Staff Reports
When the pressure is on to deliver substance, sometimes all that glitters is not gold—especially when it comes to Kamala Harris’ team. A recent appearance by Democratic strategist Kelly Hyman on Fox News showcased just how empty the Biden-Harris administration’s promises really are. With inflation tightening its grip on families across America and grocery bills soaring, one would expect a solid plan from Harris on how to alleviate the financial pinch. Instead, Hyman’s rambling answers sounded more like desperation than strategy.
During her segment with Fox host Sandra Smith, Hyman was asked a pivotal question about Harris’ approach to lowering prices. What unfolded was a classic case of being all bark and no bite. Instead of laying out a viable plan, Hyman cited vague policies about banning price gouging, leaving viewers clamoring for clarity. If the best response a surrogate can muster is to direct people to online resources for further information, that’s about as substantial as a balloon animal at a birthday party—colorful and fun, but ultimately deflating.
🚨Watch this Kamala Harris surrogate absolutely implode when @SandraSmithFox asks her what is Kamala’s plan to lower prices:
Sandra Smith: “What is Harris’s plan? We’re waiting.”
Kamala surrogate: “There’s a lot of aspects to it in regards to looking at in online. Let’s talk… pic.twitter.com/NMpjLaJdql
— Steve Cortes (@CortesSteve) September 23, 2024
The confusion escalated when Smith pressed further, seeking clarity on whether price gouging is indeed happening. Hyman’s response was a mishmash of disjointedness, claiming ignorance over current gouging situations. This is a shocking admission for a representative of the Harris camp, especially as grocery prices continue to skyrocket. How can Harris advocate for a plan if even her representatives are left clueless about the very issue they claim to address? This looks less like a strategic initiative and more like a master class in evasion.
The interview turned particularly cringe-worthy when Hyman attempted to turn the tables on Smith, suggesting interruptions amounted to disrespect—particularly because she was a woman. This tactic of grievance rather than accountability was an obvious ploy to divert attention from the failure to communicate any substance. Consider it classic deflection: if the message is weak, just play the ‘victim’ card to salvage some dignity.
As the segment wrapped up, it became evident that this was not just a misfire for Hyman but a larger reflection of the Harris administration’s struggles. When a candidate’s surrogates can’t adequately defend claims or articulate plans, voters have every right to wonder why they should cast their ballots in favor of such leadership. If there are no tangible solutions being offered, how can the Democrats expect the American people to take them seriously in a tough economy?
In the end, Kamala Harris’s team might want to consider a more straightforward approach, perhaps trading Hollywood spectacle for real solutions. But until then, it seems they’ll remain stuck scrambling for answers while inflation spirals out of control and the pressure to provide genuine leadership intensifies. The empty rhetoric may work for a while, but sooner or later, voters will expect results, not just well-rehearsed slogans.
