The New Republic, a publication I can vaguely recall from my youth (when people last cared about it), is saying the quiet part out loud: “Kamala Harris Doesn’t Need Policy to Win.”
This might be a true statement, but coming from the media, Kamala’s policy, or lack thereof, ought to be examined as a matter of public interest. Which is to say that the question they should be asking is not whether Kamala can win an election without talking about policy but whether she should.
Kamala Harris still doesn’t have a single policy position listed on her website. Even Mark Penn, a former top adviser to Hillary Clinton, is appalled:
One interview. One debate. Some rah rah stump speech you read over and over. And voila you have a 50 per cent chance of being president.
Good gig if you can get it. No 3 debates. No 2 years of primaries, coalition building, no detailed policy development, and no daily press briefings. Or tests of leadership.
It’s only the most important job in the world with a $6 trillion budget and thousands of nuclear weapons.
The right thing would be 3 debates, real detailed policy briefings, and full availability to answer questions so the electorate could vote on an informed basis. That’s what real democracy demands.
Then again, it seems obvious that there’s a clear reason why Kamala Harris isn’t being subjected to debates, primaries, detailed policy explanations, daily press briefings, etc. She’s famously terrible
