Connect with us

Politics

Kamala 2.0’s challenge? Making more news, and not just with ultra-friendly hosts

Published

on

Kamala 2.0’s challenge? Making more news, and not just with ultra-friendly hosts

For well over a month, Kamala Harris rode a wave of the most positive press any presidential candidate has gotten in two decades, and her own skills, to turn what had been a lost cause for the Democrats into an extremely tight race.

But does she have a second act?

Kamala 2.0, under constant attack by Donald Trump and the Republicans, doesn’t have much new to say. She is conducting a play-it-safe campaign, like a basketball team sitting on a lead and running out the clock.

But Harris doesn’t have a lead in the three “blue wall” midwestern states she needs to win, and the loss of any one of them could hand Trump the presidency once again.

VANCE-WALZ VP DEBATE ENDED IN A ‘DRAW’: DEMOCRAT REP. DEBBIE DINGELL

Advertisement

For all the focus on Pennsylvania, Harris leads by 0.7 percent in Michigan – a statistical tie, based on the Real Clear Politics average.

On Sunday’s “Media Buzz,” Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell told me her state could go either way. 

“The vice president has a problem with union workers,” Dingell said. “Many of the men, as well as, quite frankly, African-American young men who have said to me, I was with a group with them last week. ‘You know what, Donald Trump talks to us. Democrats take us for granted.’”

The lawmaker recalls how “everybody got mad at me” when she predicted in 2016 that Trump would win Michigan – which he did, along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Advertisement

A major problem for Harris is that she doesn’t seem to know how to make news. With less than 30 days to go, with many voters understandably believing they don’t know her, or enough about her policies, since she took over for Joe Biden, the VP is stitching together parts of her stump speech and recycling the same anecdotes virtually verbatim.

A presidential candidate has to deliver a few new lines, a new proposal, something to break into the news cycle, which is currently being dominated by Trump. 

So what’s on this week’s agenda? Kamala will sit down with Howard Stern (who is totally against his old pal Donald); “The View,” where the ladies despise Trump, and Stephen Colbert, who hosted fundraisers for Joe Biden in 2020 and this year.

For good measure, she’s also spoken to Alex Cooper, whose podcast, “Call Your Daddy,” is about sex.

WHY VANCE EASILY BEAT WALZ IN DEBATE, SOFTENING HIS IMAGE IN THE PROCESS

Advertisement

I’ll go out on a limb here and say these sessions are designed to be friendly – not unlike the conversation with MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, who kept agreeing with Harris and had just pronounced Trump a danger to democracy. 

In fairness, Harris also sat for a “60 Minutes” interview, an invitation declined by Trump.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with candidates showing their softer side with unorthodox outlets in our fragmented media universe. We’ve come a long way since critics scoffed at candidate Bill Clinton answering the “boxers or briefs” question on MTV, calling it unpresidential. 

On “Call Your Daddy,” Harris was actually quite thoughtful in responding to Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying that her kids keep her humble and the VP doesn’t have anyone to keep her humble. 

(Rebecca Droke/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Rather than jab at the Arkansas governor, which would have produced a cheap headline, she ruminated that families come in all shapes, bound by blood or love, that she is deeply involved with her stepchildren, and this isn’t the 1950s anymore. They also discussed, uh, tampons.

Still, the party is getting nervous. “Democratic operatives, including some of Kamala Harris’ own staffers,” says Politico, “are growing increasingly concerned about her relatively light campaign schedule, which has her holding fewer events than Donald Trump and avoiding unscripted interactions with voters and the press almost entirely.”

Since the convention, the veep has spent more than a third of days on meeting and briefings, with no public events.

With early voting under way in more than half the states, Politico describes this “a do-no-harm, risk-averse approach to the race.” 

GEORGIA GOP CHAIR SHARES 2-PRONGED ELECTION STRATEGY AS TRUMP WORKS TO WIN BACK PEACH STATE

Advertisement

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, who fervently doesn’t want Trump to win, nonetheless is whacks Harris pretty hard:

“She hasn’t fleshed out her political intent — what she stands for, what she won’t abide, what she means to establish, what she won’t let happen.

What is her essential mission? Is it national ‘repair,’ is it to ‘stabilize’ an uncertain country, is it ‘relaunch’?..

“She so far hasn’t conveyed a sense of intellectual grasp. Her campaign has placed too many chips on the idea of the mood, the vibe, the picture.”

And vibes can only take you so far.

Advertisement

But the VP has certain duties, and spent two days visiting hurricane victims and relief workers in North Carolina and Georgia–which also happens to be good politics. She also met with Volodomyr Zelenskyy.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy addresses the 79th United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 25, 2024.  REUTERS/Mike Segar (REUTERS/Mike Segar)

Harris attended a fundraiser over the weekend. Why bother? Her campaign has already had $400 million roll in. She’s already outspending Trump 2-½ to 1 on ads. She doesn’t need any more money. What’s more, Harris doesn’t make news at these fundraisers, which in any event are off camera. A ground game is great, but it has to be married to a winning message.

Here’s one more: Dan Pfeiffer, a former top Obama White House official, says on Message Box, his Substack column, that “the media — and Politico Playbook in particular — are fuming over the Harris-Walz media strategy.”

Kamala “must be on offense at all times — say new things, be edgy enough to get attention, and dictate the terms, or the campaign could “take on water…In this media world, there is a never-ending, insatiable appetite for content. Either serve lunch or become the menu…

Advertisement

“Dominating attention is Trump’s political superpower…Even when he doesn’t have a big moment, Trump speaks so outrageously that it shifts attention to his issues of choice.”

Now it’s easy to snipe from the sidelines. For Harris to be neck and neck in the core battleground states means she’s obviously done many things right. She had to overhaul the Biden operation and vet a running mate while the campaign was in full swing, like changing the tires on a speeding hot rod. She could still win.

One positive sign: The Harris camp took off the bubble wrap and allowed Tim Walz to appear on “Fox News Sunday.” This was an attempt at damage control, since he lost the debate so badly to JD Vance.

While Shannon Bream repeatedly pressed the governor on late-term abortions, his Minnesota record and his history of falsehoods and exaggerations, Walz was far more forceful than he’d been in the CBS debate. He ducked certain questions, but an interview format is much better suited to him than friendly exchanges with his opponent.

Advertisement

Walz’s next stop? A man who relishes his feuds with Trump, Jimmy Kimmel.

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending