Earlier, Ed wrote about the way in which the media seems to have gone all in on what could be described as the Empty Suit Campaign. Harris has said almost nothing specific about her plans and has given no interviews and yet most of the media seems thrilled to report this vacuous campaign as a triumph of good vibes. She's the change candidate. The joy candidate. And that's enough for most of them.

Today I noticed a couple of mildly critical pieces over at the NY Times. Here's one titled "Harris Faces Challenge of Translating Convention Joy to Fall Momentum." 

Vice President Kamala Harris emerged from her nominating convention with a burst of momentum that Democrats hardly expected barely a month ago, when they thought they would be tethered to a possibly doomed re-election bid by President Biden. She has rejuvenated a once demoralized party and given a jolt of optimism to Democrats who now see victory in reach.

The buzzkill reality, however, is that victory is anything but assured. The thousands of jubilant delegates in the hall this week were not representative of the swing voters that Ms. Harris needs to defeat former President Donald J. Trump. History is littered with presidential candidates who roused their partisans at conventions only to fall short come November. And whatever else he is, Mr. Trump is no pushover. Ms. Harris can expect a bruising battle over the next two and a half months.

There's really nothing harsh in this story but the underlying premise, that a good convention doesn't guarantee victory, seems to have been enough to set off a wave of Democratic critics who are angry at the NY Times for saying even that much. Here's the #2 comment from a reader in Chicago (emphasis added).

This is a stupid article. Literally every convention is a joyous celebration before the reality of true election campaigning sets in. It’s only being written because of the unique circumstances in which she became the nominee. It’s framed as “is she ready for the tough months ahead now that the honeymoon phase is over?” Of course she is. She’s already done it before as vice president, during COVID, against Trump. Let’s not question her anymore (except meaningfully on policy).

This one is from Colorado:

The only "challenge" she faces is a skeptical NYT who's still festering over Josh Shapiro and pretending that she has "no policy." That's demonstrably untrue. 

The *base* and allies from every sector of the demographic (including republicans, independents and new voters) are motivated and ready to do what it takes to win the election and get rid of Trump once and for all. That's all that matters. Trump and Vance are dead weight and this convention proved that Americans are tired of the division of the last 10 years. 

You really should get out of New York more. In the flyovers, we're moving on.

Again, there's nothing in the article itself that could inspire this much anger. All it really says is that Harris hasn't won yet. And yet, people are spitting mad anyone would suggest this isn't over.

I'm so tired of all this commentary trying to pour cold water on the Harris campaign, as though she has a more of a challenge getting elected than an aging, joyless felon.  The media, perennially addicted to horse-race politics, loves to stir up trouble by pointing to all the things that *could* go wrong.  Disappointed to see an article along these lines by an otherwise great journalist.

One reader expressed her frustration with CBS News for daring to fact-check Harris:

While making breakfast, I heard CBS' sketchy summary of her speech. They left out immigration and tax/economic policy and defense and veterans and Trump's national sales tax (tariffs). They were all positive smiles, but their super lame recap was worthless.

One more, this one from a reader in Florida who is angry the NY Times insists on treating Trump as "some sort of equal candidate."

The New York Times continues to downplay the efforts and the impacts of Kamala and the Democrats, while also continuing to elevate Trump as some sort of equal candidate.  He should never be called "Former President Trump" without the more complete description, "Convicted Felon and Sexual Predator..."   To do any less seems like an attempt to continue to give Trump a level of respect he has never deserved.

There's also an opinion piece up today titled "Joy Is Not a Strategy." I'd argue with that headline because, as I said yesterday, joy is precisely a strategy in this case. It's an attempt to turn Harris' least appealing personality tic, her absurd laugh often at inappropriate times, into a winning campaign message. In any case, this is another piece which attempts to point out that joy vibes probably aren't enough to win the White House.

If the Democratic convention’s message for America had to fit on a bumper sticker, it would read, “Harris is joy.” The word has gone from being a nice descriptor of Democratic energy to being a rhetorical two-by-four thumped on voters’ heads. Don’t get me wrong — there are many worse things than joy — but I cringed a little in the convention hall Tuesday night when Bill Clinton said Kamala Harris would be “the president of joy.” “Joy” is the new “fetch” from “Mean Girls”: Democrats are bent on making the word happen...

This is a winnable race for Harris, but she hasn’t won it yet. Far from it. She hasn’t been tested — really tested — since Biden stepped aside. She hasn’t given a single interview or news conference to face hard questions. But it’s really the debates that will be her test. Her advisers think she might get away with doing just one against Trump. I think they underestimate her challenge in earning voters’ trust. She needs to start proving herself outside her comfort zone.

Again, this isn't a harsh assessment of Harris. It's more like a statement of the obvious. She's been ducking the media and, at some point soon, she'll have to stop. But once again, readers are furious and their comments are pretty revealing.

Classic. Harris needs specific policy proposals while the other guy has nothing. What is Trump's economic plan? Inflation? Jobs? Nothing, nothing, and nothing. But for some reason, it is only Harris who is expected to clearly articulate her policy ideas.

Hasn't Trump been president before? Unlike Harris, he's not coming into this in the final four months as a blank slate. Anyway, there's a lot more of this.

Interesting that the pressure is on Harris to prove her worth while Trump skates along unencumbered by expectations of any kind. Wonder why.

Yes, as we all know, Trump has been given a complete pass by the media for the past 8 years. Does this person live in a cave? This one, from a reader in San Francisco, is pretty revealing (emphasis added).

The old rules, which the NYT wants Harris to follow, is to expose herself to ruthless attack, have to play defense, and to get bogged in mind-numbing policy details that have sunk so many other Democratic candidates.  At long last, the Democrats seem to have learned from the Republicans, and figured out that emotion and strength win elections.

In other words, it's great that Harris is running purely on vibes and emotion because there's no way to attack those. This is the last one but he's clearly not alone in feeling this way. Democrats are really convinced the press, for its own selfish reasons, is trying to tear Harris down. 

There is so much talk of what Harris must do. It's more like what Harris must do to please the press, not please the electorate. The electorate seems very comfortable with her decision making on how to campaign and win. It noticeably irks the press that she is better at this than they are.

It's pretty amusing to see the same media which spent years trashing Trump with nonsense like the Steele Dossier is now being attacked for being mean to Kamala Harris, as if Harris has received 1/100th the amount of scrutiny. All of these people, and the hundreds more who upvoted these comments, are living in an alternate universe in which even the bare minimum of candidate vetting, is seen as unfairly hostile.