Harris, Kamala D

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Picks Julie Chávez Rodríguez as 2024 Campaign Manager

      by

      As President Biden announced his re-election bid on Tuesday, he named Julie Chávez Rodríguez as his campaign manager, elevating a senior adviser and the highest-ranking Latina in the White House.Ms. Chávez Rodríguez, a veteran of the Obama administration and of Vice President Kamala Harris’s political orbit, also worked on Mr. Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign before becoming director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. She is the granddaughter of Cesar Chávez, the prominent labor leader for farmworkers.Mr. Biden has a small circle of close aides, many of whom have known him for decades, and breaking into that world can be a challenge. But several Democrats said that Ms. Chávez Rodríguez had impressed top advisers, adding that she was seen as a trustworthy team player with strong political relationships and experience.She is also closely connected to Ms. Harris. Ms. Chávez Rodríguez, a Californian herself, served as Ms. Harris’s state director when she was a California senator, and on her 2020 presidential campaign.Quentin Fulks, a Democratic strategist who served as campaign manager for Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia in his successful re-election bid last year, was named principal deputy campaign manager.“Julie and Quentin are trusted, effective leaders that know the stakes of this election and will bring their knowledge and energy to managing a campaign that reaches all Americans,” Mr. Biden said in a statement. More

    • 63 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Never Mind About Ron DeSantis

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I guess we have to talk about Donald Trump’s potential indictment and arrest, right? But before we go there: You know how I told you that I’d vote for Ron DeSantis over Joe Biden?Well, never mind.Gail Collins: Bret! You’re gonna vote for our big-spending president? Student-loan forgiver? Tax-the-richer?Bret: I’m still holding out faint hope that Nikki Haley or Tim Scott or my friend Vivek Ramaswamy or some other sound and sane Republican long shot somehow gets the nomination.Gail: Happy to gear up for that fight.Bret: But for DeSantis to call Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “territorial dispute” in which the United States does not have a “vital interest” tells me that he’s totally unfit to be president. He’s pandering to the Tucker Carlson crowd.Gail: The Terrible Tuckerites …Bret: He is parroting Kremlin propaganda. He’s undermining NATO. He’s endangering America by emboldening other dictators with “territorial disputes,” starting with China’s Xi Jinping. He’s betraying the heroism and sacrifice of the Ukrainian people. He’s turning himself into a kind of Diet Pepsi to Trump’s Diet Coke. He’s showing he’s just another George Costanza Republican, whose idea of taking a foreign-policy stand is to “do the opposite” of whatever the Democrats do.Gail: Wow, can’t believe I’ve found someone who thinks less of DeSantis than I do.Bret: So, about Donald: to indict and arrest or not to indict and arrest? That’s the question. Where do you come down?Gail: No real doubts on the guilt front, and I’m pretty confident we’ll eventually see an indictment. The question is — what then? I’m hoping for a procedure in which he has to appear in public to answer the charges but doesn’t get treated in any way that’ll cause any not-totally-crazy supporters to gather for a riot.Bret: True, though why do I get the sense that Trump is practically jumping for joy? I mean, the first indictment of a former American president is going to be over what is typically a misdemeanor? I yield to nobody in my disgust with the guy, but so far, this sounds like prosecutorial abuse and political malpractice. Democrats will live to regret it.But to go from the horrifying to the truly horrifying: How goes your banking crisis?Gail: Bret, would definitely appreciate this not being “my” banking crisis.Bret: Give the crisis about six months. Or six weeks. Or maybe six days. It’ll be all of ours. Suggest you buy inflation-proof assets, like a rare instrument or 50-year-old scotch.Gail: Or some great old wine! Although in my house it’d never outlast the bank bust.As to a response, I’m in Bidenesque territory — the government does what it has to do to stabilize the situation, including covering the deposits in delinquent institutions like Silicon Valley Bank. But the only people who get rescued are the depositors.Bret: The big mistake of the administration was to bail out all the depositors, including a lot of very rich people who ought to have known better, instead of sticking to the F.D.I.C. limit of $250,000. Now the Feds have bailed out a bunch of rich, foolish and undeserving Silicon Valley dipsticks while creating an implicit, and systemically dangerous, guarantee for all depositors at all banks.Gail: I don’t love the idea of helping out $250,000-plus depositors, even over the short term, but this is not a good moment to destabilize the whole economy.Over the long term, however, those banks, their managers and big stockholders are going to have to be held accountable. Also Congress, which watered down regulations on midsize banks a few years back.Bret: Hard to tell whether the real issue was inadequate regulation, a badly run bank or — my guess — far deeper problems in the economy. Turns out Silicon Valley Bank didn’t even have a full-time chief risk officer for much of last year.Gail: You will notice I haven’t mentioned the Federal Reserve. Saving that for you …Bret: The Fed now has two bad problems, both of them largely of its own making. The first is inflation, which remains stubbornly high and was brought on in part because interest rates were too low for way too long. The second is an economy, particularly the banking sector, that seems to be seriously ill prepared for an era of higher rates. A classic Scylla and Charybdis situation, through which Jay Powell is somehow supposed to steer us. My advice to Powell — other than to tie himself to the mast — is to continue to raise rates, even if it means recession, and call for fiscal relief in the form of tax breaks for businesses ….Gail: Stopstopstop. Bret, Congress has to get a budget passed somehow, and the Republican plan is so nutty that even some Republicans don’t buy it. You’re suggesting that we cut taxes for businesses that are already making handsome profits.Bret: Businesses may be looking forward to a steep recession and much steeper borrowing costs. It’s a recipe for collapsing revenues and mass layoffs for businesses large and small. Better for the government to lighten the load for employers, even if it means piling on additional federal debt. In fact, it could be a good way to solve the debt-ceiling question.Gail: The people who are demanding this kind of bonanza for the rich are the same ones who are violently opposed to giving the deeply underfunded I.R.S. any new money. What could be worse than efficiently monitoring tax compliance?Bret: We’re both in favor of giving the I.R.S. the funding it needs to answer taxpayer phone calls. But if the economy is about to fall off a cliff, I don’t think the answer is to make sure the taxman is at the bottom of it, picking the pockets of the dead and wounded. Gail, this topic is … getting me down. You wrote a column last week saying that Kamala Harris is definitely staying on Joe Biden’s ticket. That gets me down, too, but please explain further.Gail: Well, we both agreed for quite a while that if Biden ran again, he should pick a different veep.Bret: Like Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, or Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico, or Danielle Allen, the brilliant Harvard political philosopher who has the added virtue of not being a politician.Gail: Yes, but then I gave it a long, hard thought — trying to imagine how that would work out. Tossing Harris off the ticket would be hugely disrespectful. There’s nothing she’s done that deserves that kind of insult.Bret: Did Nelson Rockefeller deserve it? Politics is politics.Gail: There are lots of terrific women in high places — governors and senators — who’d be terrific as vice president. But we aren’t starting from scratch. Harris has made some errors in her current job, but she’s done some good things, too. Just don’t think this rises to the occasion of Throw Her Out.Bret: To me, she’s Dan Quayle-level ridiculous — and George H.W. Bush would have been wise to toss Quayle from the ticket in 1992. You can bet that whoever the Republican nominee is next year will hammer away at Biden’s age and her shortcomings — like saying we have a secure border with Mexico or confusing North and South Korea — to very good political effect.Gail: Let’s go back to the president you … may be willing to vote to re-elect. He’s fighting hard to reduce federal student debt payments for low- and moderate-income people. I remember your not loving this idea in the past. Any change of heart?Bret: Nope. The problem we have with the banks stems from what economists call moral hazard — basically, encouraging risky behavior. Pardoning student debt is another form of moral hazard: It encourages people to take out loans unwisely in the expectation that they might one day be forgiven. If we are forgiving college loans now, why not forgive mortgages next? Also, it’s an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s legislative prerogatives. Democrats objected when Trump steered Defense Department money to building the border wall without congressional authorization; Democrats shouldn’t further establish a bad precedent.Assuming you see it otherwise.Gail: Yeah. A lot of these people have been making loan payments for decades without making much progress in erasing the actual debt. None of them are rich, and a lot are struggling endlessly.I can understand the resentment from folks who made a great effort and did pay off their loans. But we’re talking, in general, about people who were given the impression that borrowing large amounts of money to get a no-frills degree was a great investment that always paid off.Bret: If the government is expected to backstop everybody’s bad or dumb decisions, the country would bankrupt itself in a week. Part of living in a free society is being responsible for your choices, including your mistakes.Gail: I’m looking at this as a one-time shot that’s worth taking. But I have to admit I don’t love the idea of Biden acting without congressional authorization. Even though he wouldn’t have gotten it.Sigh.Bret: Never mind Congress — I can’t see this getting past the Supreme Court, so what we’re really talking about is another phony campaign promise.Gail: Well, I guess it’s a case of what ought to be versus what can be. But I still think there should be loan forgiveness for those who’ve spent half their lives trying to pay off a debt they were generally too young and uninformed to realize they should avoid.Really, Bret, who wants to perpetually punish people who fell for the siren call of “borrow money for your education”?Bret: In the meantime, Gail, we have Wyoming outlawing abortion pills. We’ll need to devote more time to the subject soon, but all I’ll say for now is: When the world goes to hell, it has a way of getting there fast.Gail: I’ve been thinking about Wyoming so much, Bret. Let’s go at it in depth next week. But if you hear that I was caught growling in public, you’ll know why.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      In Iowa, Kamala Harris Says Republicans Won’t Stop at Abortion

      by

      “If politicians start using the court to undo doctors’ decisions, imagine where that can lead,” Ms. Harris said at a discussion on abortion with local lawmakers and medical officials.DES MOINES — Vice President Kamala Harris said on Thursday that a lawsuit seeking to overturn federal approval of a widely used abortion pill amounted to an attack on “our public health system as a whole.”During her first trip to Iowa as vice president, Ms. Harris portrayed Republican attempts to impose a nationwide ban on abortion as immoral and extreme.“If politicians start using the court to undo doctors’ decisions, imagine where that can lead,” Ms. Harris said as a judge in Texas considered whether he would issue a preliminary injunction that could take the pill, mifepristone, off the market.Ms. Harris has taken a lead role on abortion as President Biden prepares to announce an expected run for re-election. Without the votes in Congress to enshrine abortion protections into law, the White House hopes Ms. Harris can help sustain the sort of anger that motivated Democratic voters during the midterm elections.In her appearance Thursday at Grand View University, Ms. Harris framed the abortion issue as part of a broader struggle for health care and privacy, a strategy aimed at galvanizing the broadest coalition of voters.“This is not only about reproductive health,” Ms. Harris said, adding that overturning F.D.A. approval for abortion medication could set a dangerous precedent, potentially affecting the availability of other medications.The last-minute trip to Iowa, planned by the vice president’s team only in the past few days, is part of a push by Ms. Harris to get out into the country more to overcome an impression from allies and critics alike that she has not forged a definitive role in the administration.Top Republicans have flocked to Iowa in recent weeks in anticipation of the 2024 Iowa caucuses, including former President Donald J. Trump; former Vice President Mike Pence; Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador; Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina.Democrats have overhauled their primary calendar, replacing Iowa with South Carolina as the party’s first nominating contest. But the rush of Republicans to Iowa presented an opportunity for Ms. Harris to call attention to restrictions that could be imposed by Republican-led legislatures.“We need to show the difference that while Republicans are taking health care rights away from them, we in the Democratic Party are saying that is not acceptable,” said Elizabeth Naftali, a deputy finance chair of the Democratic National Committee.Ms. Naftali said that Democrats could not allow a “steamroll by Republicans” just because the primary calendar had changed.Most abortions are now banned in more than a dozen states following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year. While Iowa has not banned abortion, it is one of many states the administration fears could soon enact more severe abortion restrictions.Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court found that there was no right to an abortion under the state’s constitution. A ban on the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy has been blocked by a state judge since 2019 but Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, has appealed the decision to the higher court. The state currently bans abortion after 20 weeks.Most Iowans — 61 percent — believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll last fall. Thirty-three percent say it should be illegal in most or all cases, and 6 percent are not sure.“We have just seen a lot of panic and fear among patients who are worried,” said Mazie Stilwell, the director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa.White House officials acknowledged that there was only so much that they could do to protect abortion access without Congress, but many abortion advocates are calling for policies that would protect both medical officials providing abortions and those seeking them.“What I know feels frustrating for me and many organizers on the ground is we keep having meetings but there’s not any action,” said Renee Bracey Sherman, the founder and executive director of the reproductive rights advocacy group We Testify.No major policy announcements came on Thursday. But Ms. Harris described those pushing for abortion restrictions as “extremist so-called leaders who purport and profess to hail themselves as a beacon of freedom and opportunity.”Stefanie Brown James, a co-founder of the Collective PAC, an organization dedicated to electing African American officials, said such blunt messaging would be imperative for both Ms. Harris and Mr. Biden in the months ahead.“In the event Kamala Harris continues to be his second in command, it’s important for her now to be out having conversations as much as it is for him to be,” Ms. James said. “This issue is not going away anytime soon.” More

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Kamala Removal Fantasy

      by

      So … it’s pretty clear Joe Biden is going to announce he’s running for re-election. What do you think he should do about Kamala Harris?A) For heaven’s sake, keep her on.B) For heaven’s sake, replace her.C) Shouldn’t we be talking about banks or something?Hey, this discussion is brought to you entirely because I don’t know enough about banking to write about it. How often do you find yourself chatting about the vice presidency when there’s another topic available?The veep question did come up recently on a Boston radio show, where Elizabeth Warren was asked if she thought Harris should stay on the ticket. “I really want to defer to what makes Biden comfortable on his team,” the Massachusetts senator said, with what might be described as a lack of pumped-up enthusiasm.Warren has reportedly tried to call Harris to apologize, without success. But the answer to our original question is super simple: If Biden runs again, Harris will be his running mate. Try to imagine him starting off a second-term campaign by dumping the first female vice president. Who also happens to be the first vice president of Black or Asian descent.Veep-dumping does go back a long way. Thomas Jefferson turned on Aaron Burr — although rejecting someone who went on to shoot Alexander Hamilton is setting the bar pretty low.The last time was the election of 1976, when Gerald Ford ditched Nelson Rockefeller for Bob Dole. Remember? No? Well, try to guess why that happened:A) Rockefeller was tired of breaking tie votes in the Senate.B) Rockefeller was too liberal and rich.C) Bob Dole was just so charismatic.Answer is the liberal-rich combo. Even moderate voters apparently found it difficult to relate to somebody with a billion dollars.These days critics point out that Biden, now 80, would be the oldest president ever running for re-election — and therefore his veep should get special scrutiny. Eight vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency when their boss passed away. Some of those were terrible assassination stories, which left the voters who hadn’t really thought about the second slot doubly traumatized.But four presidents simply … died. We will refrain from an extended discussion of Zachary Taylor, except to say that Joe Biden should not, under any circumstances, consume cherries and cold milk on a very hot summer day. Or the saga of William Henry Harrison, who made the very major error of drinking White House water that came from a marsh near a field of human excrement. Warren Harding died of a heart attack at 57 — possibly because he had run out of other things to go wrong with his administration. And F.D.R. ran for a fourth term even though a specialist had warned his physician that he’d never live through it.Biden’s medical team says he’s in super shape, which certainly sounds plausible. He appears devoid of bad habits — works out all the time and his strongest drink is Gatorade. While there are different estimates of his life expectancy, pretty much all of them would get him through a second term. One, by a team of medical experts before the 2020 election, projected 96.8 years.(The same team estimated Donald Trump would make it to almost 89 — that could keep him in your lives for about a dozen more years, people. Just letting you know.)No matter how well Biden is doing, you’ve got to take a serious look at anybody who’s planning to be No. 2 to a guy in his mid-80s. With Harris, there’s definitely a downside. She was, you’ll remember, not a terrific candidate for president when she ran in 2020, and her staff was sort of a mess.Staff seems to have been a problem for Harris, and when we’re thinking about a potential chief executive of the most powerful nation in the world, the phrase “not so great at running things” is a serious matter.Her term in office under Biden didn’t begin well, although to be fair, Biden didn’t exactly give her the easiest portfolio. The biggest assignment was dealing with the migration crisis at the Mexico border.“Do not come,” she helpfully suggested to our southern neighbors.Time for the plus side. As vice president in a narrowly divided Senate, Harris has spent a lot of her time breaking tie votes. Before we get to the end of 2024, it’s a pretty good bet that she’ll be a record-setter — and who wouldn’t want to go down in history as having broken more deadlocks than John C. Calhoun?I have to admit, I’ve been part of the let’s-replace-K.H. club. But I’ve come to grips with reality. It’s just not gonna happen. Meanwhile, her performance has definitely been improving — she made an important speech recently in Munich about the Russia-Ukraine situation. And she’s been a passionate voice for the administration on the issue of abortion rights.And let’s admit that we’re talking here about whether, if we should lose Joe Biden during his second term, Kamala Harris would perform better as president than, say, Donald Trump. Suddenly, all our questions are washed away.No fair saying Cocaine Bear would be a better president than Donald Trump.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      The Vice President Question: The Stakes Are High

      by

      More from our inbox:Mike Pence, It’s Time ‘to Do the Right Thing’What Chris Rock Gets to BeStains Left on a Rare TextFamily Values? We Need to Talk About School Shootings. Illustration by Zisiga Mukulu/The New York Times; photograph by Leigh Vogel/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Voters Should Pick the Vice President,” by Greg Craig (Opinion guest essay, March 5):Mr. Craig’s article raises a larger question. The vice-presidential nominees of the two major parties are too often chosen largely or entirely because of their perceived ability to help elect their presidential running mate, rather than an apparent ability to act as president if needed.Considering the stakes, the main or sole criterion in selecting a vice-presidential nominee should be that person’s capacity to immediately and competently step into the president’s shoes, if required.Just in the last century, Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan all labored under the specters of age, infirmity or both. This clearly demonstrates the national interest in vice-presidential nominees having the qualifications, experience, health and ability to competently represent the country as a whole.If a vice-presidential nominee is also a plausible national candidate in her or his own right, all the better, and having a nominee of such stature should benefit his or her party and the ticket.Over the last 50 years, some vice presidents, such as Spiro Agnew (crook), Dan Quayle (lightweight) and Dick Cheney (unelectable) were unqualified, and Mike Pence seems marginal. Lyndon B. Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush, Al Gore and Joe Biden were clearly qualified, reflecting positively on those who chose them.The question for whoever chooses vice-presidential nominees should always be “Can this person competently lead the country?” — not “Will this person help our party get elected?”Anders I. OuromVancouver, British ColumbiaTo the Editor:I’m very grateful for “Voters Should Pick the Vice President.” Greg Craig has raised perhaps the most significant and worrying issue, however delicate, of the Biden candidacy.Given the entirely realistic concerns over President Biden’s age and chances of dying in office in a second term (and I write as an 87-year-old in decent health), the choice of a running mate shouldn’t be a reflexive decision.It should be one requiring a great deal of thought, consultation and polling about who could handle the most demanding of offices in these difficult and perilous times — and whom a wide spectrum of Democratic voters see as the most convincing possibility as their next president.Barbara QuartNew YorkTo the Editor:As our octogenarian president ponders another presidential run, he needs to consider replacing his 2020 running mate. It’s a delicate subject, sure to arouse fierce opposition within the Democratic Party (however it’s accomplished).Forget loyalty, tradition or popularity. In 2024, the top priority for selecting the second-highest elected official in the country should be proven foreign policy experience.President Biden has an age problem that he can’t control. It will be a major campaign issue that will only place greater emphasis on who would be next in line for the presidency.Continued support for Ukraine (including maintaining the broad coalition of European and NATO nations forged by President Biden) and other brewing major-power standoffs demand a vice president with longstanding, first-rate diplomatic skills.Replace Kamala Harris with Susan Rice, the longtime diplomat and policy adviser. It’s time to dispel conventional wisdom and go bold.Carl R. RameyGainesville, Fla.Mike Pence, It’s Time ‘to Do the Right Thing’ Erin Schaff/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Trump Asks Judge to Block Pence’s Testimony to Grand Jury” (news article, nytimes.com, March 4):There is no doubt that former Vice President Mike Pence did the right thing (and his constitutional duty) by certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election in favor of Joe Biden.Now is the time for Mr. Pence to do the right thing by honoring the Justice Department’s subpoena to testify about his knowledge of the events before and after Jan. 6. Mr. Pence says he will fight the subpoena, citing specious legal arguments. But why?Mr. Pence, you know what former President Donald Trump did and did not do. Tell us. It is your duty as a citizen, and it is the right thing to do.William D. ZabelNew YorkThe writer is a lawyer, the chairman of Immigrant Justice Corps and the chairman emeritus of Human Rights First.To the Editor:Re “Pence Says That History Will Judge Trump” (news article, March 13):The shortcoming of former Vice President Mike Pence’s pronouncement that “history will hold Donald Trump accountable” for the former president’s lead in fomenting the violent Capitol insurrection is obvious.History’s verdict takes a long while, and it is rarely unanimous and subject to revisionism.Mr. Trump and his minions must pay the price now, and Mr. Pence should render an unequivocal verdict to that end, instead of punting into history.Justice delayed is justice denied, especially in this case.Lawrence FreemanAlameda, Calif.What Chris Rock Gets to Be Illustration by Shoshana Schultz/The New York Times; photograph by Kirill Bichutsky, via Netflix, via Associated PressTo the Editor:Re “Chris Rock Looks Very Small Right Now,” by Roxane Gay (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, March 11):Chris Rock’s recent Netflix special certainly deserves critique, but Ms. Gay’s article gets one thing very wrong. As the target of another man’s violence, Mr. Rock is not responsible for entertaining us with his response to that attack, nor redeeming himself with the right joke.He gets to just be angry.Catherine HodesFlorence, Mass.Stains Left on a Rare TextTo glove, or not to glove? For rare book librarians, there’s no question. The best option is (almost) always clean, dry hands.Chris Ratcliffe/Getty ImagesTo the Editor:“For Rare Book Librarians, It’s Gloves Off. Seriously” (Arts, March 11) notes that stains left on a rare book tell us something about who has used it in the past.I was once privileged to see the original Sarajevo Haggadah, one of the oldest extant Passover Haggadahs. It dates to the 14th century.I was deeply moved to see this ancient text. But what I remember best were the wine stains on some of the pages. Clearly, long before this book had become a priceless object listed on UNESCO’s Memory of the World register, someone had used it at a Seder and had, as still happens in the 21st century, spilled their wine on it.Deborah E. LipstadtWashingtonThe writer is the professor of Holocaust history, currently on leave from Emory University.Family Values? We Need to Talk About School Shootings. Illustration by The New York Times; Photographs by Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “The Party of Family Values Should Truly Value Families,” by Patrick T. Brown (Opinion guest essay, March 9):The idea of a political “parents’ party” may be a good one, but the total absence of any discussion regarding school shootings is glaring. Republicans won’t be much of a parents’ party if they can’t figure out how to deal with an issue that parents and their children think about every day.Jeff WelchLivingston, Mont. More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Democratic Voters, Not Biden, Should Choose Vice President

      by

      For many months — since the 2020 campaign — Republicans have tried to portray Joe Biden as being too old to be president, as mentally deficient, as one small step away from death or disability. Democrats do themselves no favors when they let it be known, as they have in recent polling, that they too think he is too old to run again.Democratic voters should have more respect for Mr. Biden’s record as president and more confidence in the good judgment of the American people. His recent bravura performance at the State of the Union and his trip to Poland and Ukraine should compel even the most skeptical voters to admit that he is up to the job, at least at this moment. This month his doctor reported that Mr. Biden is “healthy,” “vigorous” and “fit” to carry out the duties of president.His party should show a united front in support of his re-election. But even as we put our faith in Mr. Biden, the questions about his age and physical condition will not go away, and it’s fair for voters to want reassurances and decisions that show the White House will be in solid hands. He should take steps to make those reassurances, but he, Vice President Kamala Harris and the rest of the party should also consider making some bold decisions to address these actuarial concerns and show they are being taken seriously.Focusing attention on the issue of succession — and spotlighting the strength of the Democratic bench in the process — would be one of the smartest, most persuasive ways of dealing with this dilemma. When considering who should be his running mate in 2024, Mr. Biden would do well to follow what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1944: He expressed a preference for certain candidates but turned the choice of his running mate over to the delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.Considering the age factor alone, many experts agree that Mr. Biden is much more likely to die within the next decade than a man 10 years younger. He is the oldest man ever sworn into the office. Only four presidents have died of natural causes while in office, and when elected, none of the four were aged, by today’s standards. The last president to die of natural causes while in office was Roosevelt. He was only 63 when he died, 82 days into his fourth term.Mr. Biden is showing his age. Because he has been active on the national stage for so many decades, his current condition compares unfavorably with memories of his former self. People remember him when he didn’t whisper or mumble, when his gait was not that of someone concerned about tripping or falling.Those who love Mr. Biden the most dread the inevitable Republican ad that raises the possibility of his not being able to finish a second term and strings together his most embarrassing bobbles and bloopers into a single 30-second thread. It is no betrayal of him for public-spirited Democrats to want to address these issues head-on, and it is a simple denial of reality for him to say, “I don’t believe the polls” that reflect those concerns.History offers some bracing reminders for Americans about a president’s health and points to the need for a president to take farsighted action to look out for the country and leadership continuity. According to the presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, in the last week of March 1944, “Roosevelt’s health was deteriorating so steadily that he canceled all appointments and confined himself to his bedroom.” His daughter, Anna, arranged for a checkup at Bethesda Naval Hospital, where a young cardiologist, Dr. Howard Bruenn, examined him. The doctor concluded that, if his congestive heart failure was left untreated, the president was unlikely to survive for more than a year.When Roosevelt’s prognosis came, it was two months before D-Day and less than four months before the Democrats were scheduled to convene in Chicago to renominate him. He knew full well that there was a good chance that the next vice president — whoever that might be — would be called on to lead the nation.It would be only natural for this thought to pass through Mr. Biden’s mind as he prepares himself for the presidential election of 2024. And he should take a page from Roosevelt’s book by telling his party that he will not dictate who will be his running mate but instead leave it up to the delegates to pick the person who is best equipped to take on that task.I do not suggest that Mr. Biden’s physical condition today is as dire as Roosevelt’s in 1944. However, the risk of Mr. Biden’s death or disability in his second term is such that the selection of his running mate takes on new urgency.Another version of the same drama took place in 1956. After Adlai Stevenson defeated Averell Harriman and Lyndon Johnson to win the Democratic nomination for president a second time, he announced he would leave it up to the delegates to choose the V.P. nominee.In a wild and exciting race for that nomination, young Democrats like Hubert Humphrey and Albert Gore Sr. took a run at it. In the process, another relatively unknown young Democrat — the junior senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy — became an instant star in the Democratic firmament when he led the race on the second ballot. But other candidates withdrew in favor of Senator Estes Kefauver, who then won by acclamation and joined Stevenson on the ticket, which lost to Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon by a landslide in November.The politics and processes of picking a national ticket are different today. In 1944 and 1956, conventions actually picked the candidates. The uncertainty and disunity were over quickly.If the party were to give Democratic voters a role in picking the vice-presidential nominee, it would have to rely on the primaries and caucuses to make the decision. As a practical matter, one way of structuring an open race for the nomination would involve creating a way for voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses to select delegates who support specific tickets. The race could take place among Biden-Harris delegates and — to cite some possible contenders — Biden-Amy Klobuchar delegates and Biden-Cory Booker delegates.It would take time. Divisions in the party would be on display and even deepen. A charismatic candidate like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might inspire the base and sweep the field. And perhaps most important, the inevitable messiness of the contest would make it appear that the aging president and his team were not in charge. The White House would want neither the appearance nor the reality of losing control of its own party.There are countervailing considerations.Without real campaign activity among Democrats in the lead-up to the 2024 election, media coverage of Republican presidential politics will be intense, with regular bashing of Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris, including attacks and conspiracy theories about the president’s age and health. Republican candidates will get billions of dollars of unpaid advertising through coverage, including regular televised debates in which many of them will raise doubt after doubt about his age and draw contrasts with their age, health and fitness. It is already happening.Allowing Democratic voters to pick the vice-presidential nominee might address the Democrats’ enthusiasm gap. If the status quo continues, no one on the Democratic side will excite or inspire a crowd. Giving Democratic voters a role in choosing the V.P. nominee would inject electricity and drama into an otherwise predictable if not enervating process. It would allow the Democratic Party to showcase a new generation of younger political leaders who would otherwise be doing nothing more than clapping their hands on the sidelines.Opening up the V.P. nomination would also give the Democratic Party a chance to test-drive candidates of the future. Who does well in debates? Who does well on the hustings? Who can get voters excited and galvanized?There will be those who see a decision to let Democratic voters pick Mr. Biden’s running mate as being a betrayal of Ms. Harris. That would be a misreading of the situation. Certainly he would be free to express his views about various possible running mates — as did Roosevelt in 1944 — and there is every reason to think that she would win the nomination on her own. There is nothing disloyal about putting the vice president in a position in which she wins the slot and becomes a more and more proven and battle-tested political leader in the process. If she were to prevail in her effort to be renominated, she would certainly be a stronger candidate and a more powerful vice president.Giving voters a chance to participate in selecting Mr. Biden’s running mate in 2024 would address the issue of age and succession. It would show him to be confident, engaged, unafraid, farsighted and even vital.Greg Craig is a lawyer who served in the White House under President Bill Clinton and was a White House counsel under President Barack Obama.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Politicians Everywhere All at Once

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. President Biden will give his State of the Union address on Tuesday. I’m going to watch it as a professional obligation. But to be honest, I’m about as excited about it as I am for the Oscars, at least in its more recent incarnation. I just hope Lauren Boebert doesn’t go after Biden the way Will Smith went for Chris Rock.Is it crazy that I think we could dispense with the tradition altogether and go back to written messages delivered “from time to time,” as the Constitution puts it?Gail Collins: Oh, Bret, don’t be cynical. Remember waiting for the Donald Trump State of the Unions? No complaints about boredom then, since people were always waiting expectantly to see if he’d say something crazy.Bret: Well, you’re kinda making my point. And the switch from Trump to Biden isn’t exactly an upgrade in the rhetorical thrills department.Gail: OK, Biden isn’t an exciting orator. And now he’s stuck with that Chinese balloon distraction. But still, he’s got some things to celebrate with the economy going well, don’t you think? A cheerful State of the Union would definitely be more interesting than the Oscars. I warn you that before we’re done today, I’m gonna ask you what you think should win Best Picture.Bret: Other than the “Top Gun” sequel?About the State of the Union: Biden can look back at a year of some significant legislative and foreign policy accomplishments. But given the reality of a Republican House, what does he do next? Are there bipartisan compromises to propose?Gail: Guess Biden is discovering there’s no bipartisan G.O.P. to compromise with. I’m sure — or at least I can imagine — that Kevin McCarthy would be happy to come up with a deal to avoid default by simply raising the debt limit. But hard to imagine he could corral the crazy segment of his caucus, which wants to show off its muscles by forcing some serious cuts in spending.Bret: You may be right. Then again, it only takes a few moderate Republicans to break ranks and vote with Democrats to raise the ceiling. In a crunch, I could see that.Gail: You’re my interpreter of conservative spending dogma — what’s going to happen? What should happen?Bret: I won’t make any predictions because they’re bound to be proved wrong. What should happen? I like a proposal made by Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator — and Democrat turned Republican — in The Wall Street Journal: Raise the debt ceiling but “claw back unspent funds” from the $6 trillion in pandemic-related spending, which he and his co-writer, Michael Solon, believe could save $255 billion in 2023-24. That seems like a compromise a lot of Americans could get behind. What do you think?Gail: First, I’d like to see those pandemic funds directed to research, continued free testing in high-risk areas and short-term support for service industries like restaurants and hotels that haven’t recovered from a huge pandemic whack in business.Bret: That doesn’t sound like much of a compromise on the spending side.Gail: But maybe there’s a little give there. If the Republicans are willing to offer up some cost savings from their favorite programs — like military spending — I could imagine the Democrats compromising a bit on the pandemic funding. Have to admit $6 trillion is a sizable amount to spend.Bret: Doubt there will be any cuts in defense budgets in an era of rampaging Russians and Chinese spy balloons. But a good way for Democrats to test Republican seriousness on spending could be to insist on cuts in farm subsidies, which, of course, aren’t likely to happen either. So we’ll probably end up, at the last possible second, with a clean debt-ceiling raise — but, as the great Rick Bragg might say, only when it’s “all over but the shoutin’.”Gail: Now let me stoop to pure politics, Bret. Nikki Haley is set to announce that she’s running for the Republican presidential nomination. Besides being the former governor of South Carolina, she was Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations. Remember the time she called Jared a “hidden genius”? Any thoughts?Bret: I think she’s the best of the Republican field by a mile — and I don’t just mean Trump. She was a good U.N. ambassador and understands foreign policy. She was a reasonable governor of South Carolina and is a moderate in today’s field of Republicans. She has an inspiring personal story as the daughter of Indian immigrants. She was among the first Republicans to put some distance between herself and Trump after Jan. 6. She connects with audiences. What’s not to like?Gail: Well, all that time she claimed she wouldn’t run against Trump. Her longstanding opposition to abortion rights. But she would probably be the strongest woman to enter the Republican presidential field since … wow, do you think I’ll get to revisit Margaret Chase Smith?Bret: Gail, you know how you now regret giving Mitt Romney (and his dog Seamus) such a hard time, considering what the party came up with next? I bet Haley is the one Republican you’d more or less be all right with as president.Gail: Hmm. Does she have any pet-transportation stories?Bret: Hehehe.Gail: Most of all, her entry has me wondering how many other candidates we’ll see lining up here. Never thought Ron DeSantis could beat Trump one on one, but if we’ve got a whole bunch of people in the Republican race, it might give DeSantis time to become more of a household name — and maybe even less of a doltish-sounding campaigner.Bret: What Republicans most want for 2024 is to win. And I think they realize that nominating Trump is a ticket to failure.That said, the problem for Republicans is that as more of them jump into the fray, they make Trump relatively stronger simply by carving up the anti-Trump vote in the G.O.P.’s winner-take-all primaries. I can see a scenario in which Trump maintains a steady base of support at around 35 percent, and then Haley, DeSantis, Pious Pence and Pompous Pompeo — and yes, I’m giving Trump ideas for nicknames here — carve up the remaining 65 percent.Gail: And Dippy DeSantis? Doofus DeSantis?Bret: Ron DeSantos?Can we pivot to Democrats for a moment here, Gail? It looks like the party is about to change its primary calendar, so that it would start with South Carolina, then move to New Hampshire and Nevada, then Georgia and then Michigan. Do you think this is an improvement?Gail: I do feel sorta sad for Iowa — being the tip-off was so important to the people there. But they screwed up their caucus system in 2020, and it’s pretty clear their time is over.Bret: I’m guessing that a lot of reporters with memories of freezing Januaries in Ames or Storm Lake aren’t too sorry for the change.Gail: New Hampshire is great at running primaries, and I have fond memories of many winter days in Concord — but truly, it does make sense to let states with more diverse populations have their turn at going early. And I’m sure Joe Biden hasn’t forgotten for a nanosecond that it was Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina’s endorsement that put him over the top in the nomination race. So yeah, I think it’s a good plan. How about you?Bret: My guess is that it makes no real difference what order the states go in. Biden came in fourth place in Iowa last time and still won. Bernie Sanders won in New Hampshire in 2016 and still lost. Not sure what switching the order achieves in the long run. In the end, the parties tend to get the nominees they want.Which, by the way, increasingly looks like it will be Biden on the Democratic side. We’ve talked about this so often before, but it just seems to me the worst idea. Do you think he might at least switch out Kamala Harris for another vice-presidential nominee? I think it might … reassure some voters.Gail: Yeah, we are in agreement here, but I’m sorry to say we’re both going to be disappointed. Biden is very clearly planning to run and there’s no way in the world he won’t keep Harris.Bret: Well, there goes my vote, at least assuming it’s not Trump on the other side. The chances that Biden couldn’t complete a second term are too great. And she’s shown no evidence of growing in office or being qualified to take over.Gail: Let me be clear that if Biden were, say, 65, I’d be in total support of another run at the White House. He’s not an inspiring president, but he’s been a good one.However, he’d be 86 at the end of his second term and that’s just too old. Not too old to be in public service — have to admit Jimmy Carter’s activism has slowed down lately, but hey, he’s 98. It’d be great if Biden moved on to new projects.But he won’t do that, and he’d never get rid of Harris. As someone who’s very, very eager to see a woman elected president, I still dread the idea that she’ll become an automatic heir apparent.Bret: When people observe that Harris hasn’t exactly wowed as veep, there’s usually someone who says that opposition to her is on account of her color or gender. So let me note that I just endorsed an Indian woman as a potential president, just as I supported the confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.Gail: You did indeed.Bret: The problem with Harris is that she was a bad senator — she missed 30.2 percent of her roll call votes, compared with an average of 2.4 percent for her peers. She was a terrible presidential candidate, whose campaign fell apart before even reaching the Iowa caucus. As vice president, she has had no apparent accomplishments other than saying dumb and untrue things — like when she told NBC’s Chuck Todd that “we have a secure border.” In Washington she’s mostly famous for running a dysfunctional office with frequent staff turnover. So, do I want her a heartbeat away from a president who is the oldest in history? As Bill Maher likes to say, “Sorry, not sorry.”As for my Oscar pick, I’m going to have to go with “Tár.”Gail: Well, we’re in the cheerful disagreement business, so put me down for “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” At least my title’s the longest.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Kamala Harris Is Trying to Define Her Vice Presidency. Even Her Allies Are Tired of Waiting.

      by

      Ms. Harris is struggling to carve out a lane for herself in what may be one of the most consequential periods in the vice presidency.WASHINGTON — Kamala Harris was frustrated. The text of a speech she had been given to deliver in Chicago to the nation’s biggest teachers’ union was just another dreary, scripted talk that said little of any consequence.As Air Force Two made its way to the Midwest over the summer, the vice president told her staff she wanted to say something more significant, more direct. She brandished a Rolling Stone magazine article about the backlash against Florida school officials after new legislation barring the discussion of gender identity in the classroom.The teachers she was about to address were on the front lines of the nation’s culture wars, Ms. Harris told her staff. They were the same ones on the front lines of school shootings. Just blandly ticking through federal funding for education would not be enough. The plane was just an hour out from Chicago, but she said they needed to start over.By the time she landed, she had a more spirited version of the speech in hand, accusing “extremist so-called leaders” in the Republican Party of taking away rights and freedoms.Ms. Harris’s small airborne rebellion that day encapsulated the trap that she finds herself in. She has already made history as the first woman, the first African American and the first Asian American ever to serve as vice president, but she has still struggled to define her role much beyond that legacy.Ms. Harris speaking at the funeral for Tyre Nichols last week.Pool photo by Andrew NellesHer staff notes that she has made strides, emerging as a strong voice in the administration on abortion rights. She has positioned herself as a more visible advocate for the administration, giving a speech last week at the funeral for Tyre Nichols, the 29-year-old who was beaten by Memphis police officers. And her critics and detractors alike acknowledge that the vice presidency is intended to be a supporting role, and many of her predecessors have labored to make themselves relevant, as well.But the painful reality for Ms. Harris is that in private conversations over the last few months, dozens of Democrats in the White House, on Capitol Hill and around the nation — including some who helped put her on the party’s 2020 ticket — said she had not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country. Even some Democrats whom her own advisers referred reporters to for supportive quotes confided privately that they had lost hope in her.Through much of the fall, a quiet panic set in among key Democrats about what would happen if President Biden opted not to run for a second term. Most Democrats interviewed, who insisted on anonymity to avoid alienating the White House, said flatly that they did not think Ms. Harris could win the presidency in 2024. Some said the party’s biggest challenge would be finding a way to sideline her without inflaming key Democratic constituencies that would take offense.Given that President Biden would be 86 at the end of a second term, Republicans would most likely make Ms. Harris a prime attack line if he runs again.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesNow with Mr. Biden appearing all but certain to run again, the concern over Ms. Harris has shifted to whether she will be a political liability for the ticket. Given that Mr. Biden at 80 is already the oldest president in American history, Republicans would most likely make Ms. Harris, who is 58, a prime attack line, arguing that a vote for Mr. Biden may in fact be a vote to put her in the Oval Office.The Run-Up to the 2024 ElectionThe jockeying for the next presidential race is already underway.Falling in Line: With the vulnerabilities of Donald J. Trump’s campaign becoming evident, the bickering among Democrats about President Biden’s potential bid for re-election has subsided.Democrats’ Primary Calendar: Upending decades of political tradition, members of the Democratic National Committee voted to approve a sweeping overhaul of the party’s primary process.Trump’s Support: Is Mr. Trump the front-runner to win the Republican nomination? Or is he an underdog against Ron DeSantis? The polls are divided, but higher-quality surveys point to an answer.G.O.P. Field: Nikki Haley is expected to join the contest for the party’s nomination soon, but others are taking a wait-and-see approach before deciding whether to challenge Mr. Trump.“That will be in my opinion one of the most hard-hitting arguments against Biden,” said John Morgan, a prominent fund-raiser for Democrats, including Mr. Biden, and a former Florida finance chairman for President Bill Clinton. “It doesn’t take a genius to say, ‘Look, with his age, we have to really think about this.’”So far, he said, she has not distinguished herself. “I can’t think of one thing she’s done except stay out of the way and stand beside him at certain ceremonies,” he said.Some 39 percent of Americans approve of Ms. Harris’s job performance, according to a recent aggregate of surveys compiled by the polling site FiveThirtyEight. This puts her below Mr. Biden’s approval rating, which has hovered around 42 percent for the past month.Ms. Harris’s allies said she was trapped in a damned-if-she-does, damned-if-she-doesn’t conundrum — she is expected to not do anything to overshadow Mr. Biden while navigating intractable issues he has assigned her such as voting rights and illegal immigration. And some see a double standard applied to a prominent woman of color.“That’s what being a first is all about,” said Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina and one of the nation’s most prominent Black lawmakers, who has been an outspoken supporter. “She’s got to work every day to make sure she’s not the last.”While Mr. Biden was quoted in a new book by Chris Whipple, “The Fight of His Life,” calling Ms. Harris a “work in progress,” the White House defended her when asked for comment, forwarding a statement from Ron Klain, the president’s departing chief of staff who has been her most important internal ally.Mr. Klain, who served as chief of staff to two vice presidents, said that those who hold that post often “take grief” but go on “to prove skeptics wrong.” He cited Ms. Harris’s outspoken support for abortion rights and her international trips. “She has done all that operating under high expectations,” he added, noting her status as various firsts. “She carries these expectations not as a burden but with grace and an understanding of how much her history-making role inspires others.”Ms. Harris has a fresh opportunity to find her footing with the arrival of the new Congress. Because the Senate was split evenly for the last two years, Ms. Harris has cast 26 tiebreaking votes in her role as president of the Senate, more than any vice president since John C. Calhoun, who left office in 1832. Tethered to Washington, she could never be more than 24 hours away from the Capitol when the Senate was in session in case her vote was needed.Ms. Harris during a trip to Bangkok in November. She has told her staff that she would like to travel more frequently.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesWith Democrats now holding a 51-to-49 edge, at least in cases when Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the rogue Democrat-turned-independent, votes with them, Ms. Harris has a little more breathing space. She has told her staff that she wants to make at least three out-of-town trips a week in the coming year.No one feels the frustration of being underestimated more acutely than Ms. Harris, but she makes a point of not exhibiting it publicly. In an interview with The New York Times while she was in Japan last fall, she tried to explain her own political identity..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}What we consider before using anonymous sources. Do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even with these questions satisfied, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.Learn more about our process.“You got to know what you stand for and, when you know what you stand for, you know what to fight for,” Ms. Harris said.What that translates to in tangible terms is less clear. After her disastrous interview with Lester Holt of NBC News in June 2021, in which she struggled to articulate the administration’s strategy for securing the border, White House officials — including some in her own office — noted that she all but went into a bunker for about a year, avoiding many interviews out of what aides said was a fear of making mistakes and disappointing Mr. Biden.Ms. Harris with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas at the southern border in 2021.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York TimesMembers of Congress, Democratic strategists and other major party figures all said she had not made herself into a formidable leader. Two Democrats recalled private conversations in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lamented that Ms. Harris could not win because she does not have the political instincts to clear a primary field. Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, said she was strongly supportive of Ms. Harris and often spoke with her about shared experiences of being “a woman in power.” He added: “They have built and maintained a strong bond. Any other characterization is patently false.”Advisers and allies trace Ms. Harris’s challenges to her transition from the lawyerly prosecutor she used to be as district attorney of San Francisco and attorney general of California into a job where symbolism and politics are prioritized.Aides have encouraged her to liberate herself from the teleprompter and show the nation the Ms. Harris they say they see when the cameras are off, one who can cross-examine policymakers on the intricacies of legislative proposals and connect with younger voters across the country.Ms. Harris has acknowledged her reservations about leaning into the more symbolic aspects of her current position.“My bias has always been to speak factually, to speak accurately, to speak precisely about issues and matters that have potentially great consequence,” she said in the interview in Japan. “I find it off-putting to just engage in platitudes. I much prefer to deconstruct an issue and speak of it in a way that hopefully elevates public discourse and educates the public.”Ms. Harris finds herself navigating the unique dynamics of being a woman of color in a job previously filled only by men. In planning meetings before she travels abroad, officials from foreign governments have proposed meetings or public appearances with the first lady of the country Ms. Harris is visiting. Her staff rebuffs those proposals, saying the vice president is not visiting as a spouse but as the second-ranking official of the United States, according to current and former White House officials. There are more mundane hiccups, as well. Jamal Simmons, who recently stepped down as communications director for the vice president, said he learned that the desk chairs in her office needed to be changed to suit Ms. Harris — who stands about 5-foot-2 — instead of the “average male height” of her predecessors. “She forces us to recalibrate our assumptions,” Mr. Simmons said. Ms. Harris has, at times, expressed hesitation to become the face of certain issues. When the Biden administration confronted a shortage of baby formula across the nation last year, Ms. Harris declined a request by the West Wing to highlight efforts to solve the problem by meeting a shipment of formula at Washington Dulles International Airport, one current and two former administration officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the decision. Instead, Jill Biden, the first lady, ended up appearing alongside the surgeon general when the shipment arrived from overseas. (Nearly a month later, Ms. Harris did agree to meet one of the shipments.) Ms. Harris disputes the idea that she is concerned about being assigned — or pursuing — certain tasks solely because of her gender or identity.“I’m fully aware of stereotypes, but I will tell you something: I’ve never been burdened by a sense of ‘I should not do something that’s important because I will be pigeonholed,’” Ms. Harris said during the interview in Japan. She said she had pursued the abortion rights issue, for example, “because I feel it is one of the biggest tragedies that has happened at this level of our government in a very long time.”Ms. Harris, displaying a map showing abortion access, has emerged as a strong voice in the administration on abortion rights.Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesMs. Harris often tells senior aides that she feels most comfortable receiving intelligence briefings or addressing law enforcement officials, venues where she says substance is valued over politics. She has directed staff members to ensure that she is making trips to speak about the administration’s accomplishments, such as the Inflation Reduction Act, and not just the multiple crises it faces. She has also peppered her staff with questions about local abortion access and how the decision overturning Roe v. Wade could lead to criminalization of medical officials.“She has her prosecutor hat on that way,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, the president of Planned Parenthood, who has watched the vice president try to distill complex health care issues in a way that “everyday citizens” can understand.Advisers and allies trace Ms. Harris’s challenges to her transition from a lawyerly prosecutor into a job where symbolism and politics are prioritized.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesAnd months after she revised her Chicago speech aboard Air Force Two, Ms. Harris went through nine drafts before delivering a speech in Tallahassee, Fla., on the 50th anniversary of Roe, in which she asked if Americans can ever “truly be free” if a woman cannot make decisions about her own body.Several attendees said they were encouraged to see a Black woman speaking clearly about how threats to Roe represent a broader threat to civil rights.It was “very powerful for me to see someone with my likeness in this position in this day and age,” said Sabrita Thurman, 56, who is Black.Those close to Ms. Harris hope she can move beyond “defensive politics,” said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian who organized a meeting at her residence about the legacy of the vice presidency and will attend another session with her this week.“President Biden has to give her more leeway to be herself and not make her overly cautious that a mistake, a rhetorical mistake, will cost the party a lot,” Mr. Brinkley said. “It’s better to let Kamala be Kamala.”Michael D. Shear More