Debate Fears--The Double Standard

By Jessie Seigel / September 8, 2024

Many firmly expect that Vice-President Kamala Harris will wipe the floor with former president Donald Trump in their debate this coming Tuesday, and some look forward to it with almost gleeful anticipation.

I, on the other hand, await that debate with apprehension.

Do not misunderstand me. I in no way underestimate Vice-President Harris. She possesses a buoyant charisma, a sharp intelligence, and ability in abundance, not to mention a tremendous number of years of government experience.

However, the mainstream media is hyping the fact that Harris is preparing, and that Trump’s public speeches are incoherent, thus creating very low expectations for Trump and high ones for her.

Trump has been claiming that he is not preparing at all. But apart from a couple of public appearances and rallies, he has been out of sight. While NPR today referred to Harris as “cloistered,” it’s a good bet that Trump—who they do not mention—is holed up with a coach. Between his “I’m going to wing it” pose and his incoherence thus far, Trump is creating such low expectations that if his preparations enable him to speak a coherent sentence, he will be treated as having succeeded.

In the run-up to the debate, the mainstream press has been not-so-subtly trying to tear Harris down.

First, there was the criticism that she had not done an interview while she and Tim Walz were busy barnstorming, speaking directly to voters. Then, when Harris did give an interview to CNN’s Dana Bash, the New York Times attacked her performance in a most peurile manner.  

The article, by Reid J. Epstein, who apparently is covering Harris’s presidential campaign for the Times, was snide, and—as the media so often does—shallowly following the horse race, criticizing style rather than addressing substance.

And Epstein was clearly determined to find fault with anything Harris said in the Bash interview.

First, he complained that Harris “showed her tendency toward winding answers…” Epstein maintained that her speeches are “filled with simple, declarative sentences,” but argued that “she still struggles to be punchy off the cuff.” He suggested that the Bash interview “was a reminder that unscripted, she can sometimes deliver discursive answers that ramble and zigzag.” –-As if Harris could not speak articulately without a script.

Evidently, Epstein does not understand the difference between a rally stump speech and an interview. For his edification, I will note that a serious interview—one that informs the public—is not meant to contain pithy one-line zingers. What he tries to label “ramble and zigzag” was Harris giving the more extensive answers that an interview warrants.

I'd advise Mr. Epstein to watch a Trump interview. There, perhaps, he could learn the definition of the words "ramble" and "zigzag."

In any event, where appropriate, Harris did give a pithy answer. When Bash asked Harris about Trump’s assertion that she only identified as black later in life, Harris responded: “Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please.” Bash asked if she had anything to add, and Harris said—succinctly—“That’s it.” Was that not punchy enough for Epstein?  

He also criticized Harris for refusing “to lean into the prospect of becoming the first Black woman elected as president.” But it was both politically and philosophically intelligent not to do so. She is running for president to lead the country, not to be a poster-girl as the first Black American woman to achieve that office.

Epstein wrote that, when shown a photo of her young niece watching her speak at the Democratic convention, Harris offered “a clinical description of the photograph instead of revealing any emotions she felt viewing it.”

But, as Epstein himself reports, Harris said: “I did see that photograph. And I was deeply touched by it. And, you’re right, she’s—it’s the back of her head, and her two little braids, and—and then I’m in the front of the photograph, obviously speaking. It’s very humbling.”

Apparently, that was not a sufficiently moving statement to satisfy Epstein’s craving for sentimentality. Maybe he wanted a Barbara Walters tear-drenched moment from the candidate? But what, pray tell, would parading mawkish schmalz about the photo have to do with qualifications to be president or what a candidate will do for the country?

 If this is all we can expect from the so-called august New York Times, what hope can one have for fair, intelligent, and relevant coverage from other media outlets?

I’ve discussed the Times article as an example of the attempts by even much of the so-called liberal media to diminish Harris no matter what she does or says. It makes one fear that the media will similarly nitpick her debate performance to death, while giving Trump a shrug and a pass yet again. Or, at a minimum, if they acknowledge a Harris debate win, they may argue that the expected victory over an incoherent cretin by an accomplished prosecutor doesn’t amount to much.

In other words, if Harris does well, it will be taken as a given. If Trump doesn’t fall on his face, it will be heralded as a triumph. So much for the media.

I have an additional fear. Along with travel fatigue, President Biden may have been thrown off his delivery in his June debate performance by Trump interrupting or talking over him. But because of the muted microphone, the audience was not aware of it. And so far as I know, the moderators said nothing to shut Trump up when it was not his turn to speak.

In the Harris-Trump debate, the microphones will again be muted. I expect that Harris must be preparing for Trump's likely behavior, but it is still concerning. If she tells him to be quiet because it is her turn to speak, her reacting to something we cannot hear will come off oddly. And frankly, I have trouble seeing how anyone can speak at length with someone persistently trying to shout over them or mutter under them.

I admit, I am a pessimist, always looking for the hole in the donut. But I also always root for myself to be wrong. I like nothing better than when the optimists can tell me: “I told you so.” Let that be so now, I pray.

If you like what you read at My Washington Whispers, please feel free to subscribe below. It costs nothing, requires only your email address, and will result only in a bi-weekly email announcing the latest issue. And share it with your friends!