Kamala Harris’s Bizarre ‘Spicy Bacon’ Fiasco: An Embarrassment for the Democratic Party

It’s hardly surprising when the public figures frequently showcased on our screens fail to live up to the inflated standards of authenticity, but the case of Kamala Harris in the 2024 campaign takes this to a much more alarming level. Revealed by Kareem Rahma, the host of popular TikTok show ‘Subway Takes’, an interview with vice president Kamala Harris turns out to be so perplexing in its inane-ness that even the protective barriers of Rahma’s show could not save the day for Harris. Such was the dread of the potential backlash that Rahma, a non-political entertainer, had to drop the interview altogether to shield himself and, perhaps, Harris as well from an onslaught of criticism.

Call it a publicity stunt gone wrong or misguided advice from highly paid consultants, the cringe-fest was kicked off by Harris’s bizarre defense of the claim that bacon was a spice. Indeed, confusion spiraled as the interview unfolded with Harris, struggling to make her self-inflicted debacle seem logical. In an unexpected and, frankly, laughable turn of events, the vice president found herself quantifying bacon not as a staple breakfast item or a topping, but as a spice. The utter lack of reasoning was baffling to say the least.

Rahma who routinely interviews a variety of characters, including fresh-faced comedians and up-and-coming influencers of New York, found himself in a predicament like never before. The interview, which was originally meant to be a light-hearted interaction about Harris’s dislike for removing her shoes on airplanes, rapidly descended into a nonsensical pit of unending awkward silence and incredulity.

What’s interesting is that even the wonders of video editing couldn’t salvage this sinking ship. Long associated with glossing over awkward breaks and cringey soundbites, the post-production team found themselves unable to repurpose the material into something watchable. This contradiction to the age-old belief that one can salvage even the most disastrous interviews through editing, underscores the extent of disjointed conversation initiated by Harris.

This troubling miscommunication was not only confined to a single interview but reflects a broader scope of incapability. ’60 Minutes’, in their interview with Harris, had to resort to editing tricks to mask the rough edges, the mental blips, and to carve out an intelligible version of her narrative. Rarely has there been such a glaring instance of journalistic damage control in the public eye.

Moreover, in a self-sabotaging moment on ‘The View’, when co-host Sonny Hostin asked Harris what she would do differently from Joe Biden, Harris rendered the audience speechless with her reply, ‘There is not a thing that comes to mind.’ It’s as if the need for improvement or the concept of growth are alien ideas to the current regime. It projects an image that Biden’s administration operates under the illusion of perfection, a notion far from reality.

The uncanny ability of Harris to turn any interview situation into an opportunity for self-defeat is something that goes beyond comprehension. Even friendly faces were unable to put a positive spin on her skill (or rather, lack) of communication. It’s telling when individuals close to the subject fail to present her in a favorable light, indicating a higher level of dysfunction.

The unsuccessful stint on ‘Subway Takes’ is indicative of a broader issue eroding the public’s trust in the current administration. The reality is, these failure stories are not isolated occurrences but symptoms of a system that consistently falls short. Moreover, it becomes increasingly difficult for voters to put faith in a figurehead that appears incapable of articulating coherent thoughts and ideas.

What’s more concerning is the degree to which individuals are going to protect the image of the vice president. Rahma, who took the option of not broadcasting the interview, took an ethical stance to avoid being targeted for the inevitable failure of the interview. However, it appears that he might have indirectly saved Harris from becoming the sole face of another blunder.

Public appearances can make or break political figures, with authenticity playing a significant role in these situations. However, the blatant lack of authenticity displayed by Harris is alarmingly apparent. Her attempts to exaggerate her perceived relatability have consistently failed, further driving a wedge between herself and the citizens.

Reflecting on these circumstances, it suggests Americans dodged an unpleasant bullet by not opting for a higher post for Harris in the 2024 elections. It raises the question if the Democratic Party, in its current state, has any viable candidates who can convincingly communicate with the public without the need for deceit or, even better, without having to laboriously pretend.

The incident serves as an imperative learning lesson for the Democratic Party. Communication mishaps like these have the potential of causing serious damage to the credibility of the party. As such, the party must actively seek candidates who are adept at effective communication and do not have to rely on inauthentic gimmicks to appeal to the public.

The interview fiasco also draws attention to the apparent lack of self-awareness within the Biden and Harris administration. It seems strange that despite the mounting evidence of ineffective communication, they continue in their flawed approach without any evident attempts at improvement. This raises doubts on their frequency and sincerity towards making necessary changes.

All in all, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the communication gap that exists within the current administration. The Democratic Party needs to consider these warnings seriously if they hope to regain trust and win back disillusioned voters. It’s not just about playing politics, but about reflecting upon and rectifying past mistakes.

In conclusion, the ‘Subway Takes’ incident sheds light on the worrying state of the Democratic Party’s communication rhetoric. It prompts a necessary question – can the Democratic Party present candidates who do not have to resort to fabrications to convince the public? Or better yet, candidates who exude authenticity, thus bypassing the need for cosmetic facades. Only time will provide us an answer.