Kamala Harris: The Politics of Optics Over Substance

In the age of soundbites and viral clips, few political figures have attracted as much polarized attention as Vice President Kamala Harris. Once heralded as a trailblazer—the first woman, first Black, and first South Asian American to hold the office—Harris’s public persona has increasingly come under fire. Among her sharpest critics is media personality Meghan Kelly, whose recent commentary tears through the carefully curated image of Harris, revealing what she argues is a void of substance behind the symbolism.

Kelly’s critique is relentless. She dismisses Harris as someone “not that smart,” arguing that the vice president’s inability to articulate coherent thoughts or provide substantive answers to simple questions is striking for someone who once served as California’s attorney general. Harris, Kelly claims, is the political equivalent of a group project partner who never shows up but still takes credit, relying on awkward laughter and buzzwords to mask her lack of preparedness.

.

.

.

The heart of Kelly’s argument is that Harris’s career has been built more on optics than achievement. Every photo op, every headline touting Harris as “historic,” is, according to Kelly, less about real leadership and more about branding. Harris, she says, didn’t climb the political ladder by proving herself capable, but by being in the right place at the right time, armed with slogans and a nervous laugh.

Kelly doesn’t just focus on Harris’s speeches, which have become fodder for viral memes and late-night jokes. She points out the infamous “word salads”—long, meandering answers that say little and confuse more. Harris’s attempts to address complex issues like foreign policy or immigration often devolve into repetitive platitudes, leaving the audience with loud effort but zero results. Kelly likens Harris’s communication style to a GPS that keeps recalculating but never provides a route.

The problem, Kelly asserts, isn’t just Harris’s lack of clarity, but her lack of authenticity. She accuses Harris of being an actor reading from a bad script, overplaying sincerity while failing to connect. The laughter, the pauses, the exaggerated nods—they all signal someone desperate to appear genuine without possessing real conviction. For Kelly, Harris’s inability to inspire or lead is a fundamental flaw, not just a personality quirk.

Policy-wise, Harris fares no better in Kelly’s eyes. As the administration’s point person on the border crisis, Harris delivered press conferences full of platitudes and no follow-through. Kelly describes this as “leadership theater without the leadership,” comparing Harris to someone hired to fix a roof leak who simply comments on how wet the water is.

Perhaps most damning is Kelly’s assessment of Harris’s role as vice president. She highlights Harris’s tendency to vanish during serious crises, reappearing only for safe photo ops or ceremonial duties. Despite historically low approval ratings, the media continues to push the narrative of Harris as a bold leader. Kelly finds this laughable, arguing that Harris has failed to inspire confidence at every turn.

As the specter of a Trump presidency looms and the Democratic Party faces uncertainty, Harris is often floated as a potential standard-bearer. Yet Kelly’s biting analysis suggests that Harris, for all her historic firsts, is neither ready nor capable of leading the nation. Her legacy, Kelly predicts, will be one of wasted opportunity—a figure propped up by branding but unable to deliver substance.

In the end, Kelly’s critique of Harris serves as a warning: America needs more than a mascot. It needs a leader. And in the theater of modern politics, style without substance is a recipe for disappointment.