be known as black, so I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?”11 Harris did not take the bait. She responded reasonably yet forcefully, making the statement not about herself but about the electorate more generally: “The American people deserve a leader who tells the truth. A leader who does not respond with hostility and anger when confronted with the facts. We deserve a leader who understands that our differences do not divide us - they are an essential source of our strength.”12 Harris is also quite capable of defusing attacks with laughter and light-heartedness, as was evident when she referred to Trump and Vance’s attacks as being “just weird.” The comment was smartly directed at the leaders and policies of the Republican leadership, and not republicans more generally, thereby landing more appropriately than the tone-deaf comments of Trump supporters being a “basket of deplorables.” Continuing along these lines, Harris would go a long way in demonstrating her temperament.
Finally, Harris needs to lean into her record both in terms of her professional experience and the actions she achieved. She can, as Biden did before her, point out her level of public service: she was District Attorney of San Francisco, Attorney General of California (Trump wrote a $5000 contribution to her campaign), and Vice President of the United States. This will convince people of her practice, which at its heart is directed at improving the lives of others.
Collectively, this returns us to a point previously made: Harris will be strongest when combining high ideals with a mastery of detail. Doing so will allow her to construct and build upon her own narrative, so not to be dependent upon one which Trump and Vance construct on her behalf.
The Vice-Presidential Pick
Harris' first big decision involved selecting a running mate, the first rule of which is 'do no harm' to the front rummer – or as little as possible. After running the numbers and much deliberation, Harris picked Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro and Arizona Senator Mark Kelly.
Shapiro and Kelly were the early favorites among party regulars and the media. But during the vetting process, data and politics entered the fray. It is said that all roads to the White House went through Pennsylvania, which commands 19 Electoral College votes. Shapiro, a highly popular governor of the state, who was seen as a CEO who could hit the ground running given his experience governing, given his time as governor, had the advantage over Kelly.
But then, politics came into play. Progressive democrats started pushing back against Shapiro, citing his stanch pro-Israel and anti-Palestinain position and his position on school vouchers. Opposition to his appointment even came from Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a pro-Israel senator, who claimed Shapiro would be a poor choice as a running mate as he cared mostly about advancing himself. Hard to garner support when your own U.S. Senator does not support you.
Suddenly, Shapiro's popularity and ambition became negatives. Viewed as an independent thinker with presidential ambition, he was now seen as a potential challenger. And, it has been reported that he both questioned and challenged Harris on the role she envisioned him playing as vice president, as opposed to Walz who simpy said he was their to serve in whatever capacity she wished. Shapiro was out, Kelly and Walz remained in play.
Being from a swing state, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly seemed to hold an advantage. He was a figher pilot, an astronaut, a U.S. Senator whose wife, Representative Gabby Giffords, survived an assassination attempt. He could stand up to J.D. Vance's military record and against the gun lobby. And Arizona was a swing state.
But then the bean counters and strategists engaged. The argument was soon made
95