Kamala Harris meets the moment!

September 11, 2024

Kamala Harris’s debate performance exceeded the unfair and asymmetrical expectations imposed on her by the press and pundits. She was terrific—in command of the facts, unfazed by Trump's bluster, personable, sincere, and likable but strong. That is a difficult mix to maintain in the face of a torrent of lies shouted by a bully who could not be controlled by the moderators. For those who were worried about the possibility that Kamala Harris would somehow stumble and harm her electoral prospects, put those worries aside. The reverse happened. She soared while Trump collapsed into his hollow shell.

Kamala Harris was confident and at ease. Trump sputtered and dodged in a futile effort to avoid answering the moderators’ questions.

I was struck by judgments delivered during the debate by two preeminent historians. I follow both Heather Cox Richardson and Michael Beschloss on Twitter. Near the end of the debate, the historians posted the following comments, which encapsulated the debate for me:

Heather Cox Richardson: “Trump is proving world leaders like him by citing Viktor Orban. Dear heavens. She is walking him like a poodle.”

Michael Beschlossos: “From start to end, Kamala Harris has just delivered what is easily one of the most successful Presidential debate performances in all of American history.”

First, I hope HCR writes a book or starts a rock band with the name, “Walking Him Like a Poodle.” HCR’s comment gets to the pith of the debate: Kamala Harris was in charge, leading Trump into traps he knew were traps but could not avoid. In the instance cited by HCR, VP Harris chided Trump, saying that world leaders laugh at him and military leaders believe he is a “disgrace.” Trump responded by citing Viktor Orbán as a leader who respects him. As HCR said, “Dear heavens.” Trump was outmatched and outclassed—bigly.

Michael Beschloss’s comment is significant because it ranks Harris’s performance in the historical context of presidential debates. The precise ranking of her performance matters less than the fact it will be near the top, according to one of the nation’s preeminent historians.

There is too much to cover in tonight’s newsletter, so I will focus on the major newsworthy positions revealed in the debate. I will return later in the week to additional subjects when transcripts and analyses are available. Of note:

• Harris presented herself as a candidate offering “generational change.”

• Harris advocated for the middle class and small businesses.

• Harris promised to sign a bill enacting the protections of Roe v. Wade.

• Harris promised to sign the border bill that Trump convinced Republicans to kill.

• Harris promised to reinstitute the child tax credit and institute a $6,000 credit for families with newborns

• Trump refused to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election.

• Trump refused to express any regret for anything he did or failed to do regarding the January 6 insurrection.

• Trump refused to say whether he would veto a national abortion ban.

• Trump repeatedly claimed that Democrats advocate for the execution of babies after birth.

• Trump refused to say why he urged Republicans to defeat the border bill.

• Trump claimed that tariffs are “taxes on foreign nations.”

• Trump refused to say whether he hoped Ukraine would defeat Russia war of aggression.

• Trump said he didn’t have a plan for healthcare after nine years but has only “concepts for a plan.”

• Trump repeated a racist slur that Haitian migrants are stealing and eating pets them in Springfield, Ohio.

No one who watched the debate could believe anything other than the fact that Kamala Harris is smart, capable, and up to the challenge of serving as president and commander-in-chief. Moreover, the debate served as a hyper-charged “media interview”—complete with hostile questions and an obnoxious heckler.

One of the first commentators to publish a review of the debate is David Frum in The Atlantic, How Harris Roped a Dope | She stayed human when Trump went feral. Per Frum,

Vice President Kamala Harris walked onto the ABC News debate stage with a mission: trigger a Trump meltdown.

She succeeded.

Former President Donald Trump had a mission too: control yourself. He failed.

Trump lost his cool over and over. Goaded by predictable provocations, he succumbed again and again.

Trump was pushed into broken-sentence monologues—and even an all-out attack on the 2020 election outcome. He repeated crazy stories about immigrants eating cats and dogs, and was backward-looking, personal, emotional, defensive, and frequently incomprehensible.

One final note: During the debate, I received outraged emails from readers about the moderators' failure to control Trump or treat Kamala Harris fairly. While true, let’s not make the debate about the moderators. That is what Republicans are doing tonight—to avoid talking about Trump's meltdown. Let’s focus on Kamala Harris’s ability to show Americans that she is up to the job of being president. That’s the story; let’s not bury the lead.

---

The New York Times appears to be listening to the criticisms of its readers

The New York Times published several articles on Tuesday that seemed to be directly responsive to criticisms that it is normalizing Donald Trump by “sane-washing” his insane ramblings. That is good news if it signals a genuine act of self-reflection by the Times about the quality of its news coverage.

First, a quartet of reporters on the “Trump beat” at the NYTimes published an article that reviewed Trump's increasingly incoherent and ugly statements over the last several weeks under the headline, “Trump Steps Up Threats to Imprison Those He Sees as Foes. The article was written by Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan, and Michael Gold.

The article covers Trump's threats to prosecute and imprison his foes. The article catalogs egregious statements made by Trump over the last month that received little or no coverage in the NYTimes. If it is an attempt to atone for past lapses, it is a start. The same reporters will need to keep up this level of truthful reporting to make up for their past omissions.

Second, the Times’ Editorial Board published an editorial that began as follows:

The most important distinction between the two candidates for the White House is that Vice President Kamala Harris is committed to democracy and the rule of law and Donald Trump is not. It’s a race that is, fundamentally, about who has the right temperament and is fit to be the next president, and the answer is not in question.

See NYTimes Editorial, Opinion | A Clear Choice on the Issue Voters Care About Most - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

The Editorial Board then shifts to policy comparisons between the candidates, saying

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has continued his tactic of making big commitments and then hoping he isn’t held accountable for them.

In other areas Mr. Trump has been more specific, but his plans would be disastrous.

Let’s hope the NYTimes is listening to its readers and recognizing that false equivalencies and both-siderism are not substitutes for impartial journalism.

---

Three important stories on Tuesday

These three stories are under the radar but deserve our attention:

JD Vance would not have voted to certify the 2020 election. See Politico, Vance would have asked for new electors instead of certifying 2020 election results. To be clear, the Constitution does not permit states to send “alternate slates of electors.” Electors are chosen on Election Day, and the electors cast their ballots on December 17. Vance is either monumentally ignorant of the provisions of the Constitution or is a liar.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warns that reactionary majority could reverse protections for contraception, same sex marriage, and LGBTQ equality. Conservatives Could Undo More Than Just Abortion Rights, Elena Kagan Warns | HuffPost Latest News

Missouri Supreme Court denies effort to keep reproductive liberty initiative off ballot. See Missouri Officials Tried Everything to Keep Abortion Off the Ballot. They Just Lost. – Mother Jones. The Mother Jones article is well worth your attention; it details the lengthy, bad-faith effort by Missouri Republicans to prevent the people of Missouri from voting on an amendment to the Constitution. It is a shocking story.

---

Opportunities for Reader Engagement

Focus for Democracy

On the day following the debate, join Focus for Democracy in the sprint to the finish. Come hear what cutting-edge programs are doing right now to generate Democratic votes in the swing states and key races. They'll provide you with evidence-based recommendations to maximize your impact on the election. 

Wednesday, September 11, 5pm PT / 8pm ET

Registration link: bit.ly/F4D11Sep

---

Concluding Thoughts

On Tuesday, Kamala Harris posted an interactive website listing her policies. See A New Way Forward - Kamala Harris for President: Official Campaign Website. Copy and save the link to the policy website so that you can easily reference and share Kamala’s policies whenever necessary.

Democrats were understandably anxious about Kamala Harris’s performance because of Joe Biden’s July debate performance. That worry is not only behind us, but Harris also disposed of the media’s criticisms that she hasn’t discussed her policies under aggressive questioning by journalists.

We have every reason to feel relieved and proud after the debate. Let’s revel in those feelings for a full ten minutes—and then get back to work. The election remains very close—although Kamala Harris has the momentum. The debate has added to her momentum, which is a good result! But we cannot know whether the incremental momentum from the debate will be enough, so we must leave nothing to chance. Until polling locations are closed on November 5, 2024, we must not relent. (Even then, we must work to cure ballots that might not be counted because of technical deficiencies.)

So, buoyed by Kamala Harris’s strong performance, let’s get back to work! We truly do have every reason to be hopeful but no reason to be complacent!

Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

The image below is of the Eagle Nebula, which I captured from Frazier Park, CA, 60 miles outside of Los Angeles. Notice the detail of the gas clouds that surround the central nebula and radiate out to the edges of the image.

Compare the image below from my backyard in the light-polluted San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles.

As you can see, the dark skies in the first photo allowed my camera to capture more photons than in the second photo. More photons equal more detail.

The Eagle Nebula is 5,700 light years from Earth and is 58 years in diameter.