Like many of you, I suspect, I had nothing but admiration for the way Kamala Harris eviscerated Bill Barr yesterday, exposing his lies, deceit and evasion. It was much the same during the Kavanaugh hearings, when she poked and prodded that indecent sack of monkey poo. She gnawed away at his lies without succumbing to the over-the-top grandstanding exhibited by some of her colleagues (e.g., “I am Spartacus” Corey Booker), though, it being the Senate Judiciary Committee, she wasn't immune from some political theatrics.
The traits she showed in those hearings is one reason I was drawn to her as a presidential candidate: whip-smart, incisive, attacking relentlessly straight to the core of the matter like Ulysses Grant. These characteristics probably made her a great prosecutor. If ever I'm unfortunate enough to find myself charged with a crime, I would love to have her as my defense attorney. It's also one reason she has so far been a good senator in my estimation.
As a presidential candidate, though, she's been a bit of a disappointment so far, after what nearly everyone agreed was a great announcement speech in Oakland. (Full disclosure: I'm not committed to any candidate yet, and the only one whose campaign I have contributed to is Amy Klobuchar, to whom I sent the princely sum of $25.) She's had a few “stumbles,” as the media characterized them – but what they seem to me to be are moments that show she doesn't really know what she believes, or – more probably – isn't sure what is the best political answer to give, regardless of what she actually thinks. Her poll numbers have lately been going the wrong way.
She was asked at a CNN town hall whether her support for Medicare-for-all meant getting rid of private insurance and said yes. By the next morning, perhaps after being reminded this was unpopular and would mean hundreds of thousands of people in the insurance business losing their jobs, she “clarified” her position to be rather that, of course, there would still be a role for private insurance in Medicare-for-all.
Not so recently, when asked if people in prison should have the right to vote, she said, “I think we should have that conversation,” which is a fancy way of saying nothing, really. The next day, she once again “clarified” her remarks to say that the issue was “complex” and would be “one of my first areas of focusing concern” but that “people who commit murder, or people who are terrorists” should be deprived of their rights.
Which is really trying having it both ways. Say what you will about Bernie Sanders – and I usually have little positive to say about him – he has the courage of his convictions (mostly), even when it comes to controversial things like giving prisoners still in jail voting rights or calling himself a socialist.
Harris was at it again on “Hardball” last night, when Chris Matthews asked if she thought Bill Barr should be impeached. I can't remember her exact words (and am too lazy to try to find them), but they were essentially equivalent to “We should have that conversation,” another equivocation. Her stand on impeaching Trump is a little more defensible, if vague, being that “impeachment proceedings” should begin and then we'll see (sort of what I feel) — but I get the sense that her take has less to do with her true feelings than avoiding taking a stand one way or another so she doesn't alienate part of the electorate. Compare this to Elizabeth Warren. Again, whatever else you think of her (in my case, not so much), she doesn't shrink from the courage of her convictions, calling for Trump's impeachment, no ifs, ands, buts, or “let's start impeachment hearings and then see”s.
I haven't given up on Harris by any means. It's way too early, for one thing, and I am still drawn to her for all the reasons she impressed me in the first place. I still think all in all she'd make a good president. Like many of you, however, one of my criteria for a Democratic candidate is that they be able to beat Trump. That means, I think, not being overly calculating, equivocating when you need to take a stand. Trump will lie about everything shamelessly (remember how he was going to make the rich like himself pay higher taxes?), so trying to best him by not offending anyone won't be a winning strategy, I think.
In a noted 1979 interview with Roger Mudd, Sen. Edward Kennedy was asked why he wanted to be president. He infamously didn't have a good answer. His inability to articulate what was driving him to run (other than, many assumed, being a Kennedy and disliking Jimmy Carter) did not help his candidacy.
Many in the Democratic field may have no real driving force behind their candidacies other than the fact that Trump is hugely unpopular and they smell blood in the water. I don't know that Harris is among them, but she needs to stop dodging the hard questions. If she's been avoiding taking tough stands out of political calculation, she needs to tell us what she really thinks. If her deflections are because she hasn't thought through some things like voting rights for the incarcerated, she needs to sit down and consider what her position would be on various issues. If she's not willing to do those things, maybe she should stay in the Senate, where she can still do a lot of good.