In a surprising piece from The New York Times Monday, the political prospects of Vice President Kamala Harris became bleaker than ever before with as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly paned the potential 2024 presidential nominee for her lack of “political instincts.”
According to the Times,
“Members of Congress, Democratic strategists and other major party figures all said she [Harris] had not made herself into a formidable leader.”“Two Democrats recalled private conversations in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented that Ms. Harris could not win because she does not have the political instincts to clear a primary field.”
However, the Times story added that “Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton,” seemed to demure from the criticism of the vice president telling the Times that Clinton “was strongly supportive of Ms. Harris and often spoke with her about shared experiences of being ‘a woman in power.’”
Adding, “They have built and maintained a strong bond. Any other characterization is patently false.”
In the full-length and thorough criticism of Harris that clocked in at well over 2,200 words, or five full pages typed by the Times chronicled a vice presidency full of lamentations. The piece depicted Harris as a sympathetic character, pushed to the margins of the Biden presidency and struggling against the constraints of her role citing Ron Klain, Biden’s outgoing chief of staff. Klain reportedly spoke of her advocacy for abortion and international trips on behalf of the president,
“She has done all that operating under high expectations,” he said, noting her tenure as one of many firsts. “She carries these expectations not as a burden but with grace and an understanding of how much her history-making role inspires others.”
However, as Fox News observed, this view is far from universal. On Jan. 30th Cleve Wootson Jr. wrote for The Washington Post,
“Concerns about Harris’s political strength were repeated often by more than a dozen Democratic leaders in key states interviewed for this story, some speaking on the condition of anonymity to convey candid thoughts. Harris’s tenure has been underwhelming, they said, marked by struggles as a communicator and at times near-invisibility, leaving many rank-and-file Democrats unpersuaded that she has the force, charisma and skill to mount a winning presidential campaign.”
Jim Geraghty writing for National Review noted the same day that “Harris’s approval and disapproval ratings over the past year are basically two flat lines. She is almost always approved by about 40 percent, and she is almost always disapproved by more than 50 percent. At this point, the cement has dried around the perception of the vice president.”
He called the many articles over the past two years that have indicated “Harris has turned the corner” to be “mostly wishful thinking.”
Fox News observed that Democrat senator and erstwhile presidential primary contender Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts seemed to be uncomfortable with the notion of Harris returning as vice president in a hypothetical second term in a recent interview with Boston Public Radio. However, she said she wished to “defer” the decision to Biden.
It’s a nearly untenable political position to recover from, being the first-ever woman to hold the office of vice president, to have so lackluster a performance that the two-leading women of your party can only seem to bring shallow, hollow-sounded public support.
One would expect them to be fulsome and exuberant in their praise and enthusiasm were there any potential for a female VP, in the historic express lane to the presidency, to rise and break what Clinton called “That Highest, Hardest Glass Ceiling.” But for Harris, there evidently is none to be had.
