. Harris? I think her disposition is the most comfortable of the lot until it stretches to policy details. She's is the opposite of Warren who can be scarily insistent.
I'd pick a Warren-Harris ticket if forced to pick today.
2
Perhaps, Biden might consider KH as his VP before Bernie does, messing up the equation. That is one possibility. However, KH has to get into the 2020 ticket sooner because, come 2024 or 2028 she might have to fend off AOC types, that might be even harder.
1
But there’s little to no sign that Buttigieg has made a meaningful connection with black voters ... That’s Buttigieg’s great challenge."
It’s certainly an important one, but isn’t his greatest challenge to establish any policy positions at all?
9
@wrenhunter I strongly agree and thank you for "outing Mayor Pete" (sorry, couldn't resist) I personally would like nothing better than to cast my vote for a gay male for president. But I've been sorely disappointed on Mr. Buttigieg's running solely on his demographic and (admittedly fine if thin) personal credentials. Let's hope to hear some ideas from Mr. Buttigieg before he becomes completely irrelevant.
2
I don't know if it was Mr. Bruni focusing on poor quotes or utter brain lock by the Harris team but my goodness - their response to the concern that Biden and Sanders have more white appeal on the Midwest was dreadful.
The wrong answer (presented twice!) - there are plenty of blacks in the Midwest to vote for me.
The right answer: white people voted for me in California and they'll vote for me in the Midwest because I have better ideas and the ability to get them done.
Politics is not as complicated as she's making it.
1
Very, very good article that not only defines Harris qualities and shortcomings but this article defines quite well all the other Democratic candidates in a couple of sentences and not in the boring lengh of 2 page per candidates.
Yes she would be a fascinating candidate which values remind us of Abraham Lincoln on one side and of Trump reminding us of the values of Jefferson Davis President of the Racist confederation of the South an ultra racist and anti Democratic man.
We are going towards a civil war, let's see how bad it will be after Trump once defeated in a Democratic election decides to stay in power and pushes his supporter into a civil war
1
After seeing the quiet, decisive, businesslike way Harris tamed Barr, causing him to babble meaninglessly when she interrupted his filibustering and not allowing him to interrupt her, I believe she would make short work of Trump in any debate because he is nothing but a lying, screaming, name-calling punk.
5
@Dick Ellingson: This is true, but... Barr babbled meaninglessly because that's his job. I'm afraid he wasn't embarrassed or bothered in any way. It was just like in the last minute of a basketball game, when a player commits a deliberate foul: no hard feelings, it's just part of the game. Barr wasn't going to answer certain questions, so he had fun saying things like "I'm struggling with the word "suggest"" or whatever it was he said. From his point of view, he came out of that game pretty well: still in favor with his boss, and without having given away anything useful to the opposition. Similarly, Trump will lose any debate, just like he lost debates with HRC, but that doesn't matter to him or his followers. They're looking forward to his lies and insults. Sad but true.
I used to be a big Harris supporter. I still am but now I am not so firm. I find she is not well prepared. She has not thought much about policy - about healthcare policy, foreign policy, even domestic policy etc. All she can talk about is a middle class tax cut - we don't need one right now. She really should have studied better.
6
Being GOP in California (a lonely thing), I will be voting for Weld in the primary and whoever the Democrats put forward in the general election. I will contribute to whichever Democrat wins the nomination. I would like to see a Biden/Harris ticket.
2
As a progressive and prosperous straight white male over 50 I don't hear any Democratic candidate speaking of me as anything other than "the enemy." Same at work. I've decided to sit the next election out for the first time ever and let the gods sort it out.
6
@nwo — I understand where you're coming from, and this is a friendly reply. But I think you may be wrong about some of the Democratic presidential candidates. Biden, Hickenlooper, Gabbard, Buttigieg, Bennet, and Inslee wouldn't seem to fit the description. Even Bernie Sanders seems to have little affinity for identity politics.
I suppose some of these candidates may have publicly genuflected to the Rev. Al Sharpton or similar people. But if so, I bet some of them inwardly regretted what they were doing.
2
@nwo
Have to say my husband is in the same boat as you.
Although if Bernie is the nominee, he will support Bernie.
1
I concur. I am a fan of both Warren and Harris, and feel that it is too easy to sell against Warren ("EEK, A SOCIALIST!") given our lazy-minded electorate and Electoral College realities. Harris, though -- wow! I envision her slicing and dicing "our president" on the debate stage.
2
It's unfortunate, but it seems that the Democratic party is increasingly the party of women and minorities, and the Republicans, the party of white males. This seems to be the new dividing line.
2
@Mark Browning
52% of white women voted for Trump. The Republican nominee for president has received 55% or more of the white vote since 1976.
2
The NYT poses the rhetorical Kamala Harris campaign question -- "Why her and not one of her many rivals?"-- and then answers it "because of her race; and maybe her race and her gender"? Really?
Maybe Mr. Bruni has inadvertently answered his own question about Harris' lack of front page attention: she has yet to articulate any other reason for her candidacy beyond those stated by Mr. Bruni, and for the majority of voters that is not enough. Biden (experience and stability) and Sanders (firebrand semi-socialism) have well-defined themes that attract large constituencies in the Democratic party. And that's why they have big leads in the polling. Harris trails back in the pack of "mere contenders" and will remain there unless and until there is some reason to vote for her beyond the color of her skin.
8
The one who can win is the one who doesn't keep modifying their personality and positions with every gust of wind. Authenticity speaks to the voters when it is authentic, duh.
Many of the candidates are interesting, but it is still early days for the process of elimination that will inevitably occur.
Yes, authenticity, and some decent policy positions that don't come across as "my way or the highway" would help a lot. Sad to see someone like Harris sort of backing down.
And PLEASE! Enough with the strident accusation. The king of strident is in the White House. Any woman with good, strong positions clearly expressed is smart and capable, not strident!
5
Can someone please define the “Rust Belt”? And, while you’re at it, the “Heartland” ?
2
@Gina Kennedy
Serious question - what terms would you prefer? Would "Midwest" work? I get why residents don't like the term "Rust Belt".
We all need to realize that the presidency isn't about policies. Many of the Dem candidates have similar policies, with emphasis on similar. What the election comes down to is a popularity contest, like it or not. And, as we have seen in the last election, the one who promises the most, even though it was all lies, is the one who gets the most (electoral) votes. So, while policy is necessary, the personal connection becomes just as important. That narrows down the Dem list to about 6 or 7 from the 20+ that are running.
1
i have not contributed to campaigns in the past, but i have given to Kamala. i dont expect her to get the nomination but i do think that she would be an excellent choice for vice president.
3
Her questioning of witnesses in Senate Judiciary suggests to me that she is not a good listener or a good examiner. Despite her background as a District Attorney and Attorney General is it clear that she has not spent much time trying cases. If she had, she would not plow through a list of prepared questions without listening to what the witness is saying and tailoring her next question accordingly. It appeared Barr was about to give her something when she cut him off to begin her next question.
4
I voted for Sanders. I have contributed to Warren (and have the daily email appeals for funds from her campaign to prove it). I also have Sanders and Warren fatigue which reminds me that they are about my age...oy vey! I am supporting Harris because of her smarts, her energy, her poise, and the fact that she is a tried but not shopworn candidate.
1
"...and she scares big donors, especially those in the financial industries."
Candidates who worry big donors are exactly what we need in this era of end-stage capitalism (Bruni apparently isn't aware that Harris has carved out a very lucrative array of corporate backers - the elite are pretty much clueless on this topic).
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00036915
The only relevant racial angle to Harris' lackluster campaign is that Sanders draws significantly more support from African Americans - most likely because of all the candidates, he understands working class issues and speaks on them with sincerity.
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/06/bernie-sanders-black-voters-2020/
9
So Elizabeth is strident but Kamala should take a firmer stance? How firm does it have to be before she becomes strident too? For someone purporting to be about championing a fair playing field, you sure do sound exactly like an average man quaking in fear of competent women.
7
I agree that Harris is a compelling candidate. She is both smart and tough, and in a less sexist country, she would never be losing media space to Beto or Mayor Pete. But I had trouble continuing to read this column when you used the word "strident " to describe perceptions of Elizabeth Warren, a brilliant, meticulous advocate for pragmatic
policies, founded in values. Is there a more gendered adjective than "strident?" You did not even interrogate its use. How ironic that nobody ever described Trump as strident! Why? As crass and vile as his language is, he is male and therefore can't be strident.
12
She always needed to sit this one out and use it to help advertise herself. She is like an athlete who turned pro a year to early. She would be much better served upping her profile in the Senate than getting beaten down in a 20 horse race to never be seen again. She would have been a real contender in 2024 or 2028
2
So...Elizabeth Warren is too strident, but that's not an issue with Bernie. And we don't know what to make of Kamala, but Beto O'Rourke is riding high in the polls. Could it be the soft sexism that just makes it seem like there's always something a bit wrong, a bit off, by any woman who dares to reach for the highest rung?
8
Bernie Sanders is strident; Warren is not. I know this term was not necessarily your opinion but you do a huge disservice to use it without noting the misogyny in it being applied to her and not to him.
10
"many Democratic leaders and voters experience her as too strident" Would that be the ones you see in the mirror every morning, Frank? What kind of sexist nonsense is this, to open your piece with?
When the media tell us over and over again that a candidate is "strident" or "shrill" or other code words for "woman seeking power," it often translates into that perception.
You don't mention the #SheThePeople event, where Warren AND Harris were standouts, and Sanders simply repeated tired talking points and got BOOED by the crowd.
Do better, sir.
7
We are a biased country and do not want women to be president or hold many top positions. I just hope that Harris will gain some momentum and get to the top of the heap. There is a lot of dead wood running and messing with the minds of the voters. We need one strong leader that the folks will get behind. Let it be Harris.
1
We have a long time until the election.
Heck, in a year, it will still be nearly six months away, plenty of time for her to make her case.
Hugh
I think it's telling that when Bruni is trying to pitch Harris all he can really come up with is stuff to do with her background - first soandso to be such and such, etc. It's telling because it's fundamentally impersonal. People aren't inspired by "first soandso to do such and such," they are inspired by individuals. And Harris just doesn't have that sort of individual charisma that inspires people to really get behind her. Nor does she have the sort of fierce conviction or belief in a certain policy or approach to the world that can inspire loyalty, the way, say, Sanders does. So it's no mystery she's struggled to break out of the single digits.
3
The country needs and wants to elect a leader, someone to lead our country forward. The leader can hire all the policy wonks he or she wants. Ask the question, do we want this candidate (any of them) to be our leader? I don't know enough about Harris to know whether she's a leader. But I do know that at this stage she can't be "timidly noncommittal," like Frank says she was during the second CNN town hall. We're not looking for just another bureaucrat to be our President.
2
This way of thinking is like football coaches picking what offense to run. They try to suss out what the other side will do, and what will work, and then they go with one of many possible plays. No play is better than any other. There’s no ideology, just a desire to win.
Winning is not the problem. Of course we need to win against Trump. But politics is about real issues, life and death matters and genuine suffering. It’s offensive to treat it like a big game. When you’re in the big leagues of punditry or politics, it seems, that is what you do. Why is that? Are the people who care too deeply weeded out?
Summary of this article: policy doesn’t matter, identity politics does, and the play that Kamala Harris has chosen to run on has failed it’s market-testing and needs a rebrand. Oh and dismiss the only two authentic and genuinely caring candidates who have experience and clear policy plans. Sad.
4
I like Harris. However, I do know she has a likeability problem. She can come across as too much of a prosecutor. Compassion, humor, warm fuzziness, forgiveness, humility these do not come through. So this puts her in the Hillary camp. Hillary could not warm up a room nor connect with voters. Her rallies were not the fun fests of Trump rallies. And no, saying this does not make me a Trump supporter.
2
Why does she have to be "likeable"?
2
There is something magical about people who exude confidence, a quiet confidence. Kamala Harris exudes an awkward anger for its own sake, followed by an even more awkward laughter. Her comments about being part Jamaican and therefore prone to weed, while laughing in a creepy way, is hard to undo. Ditto the segment where she tries on a glitzy jacket, while laughing creepy.
I am looking to vote for a woman but not one with a Willie Brown problem who acts as if being a prosecutor is a part in a TV show that she is auditioning for. "Look fierce," says the script. Sorry, she is not going to make it.
4
Warren has been far more consistent with her policy positions and articulation of those policies. With respect to Harris, Mr. Bruni did not point out several scandals that occurred when Harris was San Francisco City attorney (nearly 1000 convictions were vacated because of evidence tamping issues) and when she served as California AG (a top aide was accused of sexual misconduct and a 400K settlement was required to resolve it--see Sacramento Bee article for details).
Perhaps, Senator Harris biggest problems were most poignantly uttered by words from her own father after she spoke of smoking marijuana in college and said 'what did you expect, I am half Jamaican'. When asked to comment, Mr. Harris said that his daughter's pandering and identity politics were a travesty"
5
Harris or Warren at the top of the ticket. I favor Harris for her debate potential but she really does need to gel her policy views. More Senate Judiciary Committee hearings will benefit her if she remains focused - no need at all to campaign in that setting. I thought she tended to wander into making speeches during the Kavanaugh hearing, though not as bad as Booker.
Pete for VP. I think his VP debate with Pence over the Bible and politics will be by far the most watched and interesting VP debate ever. And it's a conversation long overdue, especially in the Bible belt.
1
Warren-Harris, that's my ticket. Wow, what an awesome team that would make. Give Warren a couple of rounds as president and then we can have Harris-Cortez...makes me smile just thinking about it!
1
Harris comes across to me as a weather vane politician. More moderate and hawkish when she wanted to be DA, more liberal when she wanted to be senator and now president. I like her and I think she is very talented. I just don't trust her convictions. Or really even know what they are---and I live in CA and follow politics fairly closely.
5
Politics is NOT entertainment. It is deadly serious to many people. Trump loves the "riveting" matchup. It's not a serious criterion.
1
She’d make a great Veep if she places low in the primaries.
"As for Warren, my gut is that her worst patch — the DNA test — is behind her and that she’s on an upward swing."
Why that DNA test should have ever mattered is a mystery. I suppose, here too, the episode tells us more about ourselves than the candidate.
11
I need someone to tell me what is so important about the cover of Vanity Fair besides putting a face on the coffee tables of the 1%.
6
..."and if his strategy for the industrial Midwest is to tell displaced and anxious factory workers that their fears are hallucinatory..." Good grief. Biden sounds just like Donald Trump.
2
Perhaps its what she says and that Democrats see her as shallow and unprincipled as I do. Maybe if she wasn't slotted by the media al the Black/Asian/Female candidate; but, rather a qualified, thoughtful leader....which she is not.
One of these could break rank with the pack and admit the border crisis and demand action in the Congress to end the asylum onslaught; or, break rank with the pack and admit that the socialist agenda is a loser and the US should be focused on increased trade and growth; or, admit the further investigation of Trump is counter-productive and pointless and decides to simply ask the voters if he should remain in office thereby cooling the rhetoric.......that person is the person who will see his or her polling jump up promptly; but, of course, it will never happen.
8
Kamala has charisma. She has presence. She stopped Barr's blithering with her perspicacious comments and refusal to tolerate his evasion and dodging.
She has the personality to be a great president. Has she got the policies? What would she do about climate change, healthcare, infrastructure, the bloated military, the continuing wars, economic injustice, etc.?
She surprisingly committed a malapropism asking Barr if anyone at the White House had "inferred" that he prosecute Trump's political opponents when she meant "implied". That's easily correctible and forgivable, especially in view of the twittering solecisms to which we're exposed on a daily basis.
2
@Steve M
"Has she got the policies?"
She has zero experience with: economics, foreign policy, national security, technology, governance, budgeting...and so on.
She also has virtually zero experience campaigning because her two statewide elections in CA could have been won by a janitor or a barista, as long as they had [D] next to their name.
4
@Malcolm Kettering
So she'd be like another Trump, except for the law degree, passing the bar, being a prosecutor, AG and US Senator? Don't senators get some experience in economics, foreign policy, etc.?
2
538 showed that Harris alone had a much bigger jump in the polls than in accompanying media coverage than any other candidate. Should we read this as unusual personal appeal ... or media bias?
3
My on my! America needs to grow up.
All this identity stuff is so annoying.
Who cares the gender or skin color or sexual preference?
Elizabeth Warren is coming out every day with all kinds of different policy proposals. Agree with them or not, this is what all the candidates need to do.
So, until then, it's Elizabeth Warren for me. I happen to think that she is really fighting for the middle and working class.
If she does not get the nomination, I will vote for anyone in the democratic party regardless, to rid America of this current Oval Office nightmare.
8
I know what Bernie Sanders stands for, and I know what Elizabeth Warren stands for. Their motivations in terms of policies and what they would hope to accomplish as President are clear. But what exactly is the motivating issue for Kamala Harris? I haven't the foggiest idea what she would want to accomplish. Her campaign thus far seems an exercise in finding a motive.
23
Oh, Mr. Bruni, did you have to use the word "strident" to describe people's so-called experience of Senator Elizabeth Warren? I am disappointed to see you use such a conventionally sexist term. I like Senator Kamala Harris, but Warren is the real deal -- whip-smart, articulate and completely unafraid.
474
@gail shulman
Warren does come off as vocally strident, but that’s not to say that her messages are wrong. Bernie comes off as bombastic, but, again, his messages are (sometimes) right on. My personal preference would just be someone a bit more vocally low key as we’ve had a loud mouth in the WH for two years. I’ll be voting for any of the Democrats who wins the primary, regardless if they aren’t my first choice.
33
@gail shulman -- Strident is a sexist term? Warren is strident, as is Sanders. What is the difference between strident and confident? Strident lacks humor and self effacement, and seems judgmental. Harris is confident, even withering to her adversaries (a great quality) but not strident, which is why she is so appealing.
12
@gail shulman
She is fantastic! She's dedicated her life to helping the middle class. Let's hope the country begins to see in her what you and I do.
17
Senator Harris seems like a bright & capable person with an impressive resume. She has also broken down significant barriers to advance the ball on equality & should be commended for that. If "what sets her apart", however, starts off with her ethnicity, that is basically saying "very little sets her apart in terms of policy or track record". The field has both a squad of Senators & a legion of liberals.
If one is going to pick a female Senator, why not pick one from a battleground state similar to other battlegrounds? Getting 80% of the vote in California does not help win a general election.
The battleground states are, with the exception of Nevada and Florida, very white, and Trump may be so popular in Florida for a number of reasons that it is not really a battleground. In a crude approximation, if Republicans won a state's state-wide races in 2018, odds are Trump will win the state in 2020 unless he loses everywhere. Such states are unlikely to matter.
MI, MN, NH, PA & WI are more than 3/4 white according to a Wikipedia page. The "bump" from a non-white candidate in 2020 will likely be smaller than it was for Obama in these states (he was the 1st such candidate, & from the Midwest). Every Democratic candidate respects women & minorities far more than Trump does, further watering down the benefits of a female or minority candidate.
Trump will drive turnout all across the spectrum. Democrats need to "take what the defense gives them", sit in the center & don't budge.
3
The answer is, of course, the one you allude to. We live in a nation built on white privilege and steeped in institutional racism. Although I can never understand it, the influence of that sad star of affairs is manifest over and over again. This is just another unfortunate and self-destructive example for our nation.
Bruni notes “She should take firmer positions, even at the risk of angering some voters” and moves on too quickly. Does Harris actually stand for anything? Why does she want to be President? There’s so much emphasis on her as a symbol, but if she doesn’t articulate a vision for the country and defend it, she will come across as lukewarm as Clinton did and lose to “Make America Great Again”. I’m for Warren; she has the guts to stand up for policies she believes in. Harris doesn’t seem too different from O’Rourke or Buttigieg; she’s campaigning on a cult of personality.
8
There is a code and traditions for black voters that media misses, and this includes things as simple as yard signs, and radio ads, the Eye and Ear appeal within black communities. In 2016, too often the sights and signs of the campaign, a reliable comunity tradition that signals urgency, was missing.
Let it not be missing in 2020.
2
I will not support Sen. Harris. Why? Because she's a multiethnic minority? No. Because she seems to increasingly playing 'not to lose' rather than to win? No. Because she used to be Willie Brown's girlfriend? No. I oppose her candidacy because she's a professional prosecutor. I don't trust prosecutors. And that goes double for prosecutors turned politicians.
At this point, (and I'll admit that it's early days yet), I'm in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's corner. I'll admit that she's something of an odd duck, but she's one of the only candidates spinning out policy proposals that show some sign of original thought.
Any candidate that puts themselves in front of voters arguing that they should be chosen for reasons of race or gender is not going to win. Period. That's a good way to give Mr. Trump a second term And that would be a catastrophic.
17
@Tom Chapman There are thousands of DAs and ADAs in the US. You don't trust any of them? Just why is that? Do you have specific reasons to distrust Senator Harris? If not, perhaps you should examine her candidacy more carefully.
2
Amen Mr. Chapman. I’ve had it with all prosecutors running for President, and even with people who adopt a prosecutorial style.
I don’t need to be told how dangerous the world is, and that only “I” can bring the enemies to heel. This is Trump and half of the Democrats. I want an aspirational President who’s got a moral center and is focused on the long view for the country. Others can fight the fights at home and abroad.
Harris is a gifted politician and tenacious interrogator in the Senate. She’s great. But that is her nature, her default mode. It comes across in Town halls. The next President needs more than toughness. Which we’ve seen is so overrated.
1
@Tom Chapman
Let's be clear, Tom: Trump put himself in front of voters arguing that he should be chosen to "make America great again" for and by white men like him. Why do you think his base looks the way it does? Trump played the race and gender card harder and louder than any woman or person of color running for the Oval Office ever has--can, or will.
1
I was at the event in Portsmouth when Bernie endorsed Hillary. Some in the audience turned their backs and some were distinctly vocal in their displeasure. In part things like that, people not voting for Hillary because they were angry that Bernie didn't get the nod, are in part, the reason we got Trump. We have to get over that. I like Warren and will vote for her in the primary, but I'll vote for anyone, even Biden, rather than risk another 4 years of Trump. If its Harris, she has my vote.
5
That may be about to change as Kamala Harris turns her formidable prosecutorial skills on Donald Trump. Someone has to take on Trump and his corruption and his relentless undermining of our democratic institutions, especially the Constitution. Sen. Harris has demonstrated the ability to do that in the Senate Judiciary Committee and hopefully she can rally the party and the country to an anti-Trump crusade by listing his lawlessness beginning with his status as an unindicted co-conspirator (as "Individual-1" in a felony charge by the Southern District of New York). If the House Democrats are too timid to follow the Constitution and impeach Mr. Trump, I'd urge Ms. Harris to draw up a list of her "articles of impeachment." Perhaps she could unveil them one at a time over a period of weeks. As Trump's brazenness and boldness in defying the "rule of law" increases day-by-day, it's imperative to find a Democratic champion who fight back. The next election is so much about "Medicare for All," income inequality, or the environment, as important as they are, but about the very survival of the Constitutional "rule of law" v. the authoritarian "rule of Trump." Sen. Harris may be the perfect person to put Trump on trial before the public as she refocuses her campaign.
Three words: rope-a-dope. Or is that one word?
1
@A. Jubatus,
Its a hyphenated word, so its one word.
Dear Frank,
Dont pretend to be naive: editors (everywhere - even at NYT -) do judgement calls. It is that simple.
1
Being Black doesn't mean you get the prize just for being Black. That was Obama's story. Not going to be hers.
9
No its not fair, just as it is not fair that Melania Trump has been blacklisted by those publications as well. Thank you.
2
What has Kamala Harris accomplished for CA and for her voters so far?
All her supposed performance in senate hearings have been just a show for the cameras. She thinks since Barack Obama started running for the presidency soon after he won his senate seat, so can she. I would disagree with her.
She will be the VP choice for Biden/Bernie. After she will serve as the VP, then she will be a front runner for the white house.
4
I heard Sen. Kamala Harris carping at the attorney general, William Barr.
He tries to answer her vague first question and she cuts him off, rudely. Tries to cut him off on the second question. Continues to talk over him. Postures. Cuts him off again and again, in her unfortunately adenoidal and whiny voice.
When she accuses him of a conflict of interest, he answers it excellently. So of course she cuts him off again.
I think senators like Sen. Harris read from cue cards their staffs hand them but aren’t quick-witted enough to engage in actual dialogue with the people on the other side of the dais.
This is the kind of tin-horn courtroom posturing that gives lawyers a bad reputation. Good courtroom lawyers don't do it. If there were a jury, it would be alienated.
A Harris presidency would be a depressing presidency. It also wouldn't happen, because President Trump would, regrettably, be reelected handily if she's the candidate.
14
If Kamala were a white man she'd be leading the pack. Instead, she has to deal with our institutional misogyny and racism. The Republicans, led by Mitch and Trump, are trying to erase the Obama presidency from history -- going so far as to hurt themselves in the process of killing Obamacare. It was that dedication to undoing that finally convinced me it was about race. And even the liberal and "woke" Mr. Bruni repeats the description of Warren as strident -- like Trump's garbled English and Queens accent are gentle to the ear. I love Kamala. She's one of the smartest of the crowd - as was Hillary -- but I don't think the country is there. Same for Mayor Pete, and Warren. But every time I say that, or think that, I feel like a coward. keeping old white men in power. Yet I understand -- Trump must be beaten in 2020 or our constitution and country may never recover.
9
I’m not sure I would have been impressed with Lincoln’s speeches if I were there in person. He supposedly had a high pitched annoying voice and good ‘ol boy, country bumpkin mannerisms. We can’t judge on personality alone.
We have to listen to their words and study up on their backgrounds. Every one of them has made mistakes I’m sure. We have elect the person who can best begin the process of lifting our country up and out of this morass.
Anyone. ANYONE but Trump.
7
Lol...
No, Sen. Sanders is not a warm fuzzy. That is part of his authenticity. His character charm. His dry wit. His exasperation at stupid questions of time wasters. He cuts to the chase.
No, the same wouldn't be as endearing (or maybe irritating...) on some others. But he man isn't trying to be what political handlers are polling and group think tanks manufacture. The Bernie Sanders we are seeing is the populous warrior. The man who puts WE before He.
Sanders doesn't pander to Corporations. Nor Establishment machinations. His goal is our Rights and Freedoms. Ones that should be applied to ALL Americans.
No matter their worth, color, sex, age or definition. ALL Americans.
NOT a Gov. controlled for and by the oligarch/plutocracy. NOT by the 1%.
A Gov. that responds to and is owned by We The People.
Currently that isn't the case.
For a taste of what Sen. Sanders brings, here are some examples...
The Brookings Institute put out Profiles in Negotiations. Examples of how it should be done and those who do it well.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/profiles-in-negotiation-the-veterans-deal-of-2014/
A young Pete Buttigieg wrote an award winning essay for the JFK Profiles in Courage Contest on Sen. Sanders: https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/profile-in-courage-essay-contest/past-winning-essays/2000-winning-essay-by-peter-Buttigieg
Lol...no Bernie isn't a polished shiny waxed apple. He is the local grown, crisp, honest, tasty bite many of us love.
8
@Dobbys sock Sadly, as a resident of Vermont who has regularly voted for Sanders, I have come to see him as, rather than authentic, a fraud. He is great at complaining, at pointing out inequities, but, other than broad, vague statements--e.g., "tax the wealthy", he has few concrete positions or proposals. Perhaps worst of all, he has never shown an ability to create a coalition, to demonstrate that he can design a method to actually bring some of his generalizations into actual fact.
1
@Laurence Carbonetti
Really?
No coalitions?
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) That Sanders help found in '91, now has 98 members making it the second largest caucus within the Democratic Party and the third largest caucus in Congress. Sanders was the convener and first CPC Chairman; which he held/lead from '91-'99.
Had you followed the Brookings Institute link above you'd seen his policy's and negotiations abilities in action. Including his landmark bill during the strongest period of Republican obstructionism in modern time, Sanders created a major piece of legislation to help fix the VA. This bill would cost the taxpayers between $16-20 billion. That's a bipartisan big bill!
Getting things done/passed in a bought 'n paid congress isn't always a good thing. Especially telling when you work for We The People, and both sides work against you. However, as I'm sure you know, Sanders has passed more roll call amendments under Republican control than ANY congressperson. Earning him the moniker as The Amendment King. But being from Vermont you know this. But oddly it doesn't count to you. Hmmm...
Sorry you have such a dim view of your Senator. The rest of your state rate him the highest of any working Senator and he's been sent back to work in Washington unanimously/repeatedly by the rest of Vermont. Guess they all must see and feel differently than you.
Huh, go figure.
2
Kamala Harris excels with her ability to be a prosecutor-when she questions people like Barr she is absolutely at the top of her game.I am rooting for her but I would suggest she doa better job at retail politics and do a lot more listening to constituents,She also has to think more quickly when she answers questions so that people do not get the idea that she is not absolutely sure of her convictions-she could take a lesson from Elizabeth Warren when it comes to definitive statements.Harris is competing in a large group , most of whom have a convincing argument about their priorities as a candidate for president.
4
Voter turnout -- especially minority groups voter turnout -- and appeal to those who voted for Trump half-heartedly in 2016 will be crucial in next year's election. At this (admittedly early) point, a Biden-Harris ticket seems a good bet to turn out a larger than usual minority groups vote and appeal to 2016-Trump-voters voters who now find him, at the very least, distasteful.
2
Although there’s a great deal to like about Sen. Harris, she really hasn’t presented a coherent plan on how to help working families. Ms. Harris would make an awesome AG, based on her professional history. Sen. Sanders won’t be the nominee.
Sen. Warren scares the Democratic leadership, and by that we mean big time donors, because she actually has a plan that includes, gulp! capitalism with FDR-like regulations. To be sure, the fact that not a single individual was punished for looting the economy into the biggest Recession since 1929, speaks volumes. And to assume that the public should accept passively that the ill gotten money can/will be used to finance the next elections is madness - Sen. Harris has had fund raisers among powerful (rich) Hollywood money types. Sen. Warren has not. That’s what the electorate is looking for.
A just released Pew survey found that globally, people are disenchanted with globalization and have strong doubts about democracy. Sen. Warren speaks to those people as well. She could be a catalyst to a global balance and better policies on trade, manufacturing and the environment. Just ask the French or British, though the sentiments are echoed in Asia, Africa & LatAm. Instead of snickering about Sen. Warren’s proposals, with crypto sexist attacks, let’s pay attention to her ideas and evaluate them on merit
It’s disconcerting how the
7
Harris/Buttigieg is my top choice, even though I'd like to put Buttigieg in the top spot, but that won't work this time around. I agree, Trump would have the hardest time of all running against her.
4
I too have wondered at the relative invisibility of Harris, although it looks like the American political media is heading down the same facile horse race, gaffe and scandal coverage by which it disgraced itself in 2016, and which oddly ended up legitimating Trump. I like many of the candidates, from Sanders to Andrew Wang (who has been erased as a gadfly I guess, but who says some really intelligent things about real issues needing to be addressed.) Buttigieg, Warren, Inslee and others are fine thoughtful people. Biden is a disaster, Beto is charming but there's too little there there, and he may be progressive for Texas but that's a very low bar. On the other hand, watching Harris in action is riviting. She has the poise, toughness and chops, as well as the positions, to make a really great candidate and president. Trump's calling her nasty just reveals he's really scared of her.
12
Thank you Mr. Bruni for bringing this issue forward.
Sexism is definitely on the ballot. Some politicians, pundits, people...and one more "p", I still can't refer to by the office, and who lives in the White House, are proud to make that claim either by word or deed. We must call them out. Those who may call Senator Warren strident are likely engaged in stereotypical projections of a "scolding mother" onto a very able woman. We know the US is well beyond the threshold of having a woman president because HRC got 3 million more votes than Trump.
Right now the process in which we are engaged leading up to the primaries is important and I am savoring this phase. It's important to the voters and the candidates. We are in the midst of the alchemy, transformation, of candidate to nominee. The voices and ideas of those who do not prevail are essential to the one who does.
The broader context of the truly perilous state of our democracy and planet may capture a sense of urgency to make this selection soon. I hope we can maintain a clear, strong, measured yet unflinching, approach to our choices.
Measured yet unflinching.
5
It's too early for this stuff, because real voters are paying no attention. But OK, here goes for fun...
There are two top tier candidates, Joe and Bernie, who are top tier for the simple reason that being VP and the runner up last time means ordinary voters already know their names. No way to dislodge that yet.
There is a middle tier, Kamala, Elizabeth, Pete and Beto, who can't poll high because voters don't know them (or care) yet. They have done well to be get into the middle and not get stuck in the bottom tier with no oxygen (hello Corey, Kirsten, Amy and all those white guy Congressmen). Bruni seems to ask why Kamala isn't in the top of this middle tier. Too early to say. We will need to see them all run this middle distance, see who brings rhetorical spark, smart tactics, legs in fundraising, an ability to court the media. Until we get to debates and Iowa, this is a conversation about small waves.
Kamala is doing fine. She's tough. She will be there after many others have fallen away.
5
Harris is extremely intelligent and is always the star in in committee hearings. Everything about her background is interesting and relevant. But I was very disappointed that she has accepted money from big donors with bad agendas, suggesting to me that she follows the path of bad Democratic party practices. (These people will own her and her policies as has been true of earlier Dems.)
Bernie is great but has not developed his promises well: single payer has not worked in Britain. German health care for all is done through not-so greedy insurance companies and works well. The idea of free college has to be developed further and not just be a one line rallying point. High school college guidance counseling and connection with colleges is key to getting students who have really worked in high school free tuition. You can't give it to everyone who wants a free ride!
Biden has surprised by doing what has to be done - focusing on working class. I had written him off but maybe shouldn't. Who does he get his money from (thus who owns him and his agenda)?
Yes, Elizabeth Warren is too strident, but has her finger on key things that are wrong with our financial system. She has to be a part of any Democratic administration and by the time we get closer to elections she need to be mentioned as their pick for very important cabinet position where she can play a role in reregulating.
Kirsten Gillebrand lost me with her horrible treatment of Al Franken.
16
@virginia Kaufmann: I have to say, single payer health has worked as well as anything else in Great Britain lately.
8
@virginia Kaufmann
"Everything about her background is interesting and relevant."
Really? Her background is a study in irrelevance if we are talking about running for and becoming the POTUS.
No experience at all with: economics, budgeting, globalization/trade, national security, governance, campaigning, foreign policy, technology, healthcare...what am I missing?
3
@John Bergstrom
No it hasn't.Check out all the srtucles on British websites about the funding problems, lack staff, doctors at NHS.
At 71 I am still carrying many of the chains of my High School years. Kamala Harris spent her High School years at possibly the least American High School in the universe Westmount High School at the height of Quebec's quiet revolution. I spent my High School years at perhaps the world's most American High School only a half hour bus ride away before Quebec's quiet revolution.
My High School wanted Manhattan and Kamala's High School wanted Paris and London.
I must go back to 1776 and Dr Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke to illustrate the fundamentally different world views. We have no Boswell and we have far too many dictionaries too accurately portray the gulf between real conservatives and neoliberals whose basic differences seem so superficial on the surface but on examination are light years apart.
My week in Washington screams the differences inside the GOP are far greater than any difference between the GOP and Democrats. America's biggest problem is a GOP finding common cause when the difference between limited government and corporate governance are universes apart. Neoliberal and conservative are not synonyms they are the opposite extremes being constantly engendered in the GOP.
I loved America as much as it is possible to love an insane friend or relative who threatens everything you hold dear.
2
I like Ms. Harris. However, I find it very frustrating that starting less than two years into her term as one of California’s senators she seems more focused on her presidential ambitions than on delivering for those of us who voted her in.
18
@Todd I guess you said the same about Obama - but I guess he didn't deliver for Illinois instead of California. I see your point but it ends there. Timing is everything as is experience. She's very smart and also warm and funny - like Obama. She's got to refine some of her ideas but she's got potential that some of the other other candidates clearly lack. I'm rooting for her. No offense but I think California can find a worthy replacement for Ms.Harris and that's not a slight on Ms. Harris. What can Senators with a "D" do in today's Senate. Not much with the do-nothing's on the other side of the isle. It never bothered me that Obama wasn't a long serving U.S. Senator. Take a good look at the longer serving senators - on both sides of the isle. Seems to me if you stay too long you become as calcified as Grassley and ugly as McConnell. Obama took the leap at the right time and I think the same holds true for Kamala Harris.
2
Given that there is no perfect candidate and we currently have the most imperfect person in the White House, Harris makes sense as a foil to Trump, especially if she lays out progressive policy. Sure I'd like a better record on prison reform. However her intellect and prosecutors training in questioning Barr and Kavanaugh convince me she is best suited to go head to head with Trump, and win. Formidable.
9
Harris is definitely expert at cross examination. She has an interesting story. She’s highly intelligent. But is that enough? It’s telling that she often is too calculating, stalling for time rather than staking a position.
I appreciate Senator Warren. I do think she has the majority of Americans’ well being and interests in mind with her policy proposals. Yet, let’s not be naive: policies alone don’t win elections. Trump seems to have her number, and it will be telling if she can connect with the voters needed to oust him.
I’m surprised Seth Moulton hasn’t been discussed more. A veteran with serious commendations. Smart. Sincere. Not afraid to challenge establishment. Deep love of country and service. Adhere’s to high ethical standards. The anti-Trump in every category.
Moulton and Warren would be a good team.
1
@John: I'm afraid some people would have a problem with two candidates both from Massachusetts. Can't imagine why, but there it is. I guess Warren could emphasize her Oklahoma roots, but, no, this is going to be hard enough as it is. Seth is a great guy, but, not enough time in politics. So far his only governmental adventure was challenging Nancy Pelosi, and that worked out OK, no harm done, but he's got to chalk up an accomplishment or two at this point. Or, maybe Harris' VP. Does the VP have to have been one of the primary contenders? I'm not sure.
I find myself rooting hard for Kamala every time she holds forth, only to be disappointed (the Barr hearing representing a major exception). Her borderline whiney tone (sorry but true) and inability to deliver crisp points and clear opinions (always too many words and qualifiers) are frustrating. During hearings she is concise, merciless-in-a-good-way and present. In other venues, she seems to be thinking too hard and sort of drifting. All of this could be fixed with some practice. I hope she will put the time in. Amy Klobuchar had an annoying, halting cadence early-on and has since miraculously fixed it.
105
@CS No one ever mentions, the tone, cadence or anything like these adjectives with regard to male candidates. Bernie SHOUTS. Let’s stop denigrating female candidates. Period.
58
@CS Ms. Harris is a career lawyer and I can see it in her. You may have noticed it in HRC as well: "Why are you asking me this question?" comes off as dismissive and arrogant but in her mind she's thinking, "Do you really think I have time for this or that I haven't thought it through."
6
@Lmj I am a woman and will comment on tone and effective (or derailing) communications in many forms and regardless of gender:
Kamala: Whiney/slurry, wordy, equivocating
Bernie: one-dimensional, geezer-y, tedious, shout-over-substance
Warren: Quavering, pleading but clear and on point (often, but not always)
Beto: Flailing, annoying, tedious, bro
Etc. Tedious communicators of all stripes will not win.
16
You answered your own question in this paragraph - Both are white male:
"And yet she has not yet received the sort of gushing star treatment from the media that Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg, two handsome and clean-cut Ivy League grads"
6
Trump would kill her and tell me how she captures the voters who deserted HRC in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
6
@Geogman
She has potential to bring out the voters in Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh -- that HRC didn't.
She needs to show up in these states -- and have a message that resonants with voters in these states, just as Obama's message did.
If farmers in Wisconsin can't sell their soybeans to China, they won't be Trump fans any longer.
@Geogman: Trump would do his insults and rants, and she would be aggressive and precise. She captures voters with fact-based economic policies, and personal decency. And he goes after them with his crazy demagoguery. We've learned that demagoguery is amazingly effective, and this time he had the power to create real crises at will, as well as all the resources of the Republican donor base, and of course the Russians will do what they can. And the economy may still be pretty good. This will probably be very close, no matter who we chose to run against him.
@efish134
I don't believe that African-Americans feel any kinship toward her, at least nothing strong and deep enough to make a big difference against Trump in 2020.
3
No mention of the fact that Harris as AG of California did not choose to prosecute Steve Mnuchin on 2013 violations by One West bank. Is this not relevant?
There are horror stories of One West foreclosures in California, especially among poor blacks.
In 2016 Harris took contributions from Mnuchin!
One West just settled an $89 million law settlement.
Mr Bruni was is none of this information in your opinion piece?
50
@Sharon: The choice of whether to prosecute or not is pretty technical. If her choice in 2013 reflects some consistent attitude, it might be relevant, but it also might just demonstrate an objective impartiality. Sort of a two edged sword: the Republicans couldn't attack her for having failed to prosecute their Treasury Secretary. Democrats might if it was part of a consistent pattern, and not just the details of a specific case. Some Democrats might anyway.
1
@Sharon
"In 2016 Harris took contributions from Mnuchin! "
Mnuchin is small beer and a red herring. The big fish is the big One West investor who helped out with a lot more than the relatively piddly $2000 Mnuchin donated to her campaign.
4
Any time I see the word "strident" in an article about a woman politician, the author of that article immediately loses all credibility for me.
7
"As for Warren,.." Yes Frank, that proud "wonk" is the candidate many voters crave, regardless of your relegation of her to the second tier.
At the moment, I'm undecided between her & Bernie. Her star is rising, even if you don't include her in that grouping inspiring all the gushing.
21
@Apple Jack: In this case it isn't Bruni putting anyone in one tier or another: he's looking at the numbers. I'd love to see more voters take a look at Warren's policy proposals, and at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau she brought into being, but realistically, Biden and Sanders have a lot of supporters. Nothing wrong with that, it's early yet.
1
Harris would take Trump to the cleaners. I’d pay Broadway theater ticket prices to see it.
Obama was seen by a lot of Republicans as “uppity.” Hillary’s Midwestern accent was labeled “shrill,” especially when she stated something forcefully. Warren is called “preachy” and “wonky.” On and on.
Let’s try to listen to their words and stated policy. Everyone has a conversational style. That shouldn’t take the focus off what they say they want to do for our country. I’m liking Harris. And ps, no matter who ends up being the Democratic candidate, at least none of them are ignorant, mentally ill or possibly demented.
21
@Kathryn Re: "Let’s try to listen to their words and stated policy."
Excellent idea - if one sincerely cherishes democracy.
However, the last thing that the powerful interests who really control this country want is the public getting involved in policy. That's why the corporate media focuses on extraneous issues, eg., "what candidate would you feel comfortable having a beer with?", identity politics, the preoccupation with social issues to the exclusion of economic issues.
8
I like Kamala a lot. I could vote for her. Kamala is a smart and tough woman. She would do a good job. She is serious, she's not on a whirlwind tour filming her awesome dentist trips. Please don't start suggesting that her mixed race heritage compells me to vote for her though, then you lose me.
4
I agree the only reason to support Ms. Harris for President is that she happens to be female and of mixed non-white ancestry.
4
Wow so much to unpack in a single column.
To me, Harris comes across a bit like Hilary: jumping on issues without considerable thought (Smollett) or scared to take a bold stand until the polls are in (impeachment).
Plus this column plays right into identity politics that churn the stomach of middle of the road voters. If she thinks black voters in the Midwest will carry her day then she is toast. And Bruni’s writing doesn’t help.
7
@MB
How do you know that black voters in the Midwest won’t carry her to victory? What makes you so sure? Any facts? A third of black Obama voters did not vote in the 2016 elections. Black women are probably the Democrats’ most powerful voting block and dare I bet they will support Kamala.
May be your stomach is churned by the mention of a highly interesting, diverse ethnic background. Mine skips a happy beat - I love Kamala’s sort of American identity- it’s what makes America exciting -
and where is the “politics” in that?
Dear Ms. Harris,
This is in hindsight, but before running for the presidency at least get one Senate term under your belt, champion some notable legislation and serve in some leadership capacity. What makes you qualified? It's Biden's race to lose.
11
I assume this comment applies to Beto and Mayor Pete as well? She certainly is more qualified (in my book) than Beto. Our current President was a reality TV star and failed businessman. He got elected. She, on the other hand, is told to wait until she has more experience.
Seems like if you are a white male, you probably get an extra 5 points because people think you are more electable.
32
On your question re: her qualifications for POTUS, Kamala Harris was elected by CA voters to serve as the state’s chief law enforcement officer and run a state agency of 4,500, the Department of Justice, for six years; this included an annual budget of ~three quarters of a billion dollars. This job followed her seven years of serving as the District Attorney of San Francisco.
Seems like that may have imparted some usable work experience, in addition to her current role as one of two CA Senators representing the largest state in the U.S. with a population of 39.56 million in 2018.
40
@DKSF
Totally agree with you on Beto and Mayor Pete. IMO, Senator Harris has a lot of potential, but to get her party's nomination and to win the general a little more experience would be helpful.
Harris needs to get her strategy straight. Her campaign has been characterized by missteps; her Kavanaugh performance was a disaster and left the strong impression she was only there to promote herself. She managed to infuriate her distinguished Jamaican father, a retired Stanford economics professor, by suggesting that her Jamaican heritage necessitated that she'd smoke weed and listened to rap.
Worse, she reacts badly to criticism. Her proprietorial zeal would impress a conservative, and she initially resisted angrily a proposed DNA test of a man she'd convicted of multiple murders. After Kristof highlighted the issue in this paper, she now feels "terribly" about it.
She's pure ambition, little sympathy outside those narrow constituencies she can identify with - educated, successful non-white professional women.
Through her mother, a distinguished Indian American, she belongs to the highest-earning, most successful ethnic group in the US, outperforming, for example, white Americans dramatically and black Americans enormously. So far, she has shown herself unable to escape the stereotype of that background: hyper-competitive, hyper-achieving, hyper-ambitious, always hungry for more, and in the process disagreeably self-involved.
That might be what we'd accept in our heart surgeon or even a visionary business leader (think Steve Jobs), but surely not what we want in our President. Pete Buttigieg is infinitely more empathetic, as are most other Democratic hopefuls.
2
I would love to see the debate between Senator Kamala "Kasowitz" Harris and President Trump when she goes into her prosecutor mode of questioning. Hopefully it is not as ineffective as questioning AG Barr, nor as a big buildup with Judge Kavanaugh but ended like a balloon deflating badly.
Timing is everything at this stage of the nominating process. You don’t want to burn yourself out or become too familiar. You won’t last. Right now Beto is lying low. He has a history of going off alone on those cross country treks. Supposedly he uses this down time to become familiar with the people and the lay of the land. Who knows he might even be developing some specific policies. But the tactic of lying low and then coming out of hiding is a good one because he can benefit from all the mistakes his rivals make and emerge as a fresh face. I also have to add he has a lot of female fans who would date him anytime. They don’t really care that much about policy.
I think Harris is the best bet to beat Trump. Maybe with Mayor Pete as VP.
5
So Warren is strident? At least you didn't call her "shrill."
Bernie's way more strident. He's gruff and, to me, not likable in the way that Trump's a bully, which makes him likable to his constituents. Perhaps Bernie's lack of likability gives him street cred that the ladies just don't earn, not matter how much better they are.
I don't know why the media keeps putting the young lads on magazine covers. Are the writers all male? Men are enamored of other young men doing important things or, in the repubs case, playing the cretin frat boy.
Would we only get past that desire to vote for someone because they make us feel good, we may elect a really great president who sometimes wears the pants, and sometimes doesn't.
6
Kamala Harris interests me and I hope the media starts to cover her more. I think she could be a very strong candidate.
6
I can see Harris pushing Trump's buttons. That debate would be fun to watch.
5
Her lack of publicity relative to Beto and Pete says more about the Times and the rest of the MSM than it does about her. The media always wants a horse race even with two guys who have never done much.
5
It is a shame that we can't get a few of our professional, mature and experienced retired ambassadors to run for the presidency. As it is most candidates talk about domestic issues, not that is anything wrong with that, only to find much of their presidency is consumed with foreign policy issues for which many of them are totally unprepared.
5
She needs to pick a fight with Sanders
"...much of the “electability” chatter of the last few weeks pivots explicitly or implicitly on the assumption that she and Warren would be at a disadvantage in the Rust Belt because white male voters would be less open to them than to Biden or Sanders."
Um...where does this non-sense come from?
Check the record
A white man has not won the popular vote for president since all the way back in 2004
4
As a former professor of banking and credit law at Harvard, she has shown us, time and again, she is no pushover when Wall Street banking executives try to tell her, "This is proabably all too complicated for you to understand." Then, Liz replies to the effect of, "Oh, try me. I think I know this stuff pretty well."
Hence, there reason Wall Street and their investor class won't endorse Liz Warren is because she "knows where the bodies are buried" on Wall Street. She knows how they play their games of privatizing their gains while socializing their losses. Remember when Geithner and other economic advisors in the new Obama White House decided we should bail out the banks? The following January, they announced they, the banks, were going to pay out billions in executive bonuses! Little wonder then, Liz does not expect donations to pour in from Wall Street tycoons.
Sen. Harris showed her cred when she questioned AG Barr about whether or not he was asked, by anyone, to investigate the investigators. He hemmed and hawed attempting to internalize what he hoped would sound like an honest answer. Sen. Harris had Barr on the ropes because she is smarter than anyone — ANYONE — at the White House.
With the crowded field of primary candidates, most unknown outside their districts and states, the Democrats MUST select a candidate who can end this madness of King Donald.
10
Frank needs to learn a bit more about just how she climbed the political ladder in San Francisco and California. Suffice to say that it was in a way that a male could not.
Personally, I find her aggressive and attacking manner of questioning people like Jeff Sessions and William Barr to be abrasive and disrespectful. Even though we may not like certain other people, that is no reason to be disrespectful of them.
Personably, I find Amy Klobuchar to be a better and more qualified candidate, without the character issues that Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren bring to the table.
5
@Michael - What, are you afraid to come right out to sling the dirt that you want us to understand by some kind of polite euphemism? And, second, I saw nothing disrespectful AT ALL in her questioning of that liar and disgusting shill for the president, William Barr. In fact, if anything, she was far too polite to him.
I believe her strength will be that she's difficult to attack. Trump can go after someone who is gay, or like Warren, devoid of charisma. Even Carly Fiorna's face was a Trump target. But what of Kamala Harris? Don't vote for her because she's black and a woman? I not sure even Trump can pull that off.
3
Its because she's a prosecutor, and Democrats don't vote for prosecutors.
1
Having canvassed in Ohio for Kerry, Obama and Clinton, I believe Harris has the best chance of generating excitement among suburban women and racial minorities in the Midwest, who have the power to dump Trump. The Democratic party needs to stop pandering to the dwindling ranks of "undecided," older, white, male voters.
233
@Marie
Um...I believe one of the problems the Democratic Party has/had was their failed/believability "pandering" to those "ranks of "undecided," older, white, male voters".
They lost the "Blue Collar" vote. That used to be a given for the D party.
It also deigns the sheer number of those, as described voters. To even win back 10% would have been enough for HRC to win.
Yes, we need to generate "excitement among suburban women and racial minorities in the Midwest."
So must we renew our pact with The Workers of our country. Black, white, male, female...ALL WORKERS.
We can do both!
What the Dem. Party USED to be. NOT a Right leaning, corp. arm of the establishment.
22
I worked in a service-based industry close to San Francisco Civic Center at the same time as Kamala Harris was based in the city. I learned that she - and aides acting on her behalf - had no respect for the “little people”. The mismatch between her personal behavior and public persona means I won’t be voting for her.
15
@Cook
I worked in a service-based industry in NYC many moons ago, and i had the same issue with the now-martyred Al Franken, who had no respect for the "little people". I couldn't seem to work up any tears when he got Gillibranded. I would have never voted for him.
2
@Cook - and what - you’d vote for Trump? Whoever the Democratic candidate is, it’s a no-brainer that they’re preferable to four more years of the Groper-in-Chief.
2
Thinking about it a little more in follow-up to my earlier post, her years as California AG left such a bitter taste that of all the 20 or more candidates running for the Democratic nomination, she is the one I would be LEAST likely to ever vote for. (Then again, I work as a deputy public defender here in California, and I have observed the callousness and cynical opportunism of Harris up close. She does not fool me in the least.)
26
i certainly like to believe that trump's tweet tossing of biden is a canard and feint to lure democrats into a bad choice.
for me -- a septuagenarian who has seen a passel of politicos run the hustings -- biden is a hack, beto is a boy, buttigeig is a lightweight and gillibrand a cutey careerist.
warren or harris would get my vote in a moment.
i've seen reagan bully, mcgovern cave, nixon sweat and agnew bluster. i've seen senate hearings since the '60s. i've heard the same old promises made over and over to an electorate with terminal amnesia.
character wins out. it's not a tactical issue. moments arise that etch and blanch the superficialities and show the character underneath. and as heraclitus said: character is destiny.
17
Our culture teaches us to call women 'strident' and men 'forceful.' Frank was simply telling us what our culture teaches us.
I don't think of Elizabeth Warren as 'strident,' but her voice quavers when she's wound up in righteous indignation (there's plenty to be indignant about these days.) FTR, I was a voice major in undergraduate school and I've spent a career listening and speaking to others in public and professional settings.
If it's any consolation to Elizabeth Warren's fans, I've heard plenty of anti-gay dog whistles inquiring whether Pete Buttigieg is 'forceful' enough.
Quiet, friendly, logical persuasion is its own forcefulness.
2
I just love Sen. Harris’s tenacity. I’m sure in her rise to her position she never took any guff from anyone. She is smart, for sure. She is focused, definitely. She expresses herself directly.
I’d vote for her right now. Time will tell how she holds up under the pressure of running. But if she isn’t the candidate in the end, I’m sure there are a whole bunch of high level positions for which she is definitely qualified. And if she decides on the Senate, then, we’ll have one more strong legislator on the side of democracy.
8
She does have a natural and genuine presence that other politicians only wish they had.
On the debate stage she will be a force not to be trifled with.
If she gets to the debate stage with Trump, she can do damage, and maybe enough.
Fact based, pay per view type fireworks, from one side only, hers.
4
Biden and Harris would make the strongest ticket. She is whip smart and can deliver punches that Biden is just not built to throw. And she can clean up the gaff messages that Biden just can't avoid.
I"d love to see her debate Trump instead of Biden, who's likely to come off looking wounded and hurt rather than a clever and incisive warrior who's not afraid to punch hard.
With so much time left, I honestly believe she even has a chance to lead the ticket with Buttigeig as VP as an alternative.
5
Harris will never be my candidate. Her unethical and perhaps illegal efforts to keep exculpatory evidence out of cases she prosecuted in California disqualifies her in any situation where a fair hearing of evidence or data is required.
16
@Jack McDonald Whom did you vote for in the last election?
2
Yeah, candidates can't be strident or too timid. They have to be clean-cut and handsome. They must state their positions firmly. They must be authentic. Have a message that 'resonates' with people. It's a plus if they are smart and funny.
Yeah, just like that thing currently in the White House.
10
Harris easily outshines Beto. It’s a closer call with Mayor Pete. who is a unique talent. ... She hurt herself with the bombshell that wasn’t during her questioning of Kavanaugh. But she came back in a big way when she dissected Barr and revealed the fact that he is making no effort to do his actual job. She certainly deserves a Vanity Fair cover. Does she deserve the presidency? The jury is still out, but she is in the running.
176
@Mike Collins
Admirer your hesitation Mike. Kamala does not have it and won't make it.
2
@Mike Collins What exactly is Mayor Pete's unique talent?
A lot can happen, but my early money is on Harris-Buttegeig, in that order.
10
@Michael Jacques that could work, but my preference would be Warren-Buttegeig. Warren seems to have so much integrity, and is so smart. She's also genuine, and has a sense of humor. She is everything that Trump is not.
7
After her years as AG of California it is difficult to overstate how much most of us liberals in California have learned to distrust her. It seems her bottom line has always been self promotion and opportunism.
67
I'm a Bay Area resident who is open to Ms. Harris' candidacy, but she turned me off when she was asked about Sanders' idiotic statement that the Boston Marathon bomber should be allowed to vote and Ms. Harris answered, "That's a conversation we need to have."
4
@Carol
70 Civil Rights groups and over 30 countries agree with Sanders; Ms. Harris is right, we DO need to have this conversation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/opinion/let-prisoners-vote.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
2
Did you, in the first paragraph, use the word “strident” to describe Elizabeth Warren? Did you write this in 2019 or some decades ago? I’m not even reading past that sentence.
After the 2016 election, I would have hoped that people — political journalists and columnists, especially — would have woke up to their sexism.
36
Here's a growing mystery with Senator Harris: what exactly is the rationale for her candidacy? Many observers have noted that she has not staked out any policy positions which would distinguish her from any other candidate on the Democratic side. But in addition to that, the political rationale for her candidacy seems to be lacking. A recent poll indicated that Biden led the Democratic field, and that Senator Harris didn't even place in the top 3, among African-American women specifically. Not only that, but CA's other Senator, Diane Feinstein, has already endorsed Biden over her.
If there's nothing that makes her stand out on policy, if she can't poll well even with African-American women, and if she can't even get the endorsement of the other Senator from her own state, then why exactly is she running? Maybe she expeects the debates to kick-start her campaign, and maybe she expects Biden to falter. But if we're still wondering about the rationale for her campaign by, say, late-summer, then I think she should take that as a sign that it's time to mothball her campaign and focus on the Senate.
16
The media has a tendency to emphasize the candidates that they, the media, assume will draw more attention to the media themselves (the media likes money, and viewers are their money). The media wants viewers and will do anything to get viewers, even if it means to call the attention to candidates that are not the best.
During the 2016 campaign for example, the media was obsessed with Trump. We need to face the fact that it was not the Russians that elected Trump, but in fact it was the American media.
Hopefully this time the media will not make the terrible mistake to "elect" a wrong candidate again.
6
Is there any end to the NYT's and liberals' obsession with race and gender? Predictably, Bruni views Harris' sex and ethnicity as somehow qualifying for the position of President of the United State, a job, I should think, in which aptitude ought to be a factor considered in filling. And equally predictably, Bruni attributes Harris' failure to capture every magazine cover (in a field of 20 candidates) to sexism and racism.
This perfectly captures the reason fair-minded and logical Americans have abandoned the Democratic Party and discontinued reading (or, in my case, taking seriously) the NYT.
14
@Ed Kiernan "This perfectly captures the reason fair-minded and logical Americans have abandoned the Democratic Party and discontinued reading (or, in my case, taking seriously) the NYT."
This absolutist and unfounded sentence is neither fair-minded or logical.
Harris checks off many boxes to form the coalition necessary to defeat Trump. She also seems like one of the few top tier candidates who could walk the line between bold progressive aspirations and broader centrist appeal (partly because she has wisely left herself room to pivot on some issues--which is a realistic and necessary thing to do if we anti-Trumpists want to, uh, actually win a general election).
Sanders' heart is in the right place, but I can't see a democratic socialist winning when the economy is soaring: many of his ideas will seem farfetched and radical if the economy stays strong. His time to win was probably the last election, when the effects of the Recession were still lingering.
Biden might be the centrist ringer, but he very much comes across as a septuagenarian who decided to run a marathon but is only in shape for a 5k.
Trump's challenger will have to be a relentless prosecutor who is not easily distracted or fatigued: that person is Kamala Harris.
4
So what do we want, or better yet, what do we need, in a president (and what is needed for someone to get elected)?
It's sort of like trying to figure out what leads to someone becoming a terrorist. There is not essential qualities. But that doesn't mean we are helpless.
It's not brains, or lack of them.
It's not a disadvantaged upbringing, or a privileged one.
It's not experience, or lack of it.
It's not good looks, or lack of it.
It's not charm, or lack of it.
It's not who you would want to have a beer with.
So listing these and/or constructing Venn diagrams based on them will not give us the answer.
There is a lot of chance and luck -- what is happening in the world and when, who captured our attention at the right time.
But this does not leave us clueless when deciding on a candidate.
The rational thing for each of us is to decide on the basis of policies and abilities and let the chips fall where they may. There is only so much we can control or influence. But if we elect good people to Congress and governorships, and other offices, and support organizations working for good causes, and show that we are watching, we will be doing all we can, and maybe even enough. Trying to read tea leaves and predicting what our neighbors are going to do is mostly a waste of energy and time.
2
I agree that Harris is enigmatic so far. When she is sitting in her Senate committee seat, grilling Kavanaugh or Barr, she’s terrific — head and shoulders above her colleagues, especially Cory Booker, who sits next to her. On the campaign trail, it’s a completely different person. Maybe she’s more qualified to be a prosecutor or fact-finding senator than a leader who can bring the country along with her? Maybe she just doesn’t like repeating the same lines over and over — something a lot of us can’t do because it sounds so uninteresting in our heads — but which is part and parcel of campaigning, as Bernie Sanders has grasped.
I’m also beginning to think that the DNA test fiasco is receding in the mirror as we move farther into the primary season, and that Warren can build on her momentum as a candidate with something (actually a lot) to say. Rest assured that if she makes it past the convention, Trump will remind us. It also doesn’t help to have columnists talking about how ‘shrill’ she sounds.
As for Sanders, I don’t know what Mr Bruni means when he says, “Sanders has show voters something more and more varied than he did in 2016, lest his bid seem a tired, one-note rerun, and it’s unclear that he has that in him.” Is that “has to show...,” or “has shown voters...”? Proofreader, please?
7
The media has to focus momentarily on each new guy/gal entering the Democratic Party primary fray. Harris was smart to announce early. She now just needs to pace herself and do well on the trail and in the debates. If she doesn't emerge as the nominee, I think she would be a very good choice for VP. Regardless of who comes out on top, the Democratic ticket beats the Republican ticket based on decency alone.
4
"Voters find Warren strident." What is the source for this? Is there one or is it surmise based on what the writer thinks? I haven't seen any voter quoted calling her that, or any poll referenced that showed voters think that.
Must be great to have a seat where you can toss of something you decide must be fact and watch it then be treated as fact.
6
@Bear Alas, there are many who find her manner strident. I myself know many people who have expressed this reaction to her style. Of course this isn't something a person can change and some read it only as passionate conviction. On the whole, though, it isn't a strength, which is regrettable because she has tremendous positive attributes.
2
@Bear; I find Warren strident.
Now you have your quote. She is a meticulous candidate and principled as well. She's smart and knows the facts. But she can't resist sometimes rubbing the noses of counterparts in their own ignorance. She no longer has to prove she's the smartest person in the room. A little homespun humor would help her immensely. Stand above the fray, don't be the fray. Get the headlines without them being about manners.
2
This is the second op-ed I’ve read in a major news outlet that directly cites Harris’ ethnicity and gender as a qualification for office. If that seems like a uncharitable reading, give the article a second look. It could not be spelled out more clearly. Demographics = qualifications.
Demographic diversity in leadership is a valuable goal in and of itself. It’s hard to fault anyone for getting caught up in the symbolism of a black women of color in office—particularly people who share one or two of those identities.
However, Harris’ gender and race should not be confused as a sign that she will be willing or able to enact of a progressive agenda. History is littered with examples of leaders using their identity-based appeal to appease their consitituents and forego fighting for their politically inconvenient interests. As progressives, I fear that we risk confusing symbolism in the highest level of society for real change in the lower ones (where most of us spend our time). And that by doing so that we abdicate our role of holding our chosen leaders accountable.
It should also be noted that this type of reasoning is exactly the type of brazen identity politics that the right is so often accusing us of, and that we are so often claiming is brought up in bad faith. Let’s try to remember that what’s said in bad faith isn’t necessarily wrong.
17
@Sam I'm guessing you're a white guy, because this reasoning says that the only thing about her ethnicity that she has to offer is phenotype. It's certainly true that politicians have ridden into office on identity, then turned their backs on their 'own' communities. But to reduce the value of her ethnicity in her world view is to play into the idea that "identity politics" only happen when non-white people talk about identity. Republicans are the true hardcore identity politics players: it's just that their identity is that of white supremacy, and we live under a legal architecture that has--for the vast majority of its existence--been a white supremacist state. It's the white male perspective that has a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of ethnicity as a bad thing, totally unaware that whites play their identity/race card hardest.
2
Exactly, it’s as if playing up her race/ethnicity is intentionally turning away other voters....very sad.
3
@Jeremy apparently both you and @MB are poor readers. Or else very motivated processors of information.
Nowhere in my comment do I say that Harris’s demographics are a) all she has to offer or b) that they are a bad thing.
My critique was against a line of reasoning in political media that offers those demographics as a means of evaluating candidates and their platforms. But if you didn’t understand that, then maybe you won’t this time either. Either that or the distinction escapes you.
2
Forget about Time and Vanity Fair. What about Frank Bruni not giving attention to Amy Klobuchar?
4
Mr. Bruni,
You say that you think Trump would be more flummoxed by Harris than by other candidates in the general. I am not so sure.
I think the best way to beat Trump, is to ignore his incessant attacks and stupidity. Once you engage with him, you have lost.
I have troubles picturing Harris ignoring Trump. She thrives on the attack. I can't picture her holding back. I think some other candidates (namely Biden and Warren) would have the same problem.
I think this is a strength of Beto and Buttigieg. They understand that they should more or less stand clear of Trump and focus on running a positive campaign.
I think a funny candidate could also do well against Trump. He seems not to understand humor. I think he would have looked small and diminished on a debate stage with someone like Al Franken (who apparently does not have the greatest judgment and is thus not running) . Unfortunately, we don't have any candidates like that.
I am not sure about his policies, but I think Buttigieg would probably do the best against Trump on the debate stage. No one can deny that he is confident, articulate, and quick on his feet. I also don't imagine it would go so well if Trump attacked him, because he could always hit back with the fact that he is a veteran whereas Trump is a draft dodger (a weak spot for Trump among Republican voters).
I also think Pete would do well with religious voters, especially in the Midwest. Not sure how he would do with minorities, though.
9
Why do you categorize voters by race?
11
Perhaps, just perhaps, Kamal Harris's lack of appeal is because she's a horrible candidate whose policy positions, when she offers one, is no well received. Not to mention the lack of experience. It's racist and demeaning to Americans to suggest whites would not vote for her because she is of color.
5
This article takes a People’s Magazine approach. Lots of focus on her style, her ethnicity and how she plays with this or that faction. I don’t see how Bruni is showing her respect with this kind of fluffy reportage.
9
After the so called allure of President Fraud, you’re surprised?
How do you solve a problem like Kamala?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Kamala?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!
Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to understand
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say
How do you keep a wave upon the sand
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Kamala?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
5
I was super excited about Harris after listening to her announcement speech and donated right away.
However, besides the fact that she never thanked me or followed up (which led me to assume her focus is on bigger doners), I have since then found her completely wishy-washy except when she's on the prosecuting stand...but those tactics are a dime a dozen.
When she's speaking on her feet she doesn't sound authentic or firm on any stances and I'd feel that way whatever her gender or race.
5
Having observed her career trajectory since she was a DA in our County: Harris WORSHIPS the wealthy and powerful. She's just another limousine liberal in the mold of the Clintons. She's as phony as a three dollar bill but has been brilliantly strategic in her relationships and in gaining access to power and money. My guess is that Biden will select her as his running mate...Count on the Dems to screw up any election.
25
She hasn't offered any compelling reason for the public to get excited about her candidacy. When you posit "why her?", all you could come up with was that her father is Jamaican and her mother is Indian. Although the NYT may be driven by such an identify-politics narrative, many of the rest of us are not. If you can't give a reason to support her other than her bloodline, then maybe there's just nothing there.
225
@Citizen I think it's more of a comparison of her with others. Why others? Has Biden demonstrated something incredible? Has O'Rourke? What have those 2 done specifically to make the media fall in love with them?
11
@Andrew
O'Rourke was a flash in the pan. Nobody is talking about him as a serious contender.
Biden has 40% of the vote in the polls and is the former VP - not a good comparison for Harris if you're complaining that they should be treated the same.
13
@Citizen Beto ran an intense campaign against a major Repbublican opponent and almost one. It was significant that Beto ran a progressive campaign in a red state. In that campaign, he declared clear support for several progressive positions. Harris has never been tested by a similar campaign. Her positions on similar issues are far less clear. Her credentials as a Progressive are suspect, at best.
4
An important metric: who is the person who is most interesting to listen to? Not Harris. It used to be Bernie, now it's Mayor Pete.
5
“she and Warren would be at a disadvantage in the Rust Belt because white male voters would be less open to them than to Biden or Sanders”, boy I’m tired of this cliche endlessly repeated by the chattering class. Please come here and ask us! Keeping in mind that I only speak for myself, this older blue collar white male liberal is not only open but enthusiastically supporting the women running for the Democratic nomination. I don’t want Sanders who’s grumpy and strident, don’t want Biden who’s compromised by his past and excessive accommodation of the opposition. Nope, don’t want the old white guys, not one bit. Oh & the preference of flashy guys like that empty suit Beto over Harris is reflective of the same bias that has undermined women for far too long. Unlike Beto et:al, Warren can handle an aggressive jerk like Trump without the chest thumping that Biden or Sanders will bring to the stage. Oh & I like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg as Vice President. Yeah a working class guy wants a woman President and a gay male Vice President, ain’t that a hoot.
159
@John Chastain: Good for you, I so hope you are indicative of others in Michigan! We need real change in this country. Biden? That's not change. It may be stability and maybe that is what we truly need. But I so hope it's someone else (a woman in top spot and Mayor Pete) on the ticket.
9
@John Chastain Oh man, we on the West and East Coast were still hoping that the mid West would stay the stronghold to "Make America White Again"! Alas, even the "heart of the rust belt" has been liberal infested. We will have to emigrate to Hungary now.
1
@John Chastain Thank you! Warren with Buttigieg is also my choice. I'm sick and tired of reading how Elizabeth Warren is too strident and needs to hire someone to help her with her wardrobe. She could clean up a lot of Trump's messes in short order... or at least faster than anyone else could.
3
Mr Bruni,
Kamala Harris a a compelling candidate, but her record as AG in California has a lot of criminal justice advocates skeptical of her, especially in the African American community. You forgot to mention that in this endorsement.
I'd be happy to see her as the nominee, but would prefer Warren, whom you called ”strident” in this column..a sexist descriptor as it is hardly ever applied to men. Bernie Sanders is as strident as Elizabeth Warren, or more.
Our times demand a strident tone from politicians. Kamala Harris might elevate her candidacy by becoming a student defender of the Constitution, minority rights and real criminal justice reform.
Respectfully yours,
Jennifer Brokaw
6
So why isn't this more of a background piece, rather than wondering why she hasn't been on magazine covers. She is in the top 4 in a crowded race and has some appeal ..
Not one quote ?
6
Harris as California’s AG, (as reported in the NYT) refused to support the release of California inmates wrongfully convicted and also declined to prosecute police and prosecutorial misconduct cases.
Isn’t the pursuit justice the point, her job and duty?
8
Please refer to the excellent article by Nicholas Kristoff (New York Times) about California inmate Kevin Cooper.
3
Yes, Ms. Harris is a political opportunist but she also has a lot of baggage because of her mentor, Willie Brown, California's Democratic party mover and shaker. Ms. Harris had an extramarital affair with Mr. Brown who is nearly 30 years her senior. Ms. Harris' supporters will say that Mr. Brown was "separated" from his wife during that time but legally, he was still married. So one has to wonder about Ms. Harris's judgment. It's obvious that her political ambitions are greater than her ability to rationalize.
7
As another comment said the perfect ticket for ensuring victory is Biden/Harris, a perfect buffet, White/Male/Experienced/Working Class/Folksy with Multiracial/Female/Coastal/Super Sharp. I must say unlike most Bruni pieces this is kind of like Seinfeld an article about nothing, a meandering commentary with little insight. What I take away from it is that the most "electable candidates" are more moderate who don't take strong positions like Bernie and Warren. Beto and Pete, are all personality at least for now. The best overall candidate IMHO is Corey Booker.
1
In evaluating Ms Harris' candidacy, Frank Bruni brings the NYT's favorite (and increasingly shopworn) framework...'here is the first X to do Y '
(We should dutifully be enthralled).
And he notes "Her campaign is a test not only of her mettle but of our biases and receptiveness." (which of course can be said about any candidate).
Not much there.
Ms Harris, of course, follows the progressive positions. So, she'll continue to receive complimentary coverage.
4
I don’t understand why you refer to Senator Harris as black American.
As you point out she is half Indian and half Jamaican (and remember Alexander Hamilton was from Jamaica).
4
FWIW, Hamilton was from the island of Nevis.
1
Ms Harris is correct in moderating her image. She is running for president and not for the Bruni wing of the democratic party.
2
"And yet she has not yet received the sort of gushing star treatment from the media that Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg...have: a discrepancy that, I think, says as much about us..."
Exactly: why are O'Rourke and Buttigier EVEN IN the race??
4
"[M]uch of the 'electability' chatter of the last few weeks pivots explicitly or implicitly on the assumption that she and Warren would be at a disadvantage in the Rust Belt because white male voters would be less open to them than to Biden or Sanders." Your clear implication is that white male Rust Belt voters are less likely to vote for Harris and Warren because of racial and gender bias. That's a bold claim, and you really need to provide at least some evidence for it. The one CNN article you link to as evidence not only says nothing even remotely like that, it actually seems to directly contradict your claim. For example, the article states: "In 1996, when President Bill Clinton overwhelmingly won re-election, he only received 36% of the votes of white male college graduates, according to ANES. Hillary Clinton lost her race in 2016 but won 43% of them." And there's this: "successful national Democrats perform well with white men, and that includes Barack Obama, whose strength among white men in the Rust Belt helped fuel his White House victories in 2008 and 2012."
NYT editorial page fact checkers: please do your jobs.
2
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it - she's a black female. Two facts which are completely and totally irrelevant. The Times' retrospective on her career (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/us/kamala-harris-progressive-prosecutor.html) revealed an opportunistic classic politician who, every time an important or controversial decision came up, either tried to avoid having to make it or avoid the issue altogether. And the reason is obvious: to avoid landmines on her march toward higher office (as the "first blah blah blah").
Sorry. Nothing stands out about her for a reason. She's an empty suit trying to capitalize on identity politics. At least Pocahontas has some accomplishments.
14
She did have that unseemly affair with Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco...
5
The other candidates that you mention (Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg) have well developed platforms that they discuss at every opportunity. Jamaican and Indian ancestry is not a platform. She needs a clearly defined narrative as to why she should be the candidate. Biden may have many issues, but he provides a compelling narrative for winning Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin (which frankly are the only states that matter in 2020). Why exactly should we be focusing on Harris?
7
I don’t, so early in the game, like to think about ‘placing’ any candidate in the VP spot. But it’s hard not to see what a compelling ticket Biden/Harris would be.
In the House, the Dems decided to keep Pelosi on, this time as a transitional leader to the next generation. Maybe that’s what we need in order to beat Trump. A one-term Biden with the experience and wide appeal to beat Trump, with Harris poised to be our next president.
3
In this entire piece you don't mention even once Kamala Harris' extremely troubling record as a prosecutor and an attorney general, which the Times exposed earlier this year. Not one mention. Do you think that might have something to do with where her campaign is right now?
176
@PubliusMaximus You mean locking people up how terrorized poor and black communities, which was he job description as a DA. What is more troubling is that Joe Biden advocated and voted for the 94 Crime Bill, which did serious harm to the black community. In stead of advocated for jobs or better educational opportunities in those communities, Biden voted to create more jobs for prisons and prison guards. She did her job. And since announcing in January, she has said with full conviction: The Buck Stops Here. She is not running away from her record or the decisions she made, unlike Biden. And those mothers in poor neighborhoods were happy with her having the police arrest those who were committing crime and not allowing kids to play safely in their neighborhoods. So if you call that troubling, then she does not agree with you because she was voted in twice as DA to be tough on crime.
35
@Darrell No, I think they were talking about how she had an extramarital affair with Willie Brown to get her job as attorney general.
11
@PubliusMaximus Is it your position that now former prosecutor could ever run for president. It sounds that way.
5
How come no one mentions my fav candidate Amy Klobuchar. Of all the women in the democratic primary race she gets the least publicity because she does not take extreme positions. Sad.
11
Because the media already decided for us.....they “report” she can be a tough boss to work for......sigh.....
2
Why does any of this matter when the Republicans have already figured out how to win the electoral college in 2020?
Look into that, NYT.
2
it could be that harris's time in montreal as a high school student infected her with a sense that socialism isn't the work of the devil and one world guvmint.
she could be a plant by a country that is an existential threat to the existence of the united states of hysteria.
be afraid, be very afraid.....
1
Part of Sen. Harris's identity problem is that the other candidates' images are often boiled down by media into their most obvious component. Among her main competitions is the Old One, the Gay One, the Radical, the Professor, etc. And I'm sure most readers immediately knew who I was referring to with each of those. Sen. Harris is none of those things and her background and record are more varied. This can be a strength, but it needs to be better explained.
Also, she seems to quickly be picking up an "opportunistic" vibe. I don't see that characterization as fair -- it's not in my view supported by her record -- but it could stick if not addressed soon by a more focused narrative.
2
Mr. Bruni--your own biases are playing out here.
"But many Democratic leaders and voters experience her as too strident...". What is many? What are you citing? And perhaps you should explore why Warren, who's temperament is clearly less "strident" than Sanders, is being called this?
5
@cjp Seriously. I stopped reading when I hit that word. You'd THINK, that with all the go 'round of Hillary's campaign, male Dems would have learned a thing about implicit bias and sexism.
Black African Americans, particularly black women are the most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party.
Condescending paternalistic liberal white pity and condescending paternalistic conservative white contempt both ignore the individual accountable diverse humanity of black Africans in America.
Black support is taken for granted by the left-wing. Black antipathy is presumed by the right-wing
Black lives particularly black women's lives don't matter in America. While Kamala Harris ancestry black Jamaican father and Asian Indian mother is even more exotic than Barack Obama's. There are no mysteries here..
3
She was an awful DA in CA; she has an "angry" attitude as well as being a political opportunist. I doubt there will be a person of color as president after Obama for a very long, long, time.
5
@Jan - You say, " I doubt there will be a person of color as president after Obama for a very long, long, time." And just why is that? I'd be interested to know on what you're basing your statement.
Authenticity resonates with voters. None of the candidates are particularly authentic, with the exception of Warren and Sanders.
277
@Positively And how about Mayor Pete, he's by far and away the smartest of them put together.
22
@Positively
"None of the candidates are particularly authentic, with the exception of Warren and Sanders."
...And that's why I can't support anyone else, at least not with any degree of enthusiasm. O'Rourke and Buttigieg and some others seem nice and intelligent. They can identify problems facing many voters but they don't seem to have any solid plans for fixing anything.
Sanders and Warren have clearly thought carefully about problems and have clear ideas about what to do. They could start working to solve problems the first day while the others were still trying to decide what to do. I'll support both of them to the end.
43
@Positively--What on earth do you mean by "authentic"? This mystifies me. Sanders comes across to me as completely fake in tone, particularly when he tries to express empathy; but in any case, I don't see why we should care about "authenticity" over policy.
26
Or, instead of taking on every comer who throws their hat in the ring, she can move steadily forward as they burn out, fizzle or disappear into obscurity, only to ramp up when campaign once there are only a handful of hopefuls remaining.
82
@From Where I Sit I believe that is her strategy. Let Joe get all the buzz now, because Joe will be Joe and say or do something really stupid.
She has what it takes and that scares people.
197
@DSS
She spent much of her adolescence in Montreal, where her Mother took a medical job. In her autobiography she barely mentions living these very important formative years (intellectually as well as physically) in a foreign country, learning French. How did Canadian values, and quebecois politics, shape her? Wha' happen? Why the mystery?
10
@dmack5
and Obama spent some years of his childhood in Indonesia. McCain in Panama, Romney in Mexico. So what? When did that become a problem?
18
@DSS
I don't see any remote sign that Harris generates any feelings as strong as scaring people. Bernie generates fear. Warren generates fear. Biden generates fear on the left. Harris has been way too milk-toast and that's her problem. Possibly that's who she is and/or possibly that's what she thinks is the best strategy (offend as few as possible) but she's really not scaring folks.
12
Given what currently occupies the WH, I'd vote for a stuffed toy over him.
Trump has so lowered, nay, eliminated, any standards for what should be deemed acceptable behavior and competency as a President of the United States, that I'm torn between laughing or crying at the need to have any debate about, or, reaction to, who among the Dem candidates is "likable" or "electable".
15
Who cares about her ancestry or life story? Haven’t we had enough of politicians elected due to their personal narrative? Perhaps we should choose based who has the best legislative record and who will be the best leader.
89
@LTJ Thank you!
1
I believe in the ideals that she has professed, but her tone has been oddly timid. She seems to be prosecuting, not leading, being too careful in her actions. Pete Buttigieg is an interesting guy, but I believe he'll end up like Howard Dean in 2004 - not generating votes from the uber-religious in Iowa. And Beto O'Rourke, like Mayor Pete, needs to have achieved a higher office. That leaves Biden, Sanders, and Warren - all septugenarians. Even Senator Harris would be the oldest Democrat elected first-term president since LBJ, and even then, by months, not years.
3
Her biggest flaw is that she’s already courting the big money at elite gatherings in places like Martha’s Vineyard. Yet she’s supposed to be a progressive. Same for Buttigieg. He’s the media’s darling as they help him spin his story into an American folktale, but he’s basically out of touch with the working class. Sanders and Warren demonstrate both integrity and commitment. Like em or not, they are the real thing.
35
@Edward, Sanders and Warren “the real thing”? I could not disagree more.
@Edward - Sanders may demonstrate both integrity and commitment to you. To me he demonstrates a one-track, inflexible mind, and a belief, much like Trump, that he is the only one with the answers. I watched him the other day when someone asked about the lawsuit to totally overturn the ACA and what was his answer? That the right answer for the country was Medicare for all. Perhaps that's true, but it was not relevant to the question because at best--if everything under the sun aligns--Medicare for all would still be several years away while the loss of health insurance for several million MORE Americans could happen before the end of this year.
1
They honestly lay out their policies and refuse corporate donations.
7
I don’t like Harris because she comes across as unauthentic and opportunistic. I don’t care whether she’s is a she or a he, black, white or purple. I want authenticity plus intellectual chops and integrity. Having charisma won’t hurt either. Warren and Buttigieg are my preferred candidates - he’s better than her in the charisma department.
15
The media, as always, spends a lot of time discussing polls, momentum, fund raising, electability, likeability, and so on to try to devine who's winning.
This time around, there seems to be a little more discussion on policies. Perhaps because of the high bar set by Elizabeth Warren on details.
What doesn't get discussed directly very often:
"Is a candidate capable of successfully performing the duties of a President?". Do they have the intellectual capability, emotional stability, ethics, confidence, decisiveness to be a good President.
Do they have the leadership skills to lead a country into war? Or keep a country out of one? Would they inspire confidence managing the next inevitable economic meltdown or fear? Can they convince a country not to commit suicide by climate change?
I believe Kamala Harris may have those qualities. I believe some, but not all, of the other Democractic candidates may have those qualities.
Ms. Harris is my "soft" initial choice, but the Democratic candidate that best demonstrates those qualities will get my vote. It's more important to me than the current policy differences.
26
"Her campaign, then, is a test not only of her mettle but of our biases and receptiveness."
Isn't it a test of the biases and receptiveness of those who vote in Democratic primaries?
Perhaps she should shift to the Republican Party.
3
Thank you Mr. Bruni!
What a remarkable way for Biden to atone for his treatment of Professor Hill than to drop out and throw his support behind Ms. Harris.
33
The winning candidate needs charisma (Obama’s smile), relatability (the young Bill Clinton), and at least one simple message (immigration is bad, Trump).
Harris has none:
Who can relate to a woman of color raised with immense privilege (granpa’s compound in India), who shares very little about herself and is not even a policy wonk. Even as a VP, she’d be a drag on the ticket, no matter how many fawning news stories.
50
Frank Bruni is right to be wondering if Kamala Harris is getting a raw deal from some of the nation’s most prestigious publications in comparison to coverage for competing Democrats, none of whom is a woman of color.
With a little bit of work on her stump speech, Harris could emerge as a figure who will give Donald Trump fits on the campaign trail, not to mention in any debate with the incumbent, if she wins the nomination.
I happened to attend a small fundraiser for Senator Harris in a private home in Palm Beach in March, just 5 or 6 minutes up the same street from where Mar-a-Lago sits. Before and after her prepared remarks we joked about how much money we had raised in comparison to what Trump probably had done down the street a few days earlier.
In fact, as it turns out, Kamala Harris is a tireless and talented fundraiser, but unlike Hillary Clinton, Harris seems to enjoy getting out there and meeting the regular, uncommitted voters she needs to persuade.
There is a lot of talk by Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats about wanting to win against Trump in 2020, rather than focusing on impeachment. That’s fine, although the result is that Democrats are searching for the perfect, guaranteed nominee.
No such person exists, but Kamala Harris comes much closer than most of the others.
21
@sdw. She crows about how she only takes money from “the people” not PACs or corporations, when in reality, much of her funding is from the wealthy SF elite, Hollywood, and rich folks in Palm Beach and the Hamptons.
5
@Irene
Believe it or not, there is nothing wrong with taking campaign donations from wealthy Democrats, and EVERY leading Democrat does so. However, because a disproportionate number of well-to-do people are Republicans, the bread and butter for financing Democrats’ campaigns is the small $25, $50 or $100 donation.
The key, Irene, is that anyone who makes a donation identifies with the candidate’s stated policies, so that donor also goes out and spreads the word for the candidate and works in the local office or canvasses neighborhoods.
The only Democratic candidate who turns down a larger contribution from an individual Democrat is a candidate wanting to make a big show about the turndown to discredit competing Democrats. That kind of gesture is as phony as it gets.
4
I liked her initially but was turned off by her support for universal health. Shore up Obama Care. Rebuild our State Department with an emphasis on career diplomats. Rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. Repeal the Wilbur Ross billionaire tax break. They didn’t need it. Give a portion to our military troops in the form of a raise. That will take the Fox & Friends faux patriotism out of the equation. Ban Pay Day Loan Companies and their Tony Soprano interest rates.
There is plenty of populist issues to claim as her own. Time to take back the White House!
16
I think this piece shows very well why she won't be the candidate. I read a text supporting her and all that I can remember about her is that she is black and has jamaican ancestry. That's nice but no reason to elect her. A person's race or gender can enhance their candidace but is no substitute for leadership and charisma. we should have learned that from Ms. Clinton.
And Trump should have thought us that the identity of a candidate is not as important as what he stands for. He is a amoral, corrupt New York real estate billionaire (or pretend to be one), with multiple marriages, affairs and likely paid for abortions. His core constituency is working class, evangelicals and the south. But he reliable stands for what they believe in, hate against others. We still don't know what Harris stands for.
16
I was enamored of Mayor Pete early on and donated to help him get to the debate stage. Now, dozens of interviews in, I notice he talks a whole lot, but somehow does't actually say much about what he would do as President.
Harris and Warren seem much sharper and better able to get tough with Trump.
22
@Michelle - ANY Democrat will do. At this point "what he/she/ze will do as President" doesn't mean a thing. Once they're campaigning against the GOP hate machine is when it matters. Our problems as Democrats is that we think about every little tiny thing and all of those little tiny things mean more than the big picture: WINNING. The Republicans understand the importance of winning. Which is why they beat us.
4
@Henri H.
I will vote for anyone but Trump!
That said, I don't think it's fine to wonder how our candidates would approach the job. Some day a normal, sensible human being will sit in the Oval Office again, and I'd like to know how he or she aims to lead us.
3
Harris' prosecutorial prowess during various Senate hearings is remarkable. A sign of keen intelligence and many years of practice in her field. But it's not clear to me that those specific skills translate well into the kind of skills one needs to have to win the presidency. Ultimately, that's about connecting with other people at an emotional level. Trump, Obama, and many others have demonstrated how important that is. Does she have that spark? I have yet to see it.
7
@doug. “it's not clear to me that those specific skills translate well into the kind of skills one needs to have to win the presidency.”. More important, it’s not clear to me that her skills translate into what is needed to BE the president.
3
Regarding Elizabeth Warren: “she scares big donors, especially those in the financial industries”
Is this a bad thing? Look where big money in politics has gotten us.
406
@Michael Crawford,
Quite right. That's the _feature_, not the bug.
32
@Michael Crawford Excellent point. But the real problem for the Democratic Party is that both Warren and Sanders scare the DNC, and DNC=big donors.
19
@A. Cleary,
So why is that a bad thing?
It would seem that the experience has been that politicians make polic according to who were their main donor base, once in office. So if the "big donors" (read: big corporations) are scared, then perhaps the people have a chance to elect a politician who make policy for the people, rather than the big corporations for a change. So it would seem that the trick is to get people to come out and donate to your campaign, as well as work for your campaign, if you wish to defeat the politicans who are funded by the big corporations. I think the Justice Democrats ably demonstrated that during the midterm elections.
11
Every one of these articles should be prefaced with "it's too early". Trump had not even declared at this point in the 2016 election cycle. And in that cycle look at what happened to people like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker who were going to run the table.
I suspect Kamala Harris is going to be spectacular in the debates, so election watchers should be patient.
The Atlantic article showed that she is complex and pragmatic (not a bad thing) but she can be faulted for being a too cautious and pre-packaged in her campaigning and career.
Where Bruni has a point is that these flaws might not be such an issue if she was a white male.
20
@CarpeDiem64
Absolutely right that it is too early. It is nuts that the campaigning started in the winter of 2019 - a year too early. While it has not prevented a lot of people from getting in, I wonder if someone like Ohio's Sherrod Brown, who in my opinion had the best message of all, decided against campaigning for President for over a year and a half. The early start means candidates have to raise more and more and more money.
4
I would support Sherrod in a nanosecond
Passionate and down to earth
Should have been Hilary’s running mate
4
@Ken I like Brown too, apart from his position on trade. But he would have been a great candidate against Trump.
1
"And yet she has not yet received the sort of gushing star treatment from the media that Beto O’Rourke and Pete Buttigieg ... have: a discrepancy that, I think, says as much about us as it does about her."
Frank Bruni has this way wrong. First off, Harris got plenty of attention after her successful launch. Her problem, and Bruni seems to get this, is that she's had poor follow-up. So, this doesn't say much about us as opposed to her.
As to the two guys, Beto developed a rock star like following during his run for senate. This was a lot more gripping than anything Harris has done. But, Beto has shown no sign of being ready for the big stage and is close to dropping off the radar. If anything, his experience shows that voters are discerning and in the right way.
As for Mayor Pete, he is probably the most interesting candidate out there. He's the most comfortable talking about issues big and small. He is the only serious candidate to serve in the military and mounting a serious presidential campaign as mayor of South Bend is a pretty big story, again more interesting than anything Harris has done. But, Pete's climb in the polls has leveled off, not unlike Harris' experience (early bounce followed by decline), so I don't see how this illustrates anything interesting about us voters.
Harris could still be a good candidate. She's smart, articulate and has a great personality. She just hasn't shown she's a great candidate yet. And that's on her, not on us.
45
Nobody in the field has her combination of smarts, toughness, charm, likability and warmth.
I really do rate her right up there with Clinton and Obama in terms of raw political talent.
60
@Luciano
HOORAY....I agree with you completely.
She's smart, experienced in administration and law, and likable.
6
@Luciano Right, she is very much like Hillary, whose only real political principle was self-advancement
1
I like Harris, of course I like any Democratic candidate running against the law breaker now occupying the White House. But you are correct about Warren. Elizabeth is incredibly likable, is passionate about wanting to right this country and rebuild the middle class, to fix healthcare, the environment, education, and more. Plus look at her life story. She has humble beginnings, didn't go to an Ivy League school, and ends up a professor at Harvard Law School and then the U.S. Senate. You might ask yourself how that happens. It's not an accident. She has all the skills and intelligence we need to turn this country around and make us proud to have a president we can admire.
315
The danger with Warren is that she fervently believes that we not only cannot survive without government intervention in every aspect of our lives but further, that she is the one best suited to engineer it all.
1
@From Where I Sit
Oh? Does Sen. Warren fervently believe that we need government intervention in family planning and personal reproductive decisions? I thought that was a Republican thing.
48
@From Where I Sit Why would you run for President if you didn't think you were the one best suited for the job? Or is it only men who are allowed to think that they "were born to do this"?
35
The fact that Kamala has mixed ethnicity is irrelevant.
Some people, women included, are called "strident" and "shrill" - could it be because they are strident and shrill?
Ms. Harris' performance at the Kavanaugh hearings and questioning AG Barr will not help her. She comes across as an extremely unpleasant person. Disagreeable. And sneaky.
And on stage she projects prosecutorial certitude - I doubt voters will elect a prosecutor. Warren has the same negative vibe.
No, the only way any of these women will become President is as VP, if Biden or Sanders wins and dies in office. For Ms. Harris riding on the coattails of others would be nothing new - at least Warren is "self-made", although she went a bit far with the self-making.
I am convinced we won't have to worry about that though, as neither old white male will beat Trump. The likelihood of a Democrat president is receding every day - Nadler, Schiff & Co. are making sure of that, as we speak. I trust impeachment is near - that will seal the deal.
5
@John Xavier III
We apparently saw different hearings. I saw a man who appeared to believe he was entitled to something no person is entitled to, responding childishly to sharp questioning from a senator. Nothing about that performance suggested unpleasantness to me - unless I were to find myself accused of sexual assault, in which case pleasantness would be far more objectionable than unpleasantness.
1
I recently watched MSNBC "Deadline White House" where a former Hillary campaign aide proclaimed that the American people don't seem to be able to view any of the women running for the Democratic nomination as president.
Nicole Wallace objected saying "When I see Kamala Harris, she looks to me like she's already the president."
I support Mayor Pete but I'm also having the experience of easily seeing Kamala Harris as president in any venue she's in. She's been outstanding on the Judiciary Committee and her first CNN Town Hall was brilliant.
In this time of the Trump administration making a projection of demonizing and criminalizing immigrants, Harris is in a unique position to represent the values of hard work and success immigrants contribute to this country as both of her parents are highly successful.
I hope to see Harris on the 2020 Democratic ticket in either position. Harris is brilliant, tough and fast on her feet. Seeing her debate Mike Pence would provide the strongest possible evidence of why Pence's bigotry is a nonstarter in 2020 America.
Harris debating Trump would be edifying. Trump wouldn't have the faintest idea how to come at her and her intellectual fire power and toughness would be great weapons against the misogynistic, racist bullying Trump.
Both Harris and Pete Buttigieg are poised to do well in the Democratic debates and it's likely one or both will rise in the polls after voters learn more about them from watching them perform under pressure.
96
@fast/furious
When Buttigieg began his campaign I thought to myself, "Man, this guy would be a great Vice President."
His early surge in the polls may end up damning him there (in which case I'd personally hope for Gillum), but yeah, I never really thought he was qualified to be president. Harris and Buttigieg against Trump and Pence would certainly be a sight to see, though.
6
@fast/furious
I wish that we (in the UK) had the choice of two women candidates of Harris and Warren’s capabilities. They are equally impressive. I could imagine both as President and I only hope one of them replaces Trump in 2020.
10
@fast/furious If you want a candidate who will lock you up because or kid is truant, and, as bonus, loves Wall Street, then Harris is your person. I do not want those things, so I do not want to support her.
us army 1969-1971/california jd/father of 8
It is interesting but it will also come to be. The best two democratic candidates by credentials and apparent capabilities are women. Harris and Warren will shine in the spotlight. Unlikely that the aged and sometimes untethered Sanders and Biden will do the same. Buttigieg will make an excellent VP candidate.
12
It’s simple. She’s neither a very charismatic or likable person. Her candidacy is identity politics personified rather then aspirational.
21
Harris is opaque - there's no two ways about it.
I really want to like her, but she has to let us in a little. Her campaign book was so arms-length (only a few paragraphs about her time at Howard even though she describes it as transformative) that I learned nothing about her. I learned a lot about her mother.
Mind you, I don't want a live streamed dental visit (O'Rourke) or an embarrassing account of high school angst (Buttigieg), but we gotta have something. This is the time that we are getting to know our candidates as people. I don't need fixed policy positions yet.
10
@Cousy
Kamala Harris will always be opaque. Her High School years were at the same High School as Leonard Cohen had attended. Westmount borders Montreal's downtown and its students have always expressed the angst of Canada's most privileged few as well the the inequality that now roils the world.
A minute north of Westmount High is one of Canada's wealthiest and privileged residential areas, a minute south were two of Canada's least privileged enclaves, one black the other poor Irish Catholic. A couple of blocks to the east is Montreal's downtown and to the west was English Montreal's Catholic and Protestant residential middle.
Montreal's internal suburb of Westmount gave Westmount High a student body that was not American and a student body that was not in the middle it was rich and poor, white and black, Jew and gentile and anything but a big melting pot it was what we once called the Canadian mosaic.
To make things even more opaque to Americans Harris' High School years corresponded to our quiet revolution where centuries of ultra conservative rule were replaced by the confusion of liberal democracy and a society where new norms and their inherent contradictions characterize a new world order.
2
@Cousy. Her book should have been titled “The Truths We Withhold” since it never mentions her relationship — of whatever kind — with “Slick” Willie Brown, without whose influence she’d be just another lawyer in a tight black suit. Brown, a prominent California politician in the 90s, had quite a reputation as a sleazy dealmaker. He appointed her to two state boards with lucrative salaries, for which she had no particularly outstanding qualifications, among other favors.
4
@Cousy
Bright, well spoken, capable, and might make a mess of the Con-Artist in Chief, but perhaps too beholden to the traditional party apparatus, including big money. I understand the game, and perhaps Sen. Harris would become more centered and convicted once the nominee, but as Cousy said, a truly viable candidate must let us in. Her own book (auto-biography) didn't mention her relationship with powerful CA House Speaker Willie Brown once? I have no interest or judgement on the personal romantic relationships of any candidate, but surely the assistance that connection must have given to her career, either directly or indirectly, is relevant and part of her story. Not including that insight doesn't ring as open, honest, or true.
2
Let's not overlook the reality that our most successful leaders on both sides of the aisle-Obama, Clinton, Reagan, JFK, FDR, have had one common trait-- the ability to inspire....so far only Bernie has consistently exhibited that quality, and why his base is still passionately committed....with general consensus on most major policy issues, it will be interesting to see who else can rise to the challenge to inspire in the months ahead--
30
@Dennis Holland
Bernie can't win. He and Joe are doddering old men with old ideas that couldn't win in their previous races and won't win in 2020.
Democrats have to move on with the rest of the world. Look ahead to the future, intelligence and the ability to bring new energy, brilliant thinking, and political implementation to a very divided country. Joe and Bernie are has-beens.
I supported Bernie initially in 2016 and then was horrified to see that many former Bernie supporters refused to vote for Hillary letting Donald Trump win by 73,000 votes in three swing states.
Don't fall for the Russian intelligence bots who are pushing Bernie again and now also pushing Joe Biden because years ago Joe was born in northern PA.
Get smart. Get new enthusiasm and smart thinking in the Democratic Primary. That will not be Bernie or Joe.
“No other matchup would be as riveting — or as revealing — as Harris versus Trump.”
I actually think a lot of white working class voters would come to respect Harris, even the ones who learn conservative.
She is no pushover when it comes to criminal justice and, most importantly, her style of debate - confrontational and pointed - will resonate with moderates. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, came across as smug and unwilling to engage anyone whom she perceives to be below her, an attribute which critically allowed Trump to shed his "elite" white collar background.
24
@Johnny ||| You write: "I actually think a lot of white working class voters would come to respect Harris, even the ones who learn conservative." 'Learn conservative.' Is
[C]onservatlve a foreign language? A lifestyle? Or, perchance an adjective in search of a noun?
1
Something is going on with her campaign; it seems stuck in the mud. Perhaps she had a private meeting with President Obama and he withheld his blessings. Perhaps her past as a hard-line prosecutor of drug offenders (read: black men) as San Francisco DA has washed up on her shores and made her re-tailor her message to accommodate some folks of color who think she might get something at their expense. She has yet to convincingly refute local (Bay Area) critics that she’s a beautiful opportunist whose trail is littered with countless lives broken by lengthy jail terms, the result of her (perceived) overzealousness in going after street drug merchants.
She’s a very long way from a presidential debate with the incumbent. Sure, she could parry and thrust and dodge his lunges at her gender; her ethnicity; her background in a state that he will never win and which he trashes almost daily as “elite” and a bottomless hole for his “deep state” hallucinations.
But let’s be real here: Kamala Harris would have to convince white folks—who rejected Barack Obama by healthy margins (60% in 2008; 65% in 2012)— that she would be an improvement over Donald Trump. Her policy positions, unfairly a priori, will be seen as “handouts” to “those others,” a red meat call for MAGA nation to bring the hate. And the president will be all over it 24/7. But how does she make those finals?
Hers is a compelling story, as said here. She can’t be afraid of who she was and is.
Trump understands fierce.
4
Ms. Harris likes to come across as the tough prosecutor, as in "Mr. Barr, are you a dirt bag, yes or no ?"
But the original question in this article is still the appropriate one: What exactly has Ms. Harris done to deserve a shot at the most important job in the world ?
No foreign policy experience, no important federal legislation, very minor experience in the Senate to speak of.
She was an Attorney General - that's fine and good, but so have lots of other people.
And the comparison with O'Rourke or Buttigieg is not important either. So she might be better than some of the other dwarves - that hardly makes her the hero (or heroine) of the story.
While plenty of people think Trump is an awful man, more and more Democrats are facing the fact that they agree with his policies.
And whether or not you like Biden (I don't), at least he has serious experience : 30 years in the Senate, chairman of committees, 8 years Vice President, a working relationship with dozes of world leaders. Not a light weight.
Obama seemed to show that with a little charisma and charm, you don't need much else to be president.
Too bad so many other candidates drank that Kool Aid.
11
@G Unless we reject everyone under 50 years old out of hand I do not understand the gripe about Obama's experience prior to taking office. Obama had "A little charisma and charm," but he was a lawyer, lifelong public servant, teacher, state rep, senator.
2
@G: "Mr. Barr, are you a dirt bag, yes or no ?"
Why have I heard this before? :)
"She can lay claim to blazing trails in a way that many of them can’t. Her ancestry is Jamaican on her father’s side, Indian on her mother’s, and she was the first black woman and the first Asian-American woman to be the district attorney of San Francisco and then the attorney general of California. She’s only the second black woman elected to the Senate."
That's great, but none of that tells me how she's going to deal with student loan debt and the cost of higher education; or job displacement due to automation; or insane housing costs in the cities were new jobs are actually being created; or climate change; or gun violence; or most other issues that directly impact people. Yes, it's nice to have a candidate with a diverse background, but ultimately policy > labels. That's why Warren and Sanders are peaking my interest right now, and Harris isn't. Neither are Beto or Mayor Pete - both are rich in nice words and ideas, but poor in specific policies.
15
@SF *piquing lol
1
Thank you for covering Harris.
Harris has already received the votes of more than 7.5 million Americans (5.5% of *all* voters who participated in the 2016 general election).
Among the candidates, that past vote total is second only to Bernie's 13 million primary votes in 2016 - and he was on ballots nationwide while she has only competed in CA. (I don't consider Obama's presidential votes to be Biden votes. In his own primary and Senate bids, Biden swayed less than a tenth of the voters Harris has).
4
@AC. How an good-looking Democrat does in California has no bearing on how that candidate would do in the rest of the country.
1
The perfect ticket in 2020 is Biden/Harris. Think about it.
23
@Our Road to Hatred ... what I have believed for the past two months
3
@Our Road to Hatred
I agree. I wish we could skip the primaries and agree to Biden/Harris as the most winnable ticket. Dems need to stop the in-fighting.
I know it is a cynical stance, but we are in uncharted waters with our present grifter president. As for the other candidates, let them run for senate or be cabinet members.
I say this as a Warren supporter; but more importantly this country needs to take a step back, and collectively exhale. We are exhausted.
5
@Our Road to Hatred Yes, that ticket has broad appeal and could want the Electoral College. And I wish the other candidates would spend their energies on legislation that could be passed in a new administration. There are bipartisan issues that could work (or be tweaked) no matter how the House and Senate turn out.
No one is going to write better consumer financial protection legislation than Senator Warren.
No one is going to write better education funding legislation that Senator Sanders.
No one is going to write better gun legislation that Senator Booker.
No one is going to write better climate protection legislation than Governor Inslee.
[Healthcare reform will take more than one champion.]
At some point in the next year, the full agenda of the Democratic party has to be on display and ready to implement.
5
Looking forward to seeing Harris debate as her candidacy has legitimacy to me as opposed to others. That said, get the feeling that her sights are more realistically on running as VP. She'd be a good match with a few of the aspirers of the male persuasion.
2
She would come across as a more serious candidate if she would just stop that infernal giggling.
6
Simple. Harris lacks charm. Her calculated moves are great for climbing the ladder in the Dem party, and she's got a good shot to become the VP candidate by identity politics, which then sets her up to run for Prez later. Nice work if you can get it.
Her $6000 chicken in every pot is a loser and would cost the Dems the general election if she were to get that far. So her left of progressive proposals will go nowhere when others have delivered them more compellingly.
11
@GCM
"Harris lacks charm" you say? I disagree, but more importantly, is "charm" a necessary quality for the 2020 male candidates as well? Your gender bias is showing.
3
@GCM What exactly do you mean by 'lacks charm' ? Is this something that the male candidates need to possess?
2
@GCM
She lacks charm?
“Attractiveness, beauty, glamour, loveliness, appeal, allure, desirability, seductiveness, magnetism, charisma.”
Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus
2
Interesting column. Ever heard of the Green New Deal? That's where we have to go. It seems to me that Kamala, Beto and Pete also don't take it seriously, and the complex political economy changes it invokes. Sanders and Warren are closest to understanding it.
China is a rival, as Bill Greider saw clearly in his book about globalization, "One World, Ready or Not." 1997. Krugman attacked him as a mere journalist, but Greider had a better sense of economic history than Krugman, pointing out no great economic power held onto their position after they stopped making things: no Spain, Holland, England...and us?
China just shut their doors to "dirty" American garbage, so here's a chance to remake our recycling laws afresh, to enhance American manufacturing and flesh out the jobs guarantee in the Green New Deal Resolution. You're right about Bernie's warmth though; is that more important that facing the implication of not implementing the Green New Deal? I don't think so.
In the end, it may well be the anti-intellectualism of the American press corps that does us in, one that is happy with the little rants of Chris Cuomo about "how you going to pay for it," even as he and the network, and the NYTimes never hold serious discussions on Modern Monetary Theory, like with Ellen Brown's proposals for funding the Green New Deal.
You're part of the problem, it seems to me.
11
Harris is good looking.
I really like Harris, but cringed when she was needlessly abrasive with Barr and others on national TV.
Especially if one is going to run for prez as a prosecutor, it is extremely important to be scrupulously polite - particularly on TV.
When she roughed up Barr, Barr became a victim.
Her remark about Jamaicans and drugs, not good.
5
@David
I notice it's the male commenters who use the words abrasive or strident. I didn't perceive that in her tone with Barr. She was asking questions, period. I thought her tone was pretty mild. It was obvious he had misled Congress and the public -- I wish someone had really torn into him.
3
@David
The only person who sees Barr as a victim is whining victim-in-chief Donald Trump.
1
@David
Hmmm . . .
She is ‘good looking’ but was ‘abrasive’ with Barr.
Your words, not mine.
just let's make it Biden/Harris. Perfect ticket.
4
She’s not likable.
I know, you hate that word, especially as applied to women.
But it’s true. She just not someone I can relate to and whom I think has my best interest at heart - all part of likability.
Biden, Buttigieg and O’Rourke are likable. Warren is likable but she’s too far to the left for me, as is Sanders.
Here are some woman I could easily vote for:
Susan Collins,
Dianne Feinstein,
Nikki Haley.
How about them?
7
@Steven Roth
"She's not likable." That's highly subjective, and I find her quite likable.
7
@Steven Roth
The women you claim you could vote for are either 85 years old - Feinstein - or Republicans - Nikki Haley and Susan Collins. Maybe you can't relate to Harris because you're a Republican?
6
@Steven Roth
How about them? They're not even running!
3
Biden/Harris ticket. Game over for Trump.
3
@Raymond
Why not Harris/Biden ?
1
Cute.
She might not get Vanity Fair, but sure does get a whole lot of NYT articles.
At the end, her uncle Joe is getting the super delegates anyway.
Bread in the press, and circus clowns for candidates, that is the Democratic candidate list for 2020.
2
Frank,
Why do you insist on speaking of Kamala Harris as a ‘black woman’? She is an Indian-Jamaican woman born to privilege and married to a white Jewish man. How far can we get from the ‘working class’? She never had anything to do with poor people - black or white, it really does not matter!
79
@Ed Klein
Harris has described herself as "a black woman."
Also, who Harris is married to doesn't define her politically. We don't define male politicians by who they're married to. Why do this to women?
14
@Ed Klein Why are you conflating "black" and "poor"? I'm black and have never been poor a day in my life, nor do I come from the "working class". Poor and working class are not bad things, nor are they good things. But they definitely do NOT describe all "black" people.
16
@Elaine,
I don't think EdKlein was conflating "black" and "poor". I believe he is pointing out that Ms. Harris is championing for the poor and yet, she has never been poor. She was indeed a child of privilege. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, born in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India was the daughter of P.V. Gopalan, a diplomat of the Indian government. No, Ms. Harris has never seen poverty.
2
A good leader really only needs two skills: The ability to articulate a vision with sufficient clarity and enthusiasm that people rally around it, and the ability hire the people who can execute that vision. That's all.
I don't yet see the first of these skills in Ms. Harris. Hillary Clinton had a similar problem: she is a very capable person, but not inspiring.
I hope the Democratic party can see their way beyond identity politics and party loyalties and the inadequacies of mere policy expertise, to get to that place of inspiration. We sorely need that right now.
13
When a woman speaks in a forceful voice, with energy and conviction, she is called "strident" or "shrill". When she doesn't, she is "timidly noncommittal", "unsure", and her "momentum is gone". I would LOVE to see Sen. Harris debate with Trump. Just let him try to move in and stalk her, hovering while she is talking- or talk over her, interrupting constantly. She would know what to do.
426
@Ellen
According to Willie Brown, she would date him to get ahead.
9
Likability will be important in this election. Lack of it certainly hurt Clinton in 2016. Many Democrats may warm to Harris, but it's unlikely that she'll appeal to wavering Trump supporters. Many of these do seem to be tiring of his angry, bragging, lying, combative ways, and Democrats need to provide a solid alternative.
Harris has some of that anger. combativeness, and a coolness that can cause distrust.
Someone more optimistic, warm, and genuine will be more likely to bring a change of heart -- and heal a battered nation.
2
You blame our “biases and receptiveness” for the apparent media (and possibly voter) dismissal of Kamala Harris, but at the same time the first thing you mention about her is her mixed race origins and her immigrant parents. I think you might be projecting your own feelings on the rest of us. I’m supporting Harris because she is dead smart and she is a she. What could be better? We need her.
41
Warren is impressive. Truly. And, no, not many male candidates are ever called "shrill" or "strident." And that's not fair. But life's not fair. Warren can't win against Trump. It's not right. It's depressing. But it is what it is. Dems need to win. Period.
10
@Tim
It doesn’t matter what the candidates stand for or against...”Dem need to win. Period.” Which explains why Trump will win again. Democrats, epididimized by Hillary Clinton, have lost their soul and purpose and only want to win.
4
I'm afraid that the main stream media (MSM) is already playing the "horse race" game instead of covering all the candidates equally. The MSM should strive to present ALL of the candidates's proposed policies and priorities (even those from minor parties, not just the Dems and GOP). Then let the voters decide who are the legitimate candidates, instead of the editors of the major media outlets.
44
She has not taken one unsurprising position. Uf she were a fierce fan of Israel, if she were against reparations, if she favored vouchers, if she favored a guaranteed national income, if she was in favor of border enforcement, if she favored legalization of all drugs, there'd be a lot more buzz.
2
"What’s distinctive about her message and credentials?
Here’s one answer: She can lay claim to blazing trails in a way that many of them can’t. Her ancestry is Jamaican on her father’s side, Indian on her mother’s"
Is her ancestry her message?
Is her ancestry her credentials?
110
@areader
Uh, yeah.
What other credentials, other than intersectional ones, do a Democratic candidate need?
10
@areader I did find it rather demeaning to put forward her ancestry as her first important assets and then kind of mention "Oh, yeah, she is also smart".
6
Harris is clearly one of several serious candidates in the overly large pack. We won’t know anything about her staying power for several months but we deserve to hear what she has to say. Why isn’t she getting on the magazine covers? Come on Mr. Bruin, you know the answer. Buttigieg, O’Tourke, Sanders, and Biden all have one thing she doesn’t. They’re male. Journalists, and that includes Times writers, don’t take women seriously as candidates. A shame, that.
37
@Neal
" Journalists, and that includes Times writers, don’t take women seriously as candidates. "
Um, have you forgotten the 2016 election??
1
Buttieg is a white male but he is a GAY white male. Please stop putting him in the same cafegory as the other privileged white men who heve never experienced oppression and discrimination.
She was just elected to the Senate and suddenly the press is touting her as a presidential candidate. They are doing the same with Beto O'Rouke (who lost), Pete Bettugieg (mayor of South Bend), Stacy Abrams (who should now be Governor of Georgia), none of whom is yet presidential material.
Why are you and the rest of the press ignoring Amy Klobuchar, the very experienced senior senator from Minnesota who is much better posed to win back the Midwest than Sanders, Warren, Harris or Gillebrand??
Gillebrand
14
“No other matchup would be as riveting — or as revealing — as Harris versus Trump.”
A matchup that would be more riveting, and more revealing, is Hillary Clinton versus Trump.
1
Maybe people are instinctively realizing that Kamala Harris is an empty suit. She has absolutely no morals or positions, she's just out for power. She's conveniently done a 180 on issues like pot legalization right as she launches her campaign, including telling laughable lies about smoking in college. She claimed that she listened to Biggie and Tupac in college while smoking, even though neither of them had released an album until after she graduated. Ultimately she's much like Hilary Clinton, a woman with no values and a lust for power, who achieved her position due to the man she was sleeping with (Willie Brown, in this case). Hilary lost, and so will Kamala if she's the Dem candidate.
53
@KM Cannot agree more.
10
@KM Much of what you said here rings true! Kamala is certainly smart and obviously ambitious. But her camera time in the Senate feels performative, her opinions shift a bit in order to slot just the right way in public perception—basically she seems to parse what she says & reveals in a way that reminds me of HRC. I believe other voters are taking a wait & see with her candidacy because they don’t have a great gut feeling about her.
13
@KM
I know Willie and Kamala. He may have given her a few tips on running for office the first time. But she is a brilliant politician in her own right and extremely independent. She dated him decades ago.
Her career has been entirely based on her own abilities and likeability. She has taken and stuck by controversial positions like being against the death penalty.
Saying she slept her way to the top is insulting and would never be said of a man. He was lucky she would even go out with him!
3
Nicholas Kristof criticized Harris, in a magazine article length op-ed in a Sunday Review, for not helping a young black male, sitting on death row, when many experts claimed that new evidence showed he was completely innocent. If his criticism is correct, she does not deserve anyone's support. I would like some help in understanding the charge and its accuracy.
David Lindsay Jr. is the author of “The Tay Son Rebellion, Historical Fiction of Eighteenth Century Vietnam” and blogs about the environment at TheTaySonRebellion.com and InconvenientNews.wordpress.com.
5
Mr Bruni seems to miss the fact that, for the Democratic candidate to win in 2020, s/he must win back the Obama-Trump voters; those who voted for Obama twice, but then voted for Trump in 2016. And those voters are predominantly white Midwesterners. It doesn't mean to focus exclusively on them, but they cannot be ignored, as Hillary Clinton discovered. If anyone thinks that the Dem can win by simply increasing the turnout of minorities, that is a recipe for losing and having 4 more years of Trump. (It didn't work for Stacey Abrams in GA or Andrew Gillum in FL.)Getting more minorities to vote is an important goal; that is but one of several aspects to be considered.
Last, there is this basic fact to consider; white Americans comprise about 72% of the population and vote in the 75% - 80% range, so ignoring them would be folly.
5
It's way too early to assess the nuances and prospects of each Democratic candidate. What is for sure at this point is that any of them is in a different order of magnitude (to use a math term) than the incumbent in any aspect important for a president.
Perhaps that is the silver lining in the Trump very dark cloud. It brought out many great Democratic candidates.
4
The Democrats' political problem is not that they take "working class" to mean "white working class," or that they don't sufficiently market themselves to one color or another. The Democrats' political problem, which is the Republican's political strength, is that both divide everyone into identity groups. The real interests of working class white people & working class people of color are 99% the same: income inequality, regressive taxation, unaffordable health care, unaffordable education, unaffordable political power. Republicans pit white working people against their natural political allies because they have no intention of helping anyone but the rich. And Democrats shrink from addressing us all as working Americans because . . . why? Because doing so "scares big donors," as Warren does? And can you explain to us why we consider that a liability, rather than a recommendation?
93
Martin- best comment on this article goes to you. Thanks!
Two things. First, the following is pure political pablum, like that game where you rearrange magnets on the refrigerator into Alice-in-Wonderland sentences of utter vacuity: "She should take firmer positions, even at the risk of angering some voters. It signals character and strength, and sometimes the best way to win is to be willing to lose." Okay, like, she should lose (if she's going to do that) from a firmer position of character and strength. I wonder what those are, exactly. Oh ...
We already have a candidate taking detailed policy positions. Her name is Elizabeth Warren, and no one needed (or needs) to tell her what character and strength are. Nothing personal, Kamala Harris, but you're no Elizabeth Warren. Your record on capital cases speaks for itself. You were out for headlines, not justice.
130
@Mark Buckley
Warren has proven she cannot handle Trump. Harris has proven she will make a strong opponent to him. Plain and simple.
@Mark Buckley Too many magnets on the refrigerator to bother moving them around . . .yet. Patience, grasshoppers.
The problem I’m having with Harris is that I can’t really figure out where she stands on too much. The word “conversation” comes up too much - in answer to too many questions, “We need a conversation about that.” STOP IT, KAMALA, and COMMIT to something. Warren has plans - does Kamala? Bernie has devotion because of his own passion - does Kamala? She also has a string of prosecutorial decisions that do NOT favor disadvantaged and justice-harassed people - yet she never really comes out and explains her own evolution. I want to support her, but she’s simply not giving me a reason.
278
@Citizen of the Earth
You can’t figure out where she stands because there’s no real depth to her. Harris has gotten this far on her image - “bright woman of color”. Is she progressive? Look at what she achieved, if anything, as an AG and DA. Aggressive questioning during a Senate hearing makes good tv and YouTube videos. But, not enough, I think, to be President. We already have one who built his campaign on tv clips.
55
@Citizen of the Earth. “Conversation” nails it. It’s one of those weaselly words that comes out of the mouth easily when one doesn’t want to commit, or is afraid to take a stand. And since Trump isn’t reluctant to say whatever is on his tongue (not his mind), even when consecutive tweets are inconsistent, we don’t need a candidate who is afraid to take a stand.
26
@Citizen of the Earth The reason it is difficult to understand where she stands, is simple as saying Joe Biden, who like her, stands for the Big Business/Corporate/Wall Street crowd. Her election will just be Clinton years 3.0.
One thing she cannot deny is supporting and enforcing criminalization of truancy, as she did while a prosecutor and attorney general in California.
us army 1969-1971/california jd/father of 8
8
I'm a big fan of Kamala Harris and would love to see her take on Trump in a debate. But I think Buttigieg has broader appeal an more electable. For VP, maybe and definitely AG.
14
Harris should show up in jeans identifying with the youth we need to involve, not with the persona of a D.A.
She should talk about running with Bernie not against Bernie. like AOC talks to the people on youtube.
Comparing her to Beto and Mayor Pete ? She has much more appeal, not a centrist, not a leftist, she is an individualist created by her heritage. Show it.
11
While we're challenging prejudices and assumptions, Mr. Bruni, can we ask when the last time was that a male candidate was characterized as "strident?"
472
@Melissa right on! I have never heard, seen, or read the adject or adverb attached to male persons.
45
@Melissa
First thing I thought of too, reading the article.
"Strident" = "woman" + "not conciliatory", e.g. Warren
"Passionate" = "man" + "not conciliatory", e.g. Sanders
83
@Melissa, good point. But I can’t think of a better descriptor for Warren.
5
I have seen Sen. Harris speak on the CNN candidate forums and am just not that impressed. Her healthcare stance alone give her no chance but she seems to lack charisma also. She strikes me as someone who not only does not understand the issues very well but has no desire to learn about them.
25
Not sure Harris needs to tweak her campaign. An intelligent reflective demeanor could be the winning formula. Campaigners who promise too much or boast may get blowback from a weary electorate.
6
Yes, the establishment, status quo candidates need to focus on 'inspiring' biographical narratives or "charisma" to compete with the others and she doesn't seem as sharp at that as Buttigieg and O'Rourke.
However, she may well be the most reliable advocate of the upper middle classes in the field (although with much competition obviously) and that may count in her favor later in the campaign when the big media companies and various 'great and good' persons take sides.
3
I like Kamela Harris, but voting for her has to be about more than the politically correct choice and a candidate that looks good on paper.
I want a candidate who can win -- and who can move everyone forward, together. In the long run it's of little value for presidents to administrate by their own directive, which can easily be overturned -- much like Bush, Obama and, now, Trump.
9
That second town hall was a disaster for her. And, yes, her questioning is pretty good in the senate, but she really has not delivered a knock-out punch either. We never found out what was in those files she waved around at the Kavanaugh hearing, and she left Barr unsettled last week, but did not clearly catch him in a lie. I'm not sure she's the candidate, as much as I like her on one level.
9
She’s a lightweight - prime example: she sold middle class taxpayers down the road in her settlement with big banks (and Eric Holder) after the financial crisis when acting as attorney general in California.
85
@James This is true but they all did that. The banks held our country hostage and continue to do so. You are right but I cannot bring myself to hold it against her.
4
@James
Actually it was the best deal in the nation.
7
@d2edge
Are you so sure...?
For the banks, the settlement was cause for celebration. Despite being caught red-handed in a litany of abuses, they paid off their penalty by either using other people’s money or performing routine functions. The actual impact made barely a dent in their profits. And they got a broad release from prosecution, putting their intense legal exposure behind them.
Harris initiated a “mortgage strike force” to prosecute individuals, but it only brought a handful of cases, and the ones her campaign touts as triumphs were against penny-ante “foreclosure rescue” scams, not the bankers who maneuvered homeowners into foreclosure in the first place. Harris passed up the opportunity to charge OneWest Bank, then chaired by current Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, with what her own investigators called “widespread misconduct” in state foreclosure cases.
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/13/kamala-harris-mortage-crisis/
3