0
0
I’ll admit it. I was wrong about Kamala Harris.
Weeks ago I wanted Joe Biden to step aside for a stronger, more charismatic candidate, and I was bummed when she was Joe’s pick. But the Vice President has shown me the error of my ways. She has been strong, smart, feisty, and aggressive in the most positive sense. Perhaps the best way I can characterize her is to imagine her as one of those cute pet dogs, that when attacked by hordes of hungry Haitian immigrants in Ohio, bit each of those suckers and drove them off.
Yes, Donald Trump really dared to repeat this most ridiculous and asinine internet myth about pet-eating migrants, and when actually challenged by the moderator, he doubled down on this silliness. By the way, apologists for the poor old former President complained that David Muir and Linsey Davis formed a trio of opponents who dogged him all night. After all, how could it be fair to ask for a simple yes-no answer and then repeat the request when the responder avoids the question completely. About the moderators, I’ll go my typical sports analogy route and repeat a thoughtful comment by one of CNN’s Republican commentators: It’s pretty lame to complain about the refereeing when you can’t hit a single open jump shot.
With a few exceptions, Harris was masterful. I, and others, typically worry about the optics of physical size. Trump is a hefty 6 foot 3, Harris is reportedly 5 foot 4. One would have expected his first move after coming onstage would be to pursue her and menacingly tower above her, setting the tone for the night. But as he went to hide behind his podium, Madame pit bull went right at her larger opponent, reached out her hand (which he had no choice but to accept), and strode back to her podium, thereby setting the tone and letting everyone know who was the alpha animal in this fight.
As much as Harris was a strong and agile prosecutor, credit debate prep for this victory. On tough issues such as Afghanistan, Harris was ready to distract from the withdrawal aspect of the issue by focusing on Trump’s dealings with the Taliban. She was fully prepared to dodge questions such why she had apparently changed positions on key matters such as fracking and border control. Throughout the evening, she never really got bogged down on the issues that might otherwise haunt her, always having a ready retort, however sometimes evasive, because she was well-rehearsed in advance.
Then, of course, we come to the one point that everyone has noted. At almost every corner Trump’s style of DEBATE was to take DE-BAIT. My favorite: How masterful to get under the Trumpster’s skin by asking viewers to go to a Trump rally and see the crowds leaving, bored by his unending rants. He responded with his most obvious obsession, veering into crowd size rather than offering anything substantial. All evening, what a marvelous and masterful strategy it was. And he was such easy and predictable prey.
A couple of small reservations about last night. If you bothered to look at the post-debate figures, Trump spoke for more than five minutes more than Harris. This is because he insisted on a “brief” follow-up when he didn’t like something Kamala had said. I often waited for Kamala to insist on having a few extra moments for a rebuttal concerning some outrageous and non-factual claim, but in most cases she did not (or at least did not succeed in doing so).
Finally, while I believe that Harris was quite successful in drawing the contrast between herself and her opponent, I thought it could have been even sharper and more direct. I’d like to hope that most people recognized the outrageousness of many of Trump’s claims. Not only did we have him clinging to “reports” of asylum-escapee, dog-eating migrants, but to others about abortion advocates accepting the killing of babies after birth. Perhaps Kamala might have reminded the audience that the man on the stage was the one who had suggested that perhaps people might consider drinking Lysol, which could kill germs on external surfaces, in order to kill the COVID virus internally. (Poor Dr. Deborah Birx, sitting on stage with Trump, almost peed in her pants trying to avoid laughing out loud.) Might Kamala have asked her audience directly, as I have asked myself: Is this person, both stupid and gullible, the one you want negotiating with foreign adversaries? Is he the one you want setting policy on a woman’s right to choose? Is this person fit, mentally or morally, to have access to the nuclear codes?
But I quibble. Biden vs Trump was a knockout—and thank Heaven it was. Had it been just a bit closer, Joe would have continued, trailing by a little more each passing day, and that dangerous and awful man would have been back in power. But the Trump vs Harris debate was a masterful technical knockout. The former champ isn’t lying face-up on the canvas, but he’s a goner nonetheless.
Goliath no longer, Trump will continue spitting into the wind, but to no avail. The country has now seen the two candidates together, can now judge their job interviews side-by-side, and I just can’t see how a majority of the voting populace, whether in Pennsylvania or Georgia, whether college-educated or not, could reach any conclusion but the right one.
Madame President, I was wrong. You are a mighty warrior.
Excellent, Ed!
I was soooo nervous.
An accurate account of Tuesday night. But it doesn’t deal with the fact–I also can’t explain it–that the millions of Trump supporters don’t really recognize or care about his ignorance, incoherence, and vicious lying. He is their guy come hell or high water.
Dr. Krupat is a social psychologist, perhaps he might offer some thoughts on the terrible confluence of cultism and politics in the age of Trump.