New York Times finally doing some reporting? Kamala Harris has long enjoyed the unwavering support of liberal media outlets, often hailed as a trailblazer and a symbol of progress.
But recent developments suggest that the tide may be turning, with even her most loyal cheerleaders now beginning to question her leadership and policy stances. This shift in tone is particularly evident in the coverage from none other than The New York Times, a publication that has traditionally been a staunch ally of Harris.
The catalyst for this change seems to be Harris’s lackluster performance at the Democratic National Convention last week. What was supposed to be a moment of triumph for the Vice President instead left many feeling underwhelmed. The New York Times, usually quick to shower Harris with praise, took a surprisingly critical stance. On Friday, the paper ran a headline that read, “Joy Is Not a Strategy,” signaling a sharp departure from the usual celebratory tone.
Patrick Healy, the NYT’s Deputy Opinion Editor, didn’t hold back in his critique. Healy openly admitted that he “cringed” when former President Bill Clinton took the stage at the convention to anoint Harris as the “president of joy.” Healy questioned how such an abstract concept could resonate with the millions of Americans facing economic uncertainty and other pressing issues. He pointed out Harris’s glaring absence from the public eye since President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race, highlighting her failure to conduct a single substantive interview or press conference. “Harris can’t coast on ‘joy,’” Healy concluded, emphasizing the need for a concrete policy agenda, especially in swing states.
But the criticism didn’t stop there. On Monday, the NYT published a guest essay by conservative commentator Rich Lowry, who delivered a scathing assessment of Harris’s capabilities. Lowry didn’t mince words, describing Harris as “weak,” “a phony,” and someone who “doesn’t truly care about the country or the middle class.” He lambasted her tenure as Vice President, particularly her inability to address key issues like border security and inflation. Lowry argued that Harris’s tax policies are more about towing the party line than addressing the real economic challenges faced by working Americans.
This kind of critique is par for the course in conservative circles, but seeing such harsh words in the NYT is a significant development. It’s a clear signal that Harris’s once impenetrable shield of media support may be cracking.
The NYT wasn’t alone in its newfound skepticism. Veteran financial journalist Roger Lowenstein also took aim at Harris’s economic policies in a guest essay published on Tuesday. Lowenstein criticized Harris for her proposal to introduce price controls on supermarkets, likening it to a “communist-style” approach. He pointed out that price controls have historically led to shortages, supply chain disruptions, and ultimately higher prices. Lowenstein’s critique, while also directed at former President Donald Trump’s trade policies, was particularly damning of Harris’s apparent ignorance of basic economic principles.
The unease with Harris isn’t confined to the NYT. The Wall Street Journal and The Hill have also joined the chorus of voices expressing doubt about Harris’s leadership. In a recent column, WSJ commentator James Freeman questioned whether Americans are willing to pay the high price for what he dubbed “Kamala vibes.” Freeman argued that Harris has been a key player in the administration’s economic missteps, particularly in supporting Biden’s multi-billion-dollar spending spree during the COVID crisis, which he says fueled inflation.
In a recent episode of the WSJ’s “Potomac Watch” podcast, former George W. Bush speechwriter Bill McGurn described Harris’s DNC speech as “tired,” while fellow commentator Kim Strassel mocked the vagueness of her policy platform, suggesting that the Harris campaign strategy is to keep the public in the dark about her actual plans.
Even The Hill, a favorite among Washington insiders, has started to pull back its support. Conservative writer Derek Hunter, in a piece published shortly after Harris’s DNC speech, dismissed her as “an empty pantsuit” basking in positive media coverage while avoiding accountability. Hunter pointed out that Harris is the first nominee of either party who didn’t secure a single delegate or vote in the primaries, questioning the legitimacy of her candidacy.
Gerard Baker, a former Editor-in-Chief of the WSJ, echoed these sentiments in The Times of London, criticizing the media for failing to properly scrutinize Harris’s qualifications and ideas. He suggested that Harris is trying to win an election on a platform that’s more hype than substance.
As the media begins to turn on Harris, it appears that her honeymoon period may be coming to an end. With 69 days left until the election, the Vice President faces mounting pressure to prove that she’s more than just a symbol of progress—that she has the substance to lead the nation through its challenges. The question now is whether she can rise to the occasion or if this media shift marks the beginning of the end for Harris’s presidential aspirations.
