The interview featuring former Vice President Kamala Harris raises serious questions about her political competency. Harris described her approach in the 2024 presidential election as playing “three-dimensional chess.” This is not only a confusing analogy but a clear indication of her disconnect from reality. In a series titled “Storehouse & Friends,” Harris delivered her comments confidently, but they rang hollow, especially considering her political track record.
The platform hosting this exchange had limited content—mostly centered around Harris herself. As of now, it boasts a modest following of slightly over 1,000 subscribers, signaling that this series is still in its infancy. In the interview, Harris answered questions from a panel of young black women, who approached her with seemingly earnest regard. One of those interviewers, Kiaira Nixon, posed a question that indicated a deeper level of inquiry than Harris is used to: “How did you determine which battles were worth fighting for in that moment and which required more patience?”
Harris’s response, however, devolved into a stream of nonsensical verbiage, suggesting her strategy revolved around President Donald Trump’s alleged maneuvers. “I understood the game that was being played,” she asserted, followed by her characteristic laughter. Yet, one can’t help but wonder how a candidate who lost both the popular and electoral votes could maintain such inflated self-assurance. It seems almost surreal that Harris believes herself to be a player in a high-stakes game when her claims paint her as out of touch.
Nixon, likely recognizing the challenge in salvaging the conversation, tried to keep it light by echoing Harris’s reference to “chess.” Responding affirmatively, Harris fully committed to the notion of her strategic prowess, saying, “Yeah. Three-dimensional chess. I’m tellin’ ya.” This simple exchange opened the floodgates for scorn on social media, where critics quickly seized on her apparent gaffe.
On platforms like X, supporters of Trump mocked Harris mercilessly, questioning her intelligence with remarks about being “drunk again” and having the “IQ of an acorn.” These biting comments reflect not just a humorous take on her statements but also underline a more serious concern about her credibility as a leader. The longer this trend continues, the more Harris risks becoming a symbol of everything that disenchants voters.
Moreover, the interview format does little to bolster her image. The softballs she was thrown culminate in a presentation that raises eyebrows instead of admiration. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Harris lacks substantive contributions to the political landscape. For many in today’s political environment, this is precisely the issue. The emphasis on identity over meritocracy raises a troubling question: Is Harris’s position more about her demographics than her capabilities?
This perspective helps to explain why Harris continues to be propped up despite her lack of substance. The political narrative surrounding her may serve specific interests, but it ultimately leads to a disconnect with voters who see her as little more than an emblem rather than a qualified leader. In a world where intelligence and experience should factor prominently, Harris’s reliance on her identity raises doubts. The respect often afforded to her may reflect more on those promoting her than on her actual contributions to political discourse.
"*" indicates required fields
