Oprah Winfrey built her career talking about other people’s trauma, and almost 40 years since her eponymous show first aired, it seems that she has found little reason to deviate from that formula. What America witnessed when Vice President Kamala Harris sat down with the world-famous host was an extended political ad with one purpose in mind: to humanize Kamala.

Determining whether the series of softball questions thinly disguised as political probing will move the electoral needle is a task best suited to those with a crystal ball. However, one thing is abundantly clear: This kind of interview seriously damages her credibility as a presidential candidate. The lack of substantive questioning is increasing doubts about her overall competence.

The Oprah Gambit

This was not an interview in any meaningful sense of the word. With guest appearances by Hollywood staples such as Ben Stiller, Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lopez, and others, including guest spots by campaign surrogates, the scene seemed more like a DNC rehash. There were several hundred attendees at the Michigan event, but these were largely not citizens seeking to understand the depth – or lack thereof – of a potential president. Instead, they appeared to be Kamala’s fanbase, peppered with representatives from organizations such as Republicans for Harris, Swifties for Kamla, Black Women for Harris, White Dudes for Harris, Win with Black Men, White Women for Harris, and South Asians for Harris.

It has been 61 days since President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the race and anointed his VP; in that time, she has yet to hold a press conference.

Every candidate can look calm, relaxed, and in control when they know that no difficult questions or thorny issues are headed their way. As Ms. Harris notches up a string of friendly encounters, the public is left wondering whether she has the capability to deal with anything more challenging. And these concerns are beginning to reverberate beyond the electorate.

Pre-Packaged Topics for a Pre-Packaged Candidate?

Ms. Winfrey brought up a range of hot-button issues, from gun rights to abortion, with a brief sojourn into the economy. One might have hoped that the Democrat nominee would have been pressed to deliver concrete answers, but that was not to be. Each topic was accompanied – in Winfrey-esque fashion – by an emotive story and “special guest” that allowed Harris to empathize rather than elucidate.

On the subject of gun violence, a survivor of the recent Apalachee High School shooting in Georgia told her emotional story, providing the perfect segue for Harris to denounce so-called “assault weapons.”

Regarding abortion access, the mother of a young woman who died from an infection that some say could have been prevented if it were not for restrictive abortion laws spoke of her pain and her loss. Harris responded, saying:

“I’m just so sorry … And the courage that you all have shown is extraordinary because also you just learned about how it is that she died … And Amber’s mom shared with me that the word, over and over again in her mind, is preventable. Preventable. That word keeps coming to her.”

Each topic was an opportunity to emote and display compassion. It was televisual schmaltz of the highest order, failing to demonstrate depth or substance.

The Fraying Fourth Estate Support

It is no secret that Kamala Harris is the current darling of the legacy media establishment – as was Joe Biden until about ten minutes after his disastrous debate performance exposed said media as aiding and abetting in his cognitive decline coverup. And yet, what should have been the event of the election season, Oprah Winfrey, in conversation with the potential POTUS, received scant attention from those who relish such celebrity connections.

DC’s most prominent news outlet posted just a single story on its digital front page concerning the event – and this was way below the fold. The New York Times also posted only one story – again, well below the fold. CBS had one; ABC had none. In fact, the only major outlet that headlined the campaign showcase was CNN.

This is not to suggest that the Fourth Estate’s infatuation with whichever candidate has a “D” next to his or her name is over – far from it. But tensions are mounting. A former Los Angeles bureau chief for The Times, Todd Purdum, published a guest piece in his former paper lamenting Harris’ lack of substance in dealing directly with questions. He declared:

“Writing about politicians for decades has convinced me that direct, succinct answers and explanations from Ms. Harris would go a long way — perhaps longer than she realizes — toward persuading voters that they know enough about her and her plans.”

This was not a condemnation, however, but a plea for substance. He continued, “[I]n a campaign in which Donald Trump fills our days with arrant nonsense and dominates the national discussion … the vice president can’t afford to stick only to rehearsed answers and stump speeches that might not persuade voters or shape what America is talking about.”

The Job Is not the Interview

Thus far in the campaign, Kamala Harris has shown that she can perfectly handle a friendly environment full of adoration and applause. And in some ways, that’s precisely what a campaign can be. She is demonstrating to America that a bunch of people think she is just plain wonderful and that maybe, just maybe, you should join the joy parade.

But anyone who has ever interviewed a prospective employee – or even been interviewed – knows the persona and responses delivered are all too often not what we end up getting when the work comes due. If they were, no one would ever be fired.

The presidency is not a joy-filled lovefest in which only dear friends and fans are involved. The United States has adversaries; the country will face problems that must be dealt with, and answers will be demanded – no matter how uncomfortable – that must be provided. And this is precisely where Kamala Harris is failing.

She may, indeed, be able to handle the cut and thrust of the highest office in the land, but she is not demonstrating that to the public. In fact, she is showing the complete opposite. When one avoids difficult situations, it is a form of cowardice and immaturity. She may be sending out messages of hope and joy, but the signals being received are of an entirely different nature.