Staff Reports
In the latest display of media acrobatics, Kamala Harris has become the unexpected darling of the establishment press, sending the country on a rollercoaster ride of excessive admiration reminiscent of the wild days of K-Pop fandom. It appears that the Washington Post recently decided that Kamala’s cackle deserves not just a passing mention but a full-fledged love letter, which has left many shaking their heads in disbelief. For years, the mainstream media has been perfecting their art of spinning the narrative, but this latest Kamala devotion has taken things to a new level.
The recent op-ed attempts to elevate Harris’s frequent laughter as a charming quirk, suggesting it showcases her warm and relatable personality. Delighted writers have long held hands and sung her praises, essentially forming a circle of affirmation around the beleaguered vice president. It’s as if they believe her belly laughs could mask her dismal political record. Instead of a solid policy platform, they would sell the American public a bag of giggles, overlooking the fact that Harris’s laughter often emerges in moments where seriousness is required. How anyone could equate a nervous chuckle with competence remains a mystery, but there it is, proudly displayed in print.
The comparison of her laughter to the charmingly awkward experiences of millennial dating culture—where bad luck suddenly gives way to “THE ONE!” fever—is both absurd and telling. It’s a frantic attempt to prop up a candidate struggling to resonate with voters. After all, isn’t it easier to fawn over someone’s laugh than to delve into their political failures? One might even liken it to romanticizing a bad break-up; some appear so desperate to find a bright side that they overlook the glaring red flags. Kamala can smile and laugh all she wants, but when it comes to substantial leadership, her cackles do not inspire the confidence one would hope for from a presidential nominee.
Interestingly, the article even notes the infamous nickname “Laughing Kamala” coined by none other than Donald Trump. The former president has a knack for encapsulating a person’s essence in a single phrase, inadvertently shining light on the greater issue at hand. If Harris is indeed a beacon of hope, as the media insists, then why does her laughter often appear as a substitute for substantive discussion? Trump’s jab was simply a wrap-up of his observations about her public persona—an odd ball of laughter that fails to convey the gravitas that the role demands.
Ironically, the op-ed dances around the reality that a fit of cackling does nothing to amplify Harris’s credibility. When faced with critical questions, her laughter becomes a nervous tick rather than a sign of approachability. For a woman who has held various political positions, including a stint as attorney general, one might expect a more grounded demeanor. Labeling her antics as heartfelt divertissements does nothing to hide the truth. The media’s desire to paint her as a dynamic leader is so strong that they seem willing to overlook her glaring lack of experience and preparedness.
@stephenkruiser: "What Kamala's cackle really indicates is her complete lack of preparedness in big people situations. Her word salads & cackle fits aren't 'charming' [but] are solid evidence that, in almost any public situation, she's in over her head." https://t.co/dixNQzTwWe
— David P Deavel (@davidpdeavel) August 9, 2024
In a world where political performances appear choreographed, it wouldn’t hurt for the media to recognize that charm doesn’t equal capability. In their rush to crown a new queen, one hopes that they’ll catch their breath before exhausting themselves in the three months leading up to the election. Changing the narrative about Kamala Harris from mere laughter to serious governance should be the goal—not trying to hide incompetence behind a vigorous laugh track. The press’s obedience in this grand charade is detectable, and only time will tell if the American people buy into the media’s whimsical portrayal of Kamala Harris or if they see her for what she really is: a leader unprepared for the responsibilities she seeks.
