Staff Reports
Kamala Harris seems to think that her potential presidency isn’t the big deal everyone claims it is. In a recent interview with NBC, she made it clear that she believes voters are more concerned with kitchen table issues than the fact that she could be the first woman in the Oval Office. Who knew? Perhaps the aspirations of a female president aren’t what they used to be after the novelty of her tenure as vice president wore off.
She is the second Democrat to throw her hat in the ring against former President Trump, following the formidable Hillary Clinton. Yet, instead of focusing on the historic nature of her run, Harris has chosen to redirect the conversation. According to her, voters are less interested in gender and more focused on whether their candidate possesses a solid plan to lower costs and tackle global security concerns. How noble! If only her plans were as concrete as her lofty rhetoric.
Harris downplays sexism in bid to become first female president https://t.co/Rpw0uXssdI via @dcexaminer
AMERICA WON'T VOTE WHERE STUPID IS THE ONLY QUALIFICATION
WE DID WITH BIDEN WE DID WITH HILLARY
WE WON'T WITH HARRIS!— D J Maga (@MagaD33478) October 22, 2024
Harris’s stance on sexism seems to come from a place of selective hearing. While she claims gender doesn’t play a role in her campaign agenda, her approach has been decidedly feminine. The vice president’s appeal rests heavily on prioritizing reproductive rights—a topic that might resonate well with many women but could alienate the very male voters she needs to win. It’s quite a peculiar strategy in a presidential race against a former president who garnered millions of male votes during his tenure.
To add to this circus, Barack Obama recently took it upon himself to intervene with the black male voter demographics. He urged them to set aside any hesitation they might have regarding a woman president. His comments could easily be interpreted as condescending, yet there he was, declaring that rejecting Harris would somehow denote a lack of manliness. It would be interesting to see how that narrative goes over with voters who might prefer to make their choices based on merit rather than gender-based guilt trips.
Despite the heavyweights in her corner, Harris seems unbothered about her campaign’s historical significance. She cleverly sidestepped questions that could have painted her as a pioneer in a world overdue for a female leader, instead choosing to assert that voters care more about competence than identity politics. One can only hope that her competency includes knowing that her gender, while eye-catching, may not guarantee a win when there are serious issues to tackle on the horizon. In a world where votes are earned, not assumed, Harris might have some convincing to do.
