Staff Reports
In a recent display of complete allegiance, Vice President Kamala Harris has made it abundantly clear that her loyalty lies solely with President Joe Biden. A senior adviser to the Harris campaign confirmed that the vice president is all in on Biden’s policies and has no intention of carving out her own path on the campaign trail. Apparently, changing course or even mildly suggesting a different approach would lead to a “whole different set of problems.” It’s almost as if her campaign advisor, Stephanie Cutter, thinks that having problems in democracy is an everyday thing—who knew?
Cutter’s comments came during an appearance on the oh-so-serious podcast, Pod Save America, where the implications of Harris’ unyielding loyalty were discussed. Instead of embracing an individual stance, Harris seems determined to stick to Biden’s playbook. The expectation, as Cutter explained, is that unless Harris manages to publicly disagree with Biden on key policy issues, she’ll be boxed in as a mere continuation of the current administration. Meanwhile, this united front raises the question: Just how hard are they trying to convince voters that more Biden is what everyone wants?
Top Harris adviser admits vice president wouldn’t split with Biden on campaign trail https://t.co/fVgTvXocrR
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) November 27, 2024
This insistence on alignment is in stark contrast to the more tumultuous history of vice-presidential relationships. Take, for example, former Vice President Mike Pence, who—despite some hiccups—managed to remain largely supportive of President Trump, even during moments of disagreement. Pence, who may have felt the heat of differing opinions, still found a way to maintain a positive legacy with Trump, eventually demonstrating his pride in their shared accomplishments. So, it appears that Harris’ commitment to Biden is more of a political love affair than a professional challenge.
When grilled on the popular daytime circus known as The View, Harris responded to a question regarding what she would change about the Biden administration with an astonishing lack of imagination. Citing her experience as California’s attorney general instead of probing into how she might alter the current administration’s trajectory, her response seemed less like a vision for the future and more like a desperate plea for job security. One has to wonder if her campaign is more concerned with maintaining the status quo than actually innovating for the future.
Cutter’s emphasis on portraying Harris as a forward-thinking candidate further highlights the underlying challenge for her campaign: navigating public perception while tethered firmly to an administration that many associate with economic woes and other persistent problems. In counseling the team to showcase future-looking policies, it’s evident that they recognize the incumbent’s record is, at best, a double-edged sword. Ultimately, the Harris campaign seems to be trapped in a quagmire of its own making, where critical thinking must take a backseat to an overly cautious ride on the Biden express.
