“I’m speaking!”

Kamala wants to be the one to interrupt

If you paid any attention to Kamala Harris during her brief time in the US Senate, you know interrupting others is the only weapon in Kamala’s rhetorical arsenal.

She did it all the time in Senate hearings.

She’d couch a question in a longwinded lecture. That way, if the witness attempted to answer the question, she could angrily deride him for daring to interrupt her longwinded, completely unnecessary lecture.

Kamala deployed her “I’m speaking!” rhetorical device to showboat in Senate hearings hoping to generate a viral moment that would get airtime on cable news and attention on social media.

The questions Kamala asked were immaterial. She didn’t want an answer. She wanted a viral moment that showed her berating a witness for daring to interrupt her scripted speech.

Kamala used her place on the Senate Judiciary Committee as a springboard to bigger things.

It was so transparently contrived that by August 2017, I started referring to the freshman senator as the Resume-Packing Future Presidential Candidate.

But there was more to it than chasing media notoriety. Kamala also used this device to disguise her intellectual shortcomings.

Not to put too fine a point on it but Kamala Harris is not very bright. She can’t hold her own intellectually in a debate, so she talks over the other person and then frames herself as the one who is being interrupted. That way, she can play the victim while casting the other person as a meanie who disrespected a strong woman of color.

She did it to Brett Kavanaugh. She did it with former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. She did it all the time.

And boy howdy does she want to do it during next week’s debate.

Team Kamala’s effort to change the agreed-on debate rule to mute the mics when they aren’t in use is to ensure that Kamala can fall back on the only rhetorical weapon at her disposal.

Kamala Harris can’t debate. She can’t defend her record or make the case for electing her to the presidency.

Kamala’s idea of debate prep is to rehearse staged “gotchas” and viral moments that generate a catchphrase that conveniently fits on the front of a campaign T-shirt.

“I’m speaking!” is perfect T-shirt material.

And just as she did in the Senate, Kamala is playing the victim of a meanie. Her handlers frame ABC News’s refusal to change the rule as protecting Trump, whom they claim is a weak, feckless candidate unwilling to engage in robust debate with open microphones.

Kamala Harris insisted on taking Biden’s place in a debate that was agreed on between the Biden and Trump campaigns.

When the Trump campaign suggested that Team Kamala and Team Trump renegotiate the terms for new debates, the Kamala campaign flatly refused and accused Trump of being a coward for not wanting to debate their girl under the rules he had already agreed to with Biden, including the muted mic rule demanded by the Biden campaign.

Trump agreed to debate Kamala under the same rules and now he’s a coward for refusing to agree to change the rules because Kamala is too afraid to debate Trump without using pre-planned gimmicks as a crutch.

It’s transparently desperate and the excuse Kamala’s campaign trotted out is laughably incoherent.

In its letter to ABC News requesting that the mics remain live, Team Kamala explained that as a former prosecutor, Kamala would be “fundamentally disadvantaged” if the mics were muted because it would “shield Donald Trump from direct exchanges.”

What now?

What does Kamala’s experience as a prosecutor have to do with this?

Kamala’s job is to make the case for herself — to explain to the American people why they should vote for her in the presidential election. She is there to advocate for Kamala Harris. She isn’t prosecuting anyone.

Is she “fundamentally disadvantaged” by the muted mic rule?

Yes, she is, but not because she is a former prosecutor.

Kamala is “fundamentally disadvantaged” because her debate style relies entirely on performative gimmicks that enable her to distract attention from the fact that she is a lightweight know-nothing wholly incapable of making a coherent case for why Americans should entrust her with the office of president.

She can’t defend her record.

She can’t defend her agenda.

She can’t even articulate her agenda.

Kamala needs the debate to devolve into a free-for-all because it is the only way to avoid making the case for herself directly to the American people — something she is incapable of doing.

Keeping the mics live is as much of a crutch as appearing on CNN with her emotional support running mate at her side.

If Trump plays his cards right, he could derail the Joy Train without firing a shot. Team Kamala’s debate strategy hinges entirely on burrowing under Trump’s skin like a tick until he lashes out. All he has to do is treat Kamala as part of the scenery. If Trump ignores her while engaging with the moderators, Kamala’s rehearsed gotchas will be as useless as a glass hammer.

Kamala’s performative debate strategy is contingent on Trump playing his part. If Trump refuses to dance to her tune, Kamala will be forced to defend her disastrous record and non-existent agenda. And since she can’t defend either, her one and only debate performance will quickly devolve into a 90-minute display of one word salad after another.

On a side note:

I was fortunate to land new employment less than a month after losing my freelance writing job to artificial intelligence. It’s a part-time admin position I can do from home, so I’m a happy camper.

I also landed temporary freelance work that helped to bridge the gap between my old job and the new one.

It was welcome news.

I can’t do anything about the Lupus which has been hammering the daylights out of me for the last two weeks. Except for the dark circles under my eyes, I’ve been white as a sheet since early August. At least the jaundice that emerged this week gave my cheeks a bit of color.

Have I mentioned lately that I hate Lupus?