Kamala Harris Shows She Has the Chops to Take on Trump

She was the only Dem who demonstrated the ability to devise a kick-ass combat strategy.

Wilfredo Lee/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

For the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, the right stuff for victory can be boiled down rather easily: the ability to campaign against a skunk.

Let me back up. My father used to say, “Never get in a fight with a skunk. You both end up smelling bad, but the skunk likes that.” By now you have figured out who plays the role of the skunk in this folksy analogy: Donald Trump. Even with historically low approval ratings, Trump is a tough target. His say-anything-do-anything demagogic, fear-mongering style of politics is designed to pull his foes into the gutter with him. And since he’s already wallowing thereā€”a creepy brute, a hate-fueling bigot, and an inveterate liar accused of rapeā€”he has nothing to lose in a mud-bath clash.

But whoever he drags into the dirt could see his or her shine diminish. So the Democratic candidate who ends up on the fight card with Trump will have to be damn smart and wily in devising a combat strategy. On Thursday night, Sen. Kamala Harris demonstratedā€”more than any of the 19 other contenders who vied for viral moments throughout the two Democratic debatesā€”that she and her crew know how to craft and execute a battle plan aimed directly at an opponent’s vulnerability. That doesn’t yet mean she will be the best to take on Trump. But in that all-important doing-what-it-takes lane, she is now leading the pack.

During the debates, many of the Democratic candidates tried mightily to grab a breakout 30 seconds that would boost their standing and juice their campaigns. Some tried it with sharp, issue-oriented jabs or what they hoped would be regarded as clever soundbites. Former Housing Secretary JuliĆ”n Castro poked at ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke over an immigration issue. Rep. Eric Swalwell, addressing former veep Joe Biden, declared it was time for a new generation (Swalwell’s, that is) to take the torch. But Harris topped them all and illustrated that she could engineer and implement a well-thought-out assault on a political foe. 

When the conversation during the second debate turned to police shootings of African American men, Harris elbowed into the discussion, saying, “As the only black person on this stage, I would like to speak on the issue of race.” She then let loose a volley that was pre-planned. She referred to her own experiences with racism as a young child and struck Biden with a two-pronged attack. First, she politely but firmly slammed him for his recent comments about the good ol’ days when he could forge legislative compromises with segregationist senators. ā€œI do not believe you are a racist,ā€ Harris said in a heartfelt manner, ā€œand I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground. But I also believe, and itā€™s personal and it was actuallyā€”it was hurtful, to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on segregation of race in this country.ā€ 

That was merely the set-up. She quickly moved to the coup de grĆ¢ce. Noting Biden’s efforts in the 1970s to oppose busing ordered by the federal government to desegregate public schools, she said, ā€œThere was a little girl in California, who was part of the second class to integrate her public school. And she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.ā€

Biden stepped into the trap. He told Harris she was wrong: “In terms of busing, you would have been able to go to school in the same exact way because it was a local decision made by your city council. Thatā€™s fine. Thatā€™s one of the things I argued for, that we should be breaking down these lines.” Harris did not let up. She asked Biden, “Do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America then?ā€ He responded, “I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed was busing ordered by the Department of Education, thatā€™s what I opposed.”

The former vice president was flopping about, making a case that sounded similar to the states’ rights arguments used by the anti-desegregationists of that era. And Harris shot back, “Thatā€™s where the federal government must step in! Thatā€™s why we have the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Thatā€™s why we need to pass the Equality Act. Thatā€™s why we need to pass the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. Because there are moments in history when states fail to preserve the civil rights of all people.” Biden surrendered with a weak, “My time’s up.”

Harris’ run on Biden was not improvised. This was rehearsed and readied. As soon as it happenedā€”and the audience applause signaled its successā€”her campaign zapped out a brief four-sentence fundraising email: “Are you watching Kamala on the debate stage right now? Sheā€™s fired upā€”and so are we.” And her Facebook page posted a photo of her as a child with the tagline echoing what she had just told Biden: “That Little Girl Was Me.” 

It was all too obvious. Harris and her advisers had decided to hit Biden and then, if it worked, exploit the moment. But it was up to Harris to find an opportunity during the debate to trigger the plan. And she did so smoothly. It worked. Biden, the frontrunner, faltered, and for this exchange and other aspects of her performance throughout the debate, Harris was rightfully pronounced the winner by the politerati. At the first debate the previous night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren seemed to have gained the most. She did so by clearly presenting her message of progressive kitchen-table populism. Warren, the former professor, evinced her ability to deploy her command of policy details to do fierce political battle. Harris, the former prosecutor, displayed a different skill: how to personally (and fairly) attack and eviscerate an opponent.

Trump is an unpopular president. But he will be a vexing foe. His talents are those of a clever bully. He belittles. He mocks. He casts false aspersions. He uses a dog whistle and a bullhorn to whip up anger and resentment. He lies about, well, everything. With his bad conduct, he distracts from serious discourse and attempts to set the terms of the fight. He is the master of defining down. He is a whirl of misbehavior who constantly hits (and grabs) below the belt. He is tethered to no rules, no values, and no sense of decency. And his mud-throwing machine will be underwritten with hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash. Taking him on will be no easy mission. The Democratic candidate will have to deflect or sidestep Trump’s blitz of bullshitā€”know when to respond, when to counter, when to ignoreā€”and craft his or her own scheme for fighting back. I referred to Trump as a skunk above, but how do you wrestle a slippery pig in the muck without getting as muddy as the swine?

No Democratic candidate has yet proven that he or she has completely figured out this puzzle. On Thursday evening, Harris showed Democratic voters that she can conceive and implement a kick-ass plan. Certainly, one Biden blast does not a winning campaign make (and Biden is a much different target than Trump). Yet it was a signal that Harris has the capacity to mount a strategic strike. In these debatesā€”and there are plenty more to comeā€”she was the best brawler of all the contestants, and for the main event, her party is going to need one hell of a warrior. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate