You nailed it! That is who she is and those characteristics are precisely why she will be a great President of the United States. Contrast her to a Person who is privileged beyond most of us even understanding, who never studies the issues: he just “knows”, who brags about not reading, and who is completely without any semblance of character.
This. I really like her for all the same reasons. I am also hesitant because she does seem evasive on the critical bits - but then, how can she not be? A president has to do what is right in the moment and the situation is always changing. I personally hate the idea of nailing someone down on an promised outcome. I'd rather see a commitment to an approach - a projected compromise. Committing to anything without knowing if congress will be with you or against you is setting yourself up for unending trauma.
That said - she should have been ready for the questions. I am concerned about the debate because how could she not have been ready?
My last thought, will the media ever correct the disparity in the approach between candidates? I have not seen one interview where the other candidate has brought anything tangible forward at all. Is this temporary because of the candidate or is this because of his party, age, ethnicity, economic status?
The media wants to know specifics of her policies down to the color ink she'll use to sign a bill and what day and time she will do it. All they ask the other candidate is what they think about ink. There is just so much disparity.
And I agree, I'd LOVE to have a deep discussion over chips and salsa because I believe it would be real people talk. I am convinced she would want to learn about me as much as I want to learn about her.
Thanks Beth for sharing your thoughts on VP Harris...I like her too---a lot! She is certainly likable. I am terrified of her opponent regaining power. Thanks to you and Sarah for helping me keep it together in this highly stressful time.
So interesting! Thank you, Beth! I think what I’ve been observing in the VP as responsible, you’re seeing caution—and there’s a relation there. When someone has any amount of power or authority, whether a politician or celebrity, my affinity towards them is colored by how they handle the power their words have. Power forces you to consider more than just yourself, that’s the price to pay.
Policy specifics from a President are just windows into their actual values. Life and government are too messy and evolving to ever go exactly to plan, so I want someone’s words to give me insight into how they would handle any situation or negotiation. Policy specifics can do that, but there are other ways too. Her not getting fixated on too many specifics allows us to get to know her without distraction while also seeing that she’ll be able to navigate with grace, instead of being blindly fixated on a predetermined endpoint.
I feel like the campaign and internet (my corner) is begging me to love her and Walz and I want to dive in the deep end while also just sitting on the edge dangling a foot in. I'm leaving space for both feelings and riding these emotions to November.
People calling Vice President Harris a radical lefty is like calling Congresswoman Liz Cheney or Senator Mitt Romney MAGA Republicans. During their tenures, both of them voted with then President Trump well over 90% of the time! The “far-left” policies that you list contain a wide spectrum of possibilities that include many acceptable to moderates.
I love that her life experience leads her to caution and honesty (particularly when "it depends" is the only honesty available). Maybe she's calculated lying vague as a means to grasp power and ruin America, like the email forwards coming from my uncle say. It seems more likely that she's learned it through a life of being a regular person (and woman of color, at that) in America and in politics, which makes her feel so much more like me.
Weirdly, the slipperiness a flip-flopping is clearly present on the other side as well, but it seems born of privilege that says he gets what he wants by virtue of being "the Donald" and not caution.
It makes sense that you like her in a way not entirely different from the way I like you. There's an inner resonance there, like calling like, or somesuch. (And, for what it's worth, I think that same inner resonance also drives trump's base. Which is, frankly, heartbreaking.)
I loved reading this piece, Beth. And thanks for including the CNN interview, which I found incredibly irritating and disappointing. Dana Bash squandered an opportunity to coax out more details about the VP's values, the foundation upon which VP Harris is building her presidential agenda. As a California Bay Area resident, I had the pleasure of voting for Kamala Harris several times before she reached the national stage. I'm a wholehearted supporter, and I am hopeful and excited about electing her as POTUS. As for Kamala being the kind of person you'd like to hang out with, I can only say that I once stood in a local restaurant's restroom line with her (small restaurant -- one gender-neutral restroom). At the time Kamala was the California AG and she was running for Senate. She was funny and gracious while we stood around as human beings waiting for the bathroom. I was delighted with her realness and amazed by her beauty. Now she brings that intelligence and dazzle to the largest stage on earth, and I'm all in to turn the joyful page.
I haven’t yet watched the interview, but I appreciate this reflection. What I keep coming back to as I hear people criticize her for not having “specific policy plans” is that during the Democratic primary debates in 2019, no one had to answer “what would you do during a global pandemic?” A candidate’s policy plans are like a birth plan - leading up to it, you can drill down into the details all you want, and in the moment, something can and probably will go haywire and force you to at best rewrite the plan, if not just throw it out the window. I’m much more interested in a candidate’s character, values, and the guiding principles they’ll seek to follow while in office.
Respectfully, I’d like to push back a bit on this. You are certainly correct that Harris is being cautious, but it is a new cautious. Up until the moment she became the top of the ticket, she never hesitated to unashamedly give her opinion. Her opinions, however, have been way, way left of where she knows they need to be to win a general election. Her sudden guardedness of policy statements is a caution designed to camouflage her honest beliefs. She said herself that her values have not changed. I wonder whether a man running for president, who was once rated the most liberal in the Senate, and who had a long history of articulating leftist positions on a whole host of issues, would be given the generous label of “cautious” if he refused to clearly let the American people know what his specific policies would be once President, if he refused to even provide policies on his campaign website. I can’t help but wonder whether that would be seen less as cautious and more as a naked attempt to win an election solely on vibes and personality — as a calculated tactic to win over voters who would actually disagree strongly with the policy positions if they had ever been given the chance to hear them. If you are asking for the votes of Americans for the highest office in the land, guarding your policies like Fort Knox is not caution — it’s intentional deception. She is a leftist trying to win the votes of independents on sheer personality and likability. But personality doesn’t lower the price of groceries— policies do.
I'm not sure I'd categorize her as a leftist. We made this episode in 2020 after President Biden picked her to be his running mate. Even back then, Sarah and Beth described her as a moderate and centrist. Thanks for reading (even when you think we're wrong). -Maggie
I enjoy reading thoughtful takes — especially from different perspectives. But the Harris is a moderate or centrist take is not accurate. The non-partisan GovTracker website provides an ideological chart reflecting her time in the senate (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678#google_vignette). She is clearly on the far left of the spectrum. She has been on record advocating things like abolishing private insurance, Medicare for all, banning all fracking, mandatory gun buy-backs, and most recently, price controls. You can certainly agree with all those positions, but you cannot objectively call them moderate.
I'm not sure that comparing her time in the senate with today's political landscape in terms of 'Right', 'Moderate', 'Left' is necessarily accurate. The *landscape* has shifted. What was 'The Right' before Trump infected the political landscape is now 'Moderate' in comparison. Also, the success of the ACA made both abolishing private insurance and Medicare for all way more moderate in practice than they used to be. She spoke to her change in position on outright banning all fracking, pointing out that the values that led her to her position have not changed, even if her position itself has - that position moving to 'Moderate' from 'Left'.
I'll take a cautious woman with values over a man who outrageously lies and who has no values any day of the week. Policies will follow their respective values. Eyes wide open.
I also wished some of her answers were tighter too but that’s not what I’ll remember about this interview. When she talked about her nieces, you could tell how much she loves them. Her face really lit up when she was talking about them.
I loved this because it’s giving me language for a feeling I’ve struggled to verbalize. There’s something about VP Harris that I just really like. And the things that seem like they’d matter a lot for some reason matter less to me with her (ie: changing policy positions and having a good answer for what you’ll do on day 1). I trust her to do the right thing in the moment when she has the space to consider all angles and opinions. Thank you for this thoughtful piece Beth! You are wonderful!
“Her soul seems well.” I really like this—while every life has shadows, it feels as if she knows her shadows and is comfortable with herself, and in her capacity to keep growing through all her experiences.
I always appreciate your thoughtful balanced perspective. We really don't need to be blind cheer leaders for this ticket. That would make us resemble the other side's supporters. I want us to be more thoughtful and discerning because she may (will) direct our country.
I agree her answers could have been tighter and hope that will come. And also can we ask about the balance or comparison of her thoughtful and consistent answers vs. the other ticket/candidates' policy clarifications. I hear from media she needs to sit down for an interview and provide some clarity beyond her stump speech. Where are the calls for that from the other ticket? Let's not give them a pass because they are not capable. Let's expect the same from them. And if it is Project 2025, let's ask them to commit to their positions.
You nailed it! That is who she is and those characteristics are precisely why she will be a great President of the United States. Contrast her to a Person who is privileged beyond most of us even understanding, who never studies the issues: he just “knows”, who brags about not reading, and who is completely without any semblance of character.
This. I really like her for all the same reasons. I am also hesitant because she does seem evasive on the critical bits - but then, how can she not be? A president has to do what is right in the moment and the situation is always changing. I personally hate the idea of nailing someone down on an promised outcome. I'd rather see a commitment to an approach - a projected compromise. Committing to anything without knowing if congress will be with you or against you is setting yourself up for unending trauma.
That said - she should have been ready for the questions. I am concerned about the debate because how could she not have been ready?
My last thought, will the media ever correct the disparity in the approach between candidates? I have not seen one interview where the other candidate has brought anything tangible forward at all. Is this temporary because of the candidate or is this because of his party, age, ethnicity, economic status?
The media wants to know specifics of her policies down to the color ink she'll use to sign a bill and what day and time she will do it. All they ask the other candidate is what they think about ink. There is just so much disparity.
And I agree, I'd LOVE to have a deep discussion over chips and salsa because I believe it would be real people talk. I am convinced she would want to learn about me as much as I want to learn about her.
Thanks Beth for sharing your thoughts on VP Harris...I like her too---a lot! She is certainly likable. I am terrified of her opponent regaining power. Thanks to you and Sarah for helping me keep it together in this highly stressful time.
So interesting! Thank you, Beth! I think what I’ve been observing in the VP as responsible, you’re seeing caution—and there’s a relation there. When someone has any amount of power or authority, whether a politician or celebrity, my affinity towards them is colored by how they handle the power their words have. Power forces you to consider more than just yourself, that’s the price to pay.
Policy specifics from a President are just windows into their actual values. Life and government are too messy and evolving to ever go exactly to plan, so I want someone’s words to give me insight into how they would handle any situation or negotiation. Policy specifics can do that, but there are other ways too. Her not getting fixated on too many specifics allows us to get to know her without distraction while also seeing that she’ll be able to navigate with grace, instead of being blindly fixated on a predetermined endpoint.
I loved these thoughts Beth!
I feel like the campaign and internet (my corner) is begging me to love her and Walz and I want to dive in the deep end while also just sitting on the edge dangling a foot in. I'm leaving space for both feelings and riding these emotions to November.
People calling Vice President Harris a radical lefty is like calling Congresswoman Liz Cheney or Senator Mitt Romney MAGA Republicans. During their tenures, both of them voted with then President Trump well over 90% of the time! The “far-left” policies that you list contain a wide spectrum of possibilities that include many acceptable to moderates.
I love that her life experience leads her to caution and honesty (particularly when "it depends" is the only honesty available). Maybe she's calculated lying vague as a means to grasp power and ruin America, like the email forwards coming from my uncle say. It seems more likely that she's learned it through a life of being a regular person (and woman of color, at that) in America and in politics, which makes her feel so much more like me.
Weirdly, the slipperiness a flip-flopping is clearly present on the other side as well, but it seems born of privilege that says he gets what he wants by virtue of being "the Donald" and not caution.
It makes sense that you like her in a way not entirely different from the way I like you. There's an inner resonance there, like calling like, or somesuch. (And, for what it's worth, I think that same inner resonance also drives trump's base. Which is, frankly, heartbreaking.)
I loved reading this piece, Beth. And thanks for including the CNN interview, which I found incredibly irritating and disappointing. Dana Bash squandered an opportunity to coax out more details about the VP's values, the foundation upon which VP Harris is building her presidential agenda. As a California Bay Area resident, I had the pleasure of voting for Kamala Harris several times before she reached the national stage. I'm a wholehearted supporter, and I am hopeful and excited about electing her as POTUS. As for Kamala being the kind of person you'd like to hang out with, I can only say that I once stood in a local restaurant's restroom line with her (small restaurant -- one gender-neutral restroom). At the time Kamala was the California AG and she was running for Senate. She was funny and gracious while we stood around as human beings waiting for the bathroom. I was delighted with her realness and amazed by her beauty. Now she brings that intelligence and dazzle to the largest stage on earth, and I'm all in to turn the joyful page.
“I understand why she doesn’t trust the world with her thoughts.” This is a deep take, and my gut trusts your gut on this.
I bet she’d like you, too. Perhaps you’ll have a chance for the chips and salsa date.
I haven’t yet watched the interview, but I appreciate this reflection. What I keep coming back to as I hear people criticize her for not having “specific policy plans” is that during the Democratic primary debates in 2019, no one had to answer “what would you do during a global pandemic?” A candidate’s policy plans are like a birth plan - leading up to it, you can drill down into the details all you want, and in the moment, something can and probably will go haywire and force you to at best rewrite the plan, if not just throw it out the window. I’m much more interested in a candidate’s character, values, and the guiding principles they’ll seek to follow while in office.
Respectfully, I’d like to push back a bit on this. You are certainly correct that Harris is being cautious, but it is a new cautious. Up until the moment she became the top of the ticket, she never hesitated to unashamedly give her opinion. Her opinions, however, have been way, way left of where she knows they need to be to win a general election. Her sudden guardedness of policy statements is a caution designed to camouflage her honest beliefs. She said herself that her values have not changed. I wonder whether a man running for president, who was once rated the most liberal in the Senate, and who had a long history of articulating leftist positions on a whole host of issues, would be given the generous label of “cautious” if he refused to clearly let the American people know what his specific policies would be once President, if he refused to even provide policies on his campaign website. I can’t help but wonder whether that would be seen less as cautious and more as a naked attempt to win an election solely on vibes and personality — as a calculated tactic to win over voters who would actually disagree strongly with the policy positions if they had ever been given the chance to hear them. If you are asking for the votes of Americans for the highest office in the land, guarding your policies like Fort Knox is not caution — it’s intentional deception. She is a leftist trying to win the votes of independents on sheer personality and likability. But personality doesn’t lower the price of groceries— policies do.
I'm not sure I'd categorize her as a leftist. We made this episode in 2020 after President Biden picked her to be his running mate. Even back then, Sarah and Beth described her as a moderate and centrist. Thanks for reading (even when you think we're wrong). -Maggie
https://www.pantsuitpoliticsshow.com/show-archives/2020/8/14/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-kamala-harris
I enjoy reading thoughtful takes — especially from different perspectives. But the Harris is a moderate or centrist take is not accurate. The non-partisan GovTracker website provides an ideological chart reflecting her time in the senate (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678#google_vignette). She is clearly on the far left of the spectrum. She has been on record advocating things like abolishing private insurance, Medicare for all, banning all fracking, mandatory gun buy-backs, and most recently, price controls. You can certainly agree with all those positions, but you cannot objectively call them moderate.
I'm not sure that comparing her time in the senate with today's political landscape in terms of 'Right', 'Moderate', 'Left' is necessarily accurate. The *landscape* has shifted. What was 'The Right' before Trump infected the political landscape is now 'Moderate' in comparison. Also, the success of the ACA made both abolishing private insurance and Medicare for all way more moderate in practice than they used to be. She spoke to her change in position on outright banning all fracking, pointing out that the values that led her to her position have not changed, even if her position itself has - that position moving to 'Moderate' from 'Left'.
I'll take a cautious woman with values over a man who outrageously lies and who has no values any day of the week. Policies will follow their respective values. Eyes wide open.
I also wished some of her answers were tighter too but that’s not what I’ll remember about this interview. When she talked about her nieces, you could tell how much she loves them. Her face really lit up when she was talking about them.
Beth-thank you. I don’t think you know how genuinely talented you are.
I loved this because it’s giving me language for a feeling I’ve struggled to verbalize. There’s something about VP Harris that I just really like. And the things that seem like they’d matter a lot for some reason matter less to me with her (ie: changing policy positions and having a good answer for what you’ll do on day 1). I trust her to do the right thing in the moment when she has the space to consider all angles and opinions. Thank you for this thoughtful piece Beth! You are wonderful!
“Her soul seems well.” I really like this—while every life has shadows, it feels as if she knows her shadows and is comfortable with herself, and in her capacity to keep growing through all her experiences.
I love the line “Her soul seems well.”
I always appreciate your thoughtful balanced perspective. We really don't need to be blind cheer leaders for this ticket. That would make us resemble the other side's supporters. I want us to be more thoughtful and discerning because she may (will) direct our country.
I agree her answers could have been tighter and hope that will come. And also can we ask about the balance or comparison of her thoughtful and consistent answers vs. the other ticket/candidates' policy clarifications. I hear from media she needs to sit down for an interview and provide some clarity beyond her stump speech. Where are the calls for that from the other ticket? Let's not give them a pass because they are not capable. Let's expect the same from them. And if it is Project 2025, let's ask them to commit to their positions.