alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.

The touch of historic irony behind Kamala Harris’ debate triumph

The touch of historic irony behind Kamala Harris’ debate triumph
Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

It might seem like an eternity since the last time a woman and a man squared off in a vice-presidential debate, but it was just 12 years ago. Based upon post-game analysis back then, the man won.

Not so much this time.

In 2008, then-Senator Joe Biden–of all people–took the measure of then-Governor Sarah Palin by simply showing himself more qualified to be president. Before this crazy year, their 2008 matchup–with the genders reversed by political party–had certainly loomed as the most anticipated vice-presidential debate in history.

Biden mostly killed with Palin with kindness, as Mama Grizzly vainly attempted to distinguish herself from SNL comedian Tiny Fey's legendary portrayal of her as essentially someone more suited to taking a tour of the White House than living there.

This time, the woman won. Senator Kamala Harris dramatically took the measure of Vice President Mike Pence where it matters most: on optics and presentation. Like it or not–and idealists generally don't–national debates, especially in a one-on-one format, reduce to style over substance.

The best way to judge a contemporary debate is to consider what it would look like with the sound off. That's a truism debating back in the television era at least to 1960, when Tricky Dick Nixon's 5 o'clock shadow rendered Senator John F. Kennedy even more youthful, dashing and charismatic than he already was.

In that respect, Harris trounced Pence by oozing decency, calm and warmth while he assumed the position of the First Enabler, an angry white guy apologizing for his excruciatingly angrier boss. Bottom line, Harris was easily the most presidential person on the stage.

It didn't hurt that Harris affectionately referred to her running mate as "Joe." Pence stopped a whisker short of using "Dear Leader" when fawning and attempting to recreate history on behalf of President Donald Trump.

Pence actually crushed himself. With the Republican ticket desperately needing to whittle its cavernous deficit among women–or "suburban housewives as Trump likes to say–it is an impossible to imagine an approach more offensive to women. I'm a guy, for crying out loud, and even I can see that.

Harris' brilliant strategy was not to take the bait. Instead of showing resentment to the persistent rudeness by Pence or appealing to moderator Susan Page (who apparently took frequent coffee breaks during the proceedings), the seasoned senator just smiled sadly while taking in the hoisting of Pence on his own petard.

Finally, as to substance, one could argue that Harris won here as well, but mainly because the facts are on her side. To be fair, if millions of Americans went to bed every night freaked and fearful about fracking, it would have been a pretty good nice for Pence. But seeing as how COVID-19 hasn't gone away like magic as COVID-45 repeatedly promised, Harris prosecutorial annihilation of the administration's massive public-health failure was surgical.

To be fair, this debate was never going to be about changing many minds: The cake is baked politically with something north of 90 percent of the electorate. It is become increasingly clear that Trump's only path to victory is through cheating with the help of an army of lawyers tasked to punt an adverse decision to Republican state legislators, Republican judges or both.

In normal times, Pence's monstrous refusal to promise acceptance to accept an orderly transition–echoing the treasonous posture of Chairman Mao ZeTrump–should have been the biggest headline of the night. It wasn't.

Once again, it's a sad commentary of our times that they might as well have staged the debate without sound. But Harris still would have trounced Pence.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close