“Our collective goal,” Harris says, “is that all communities are safe” — but then tries to water down the question by including the economy, education, and health care. Harris tries to talk about everything but policing in a lengthy filibuster. “We have to have this conversation,” Harris says while trying to avoid the question:

The senator went on to explain that “in many cities in America, over one-third of their city budget goes to police.” She asked, “What about the money going to social services? What about the money going to helping people with job training? What about helping with mental health issues that communities are being plagued with, for which we’re putting no resources?”

“Senator, I hear you loud and clear, and I don’t think there’s any rational American right now that doesn’t think we need to take a cold, hard look at reforming our police,” McCain replied. But she still wanted a yes or no answer on one question: “Are you for defunding the police?”

“How are you defining ‘defund the police?’” Harris shot back.

This is part of the nonsensical “defund doesn’t mean defund” explications that started to abound in the initial wave of derision over the movement. At least in Minneapolis, “defund” explicitly means “defund,” even if the city council can’t actually do that. When Republicans demanded to defund Planned Parenthood, Democrats argued that the GOP wanted to forcibly shut them down, when all that meant was to strip their federal funding and force the abortion mill to operate on their own. The sudden embrace of nuance of “defund,” by both media and Democrats, is less than convincing.

Thus far, the media has given a pass to Democrats who talk out of both sides of their mouths on #DefundthePolice, or actively insert themselves as apologists for them. Today, though, both the Washington Post and The Hill raise the ante on Harris, in large part because of the apparent conflict between Joe Biden and the leading candidate to share his ticket.

The Hill’s Alexander Bolton explicitly cites the veepstakes:

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who is now the front-runner to be Joe Biden’s running mate, is trying to straddle the divide on the left over police reform.

The death of George Floyd and subsequent calls from progressives to defund the police have put Harris, a former prosecutor, in a politically difficult position. How she handles the emotionally charged issue over the next several weeks could determine whether she is tapped for the 2020 ticket. …

The issue is a potential source of tension with Biden, who on Monday said, “I don’t support defunding the police” but qualified his stance by also saying, “I support conditioning federal aid to police based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards for decency and honorableness.”

The Washington Post’s Sean Sullivan reports on concerns among progressives that Harris might be too soft on the movement to help Biden. They want an activist running mate instead:

But while Harris is championed by Democratic officeholders and leaders, who see her as appealing to suburban and centrist voters, many of the activists who have helped energize the street protests warn that party figures are missing the mood of the moment. As a traditional politician and former prosecutor, they say, Harris would fail to capture the passions that are powering the protests, and her selection could dampen the excitement that is crucial to the Democrats in November.

“I think that he needs to figure out somebody that’s not just there because they’re a black woman, because they check a box,” said Tay Anderson, 21, a Denver school board member and a leading voice in that city’s protests. “Nominating Kamala Harris in the wake of what’s going on is not the best solution. Nominating someone who’s put black people in jail doesn’t make sense at this moment. You have to have someone who’s not just a box- checker.”

Within Biden’s orbit of allies and confidants, there is a sentiment that picking Harris increasingly makes sense, according to three people in touch with the campaign who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid on a sensitive topic.

It doesn’t appear that Harris will get a pass on this question, at least not at the moment. Her past history as a prosecutor who rarely if ever charged police officers might be a problem — and so might her history as a client of the LAPD (via American Thinker’s Monica Showalter):

Armed, plain-clothes LAPD officers were dispatched to California cities outside of Los Angeles at least a dozen times to provide security for U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris at public events, media appearances, and a party.

LA taxpayers paid for airline tickets, hotel stays, car rentals, and meals, according to detailed expense reports obtained by NBC News. The total cost of the trips, not including the officers’ overtime, topped $28,000. …

Between January 2017 and July 2018 the records show LAPD officers flew to San Francisco at least seven times, including a trip in April 2017, when Harris gave TV interviews, a trip in March 2018 for a speech at a YMCA event, and a visit in June 2018, to escort Harris to the San Francisco Pride parade, where LAPD officers were visible in video and pictures captured along the parade route.

That will make any Harris support for “defunding” rather awkward, or at least it should. Why would Harris need the LAPD for her security in San Francisco, and for political appearances?

At least for now, though, the media interest in pinning Harris down is awkward enough. How long will they keep it up? Best guess — right up to the point when Biden announces his VP pick. If it’s Harris, the national media will go back into apologetics mode. If it’s not, they’ll lose interest in her opinion.