Kamala Harris and the DNC: A Political Performance of Style Over Substance

When it comes to the art of political theater, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has managed to raise the bar—though not in the way they might have hoped. In a blistering critique that has taken social media by storm, John Stewart has pulled no punches in calling out the DNC’s attempt to rebrand Vice President Kamala Harris as the savior of American politics. The result? A political performance riddled with empty slogans, superficial optics, and a complete lack of leadership substance.

The DNC’s attempt to position Kamala Harris as a leading figure in the Democratic Party has been a spectacular failure, but perhaps it’s not entirely surprising given the party’s desperate scrambling over the last few years. The strategy seemed to be simple: take a well-known name, slap some identity politics on it, and hope the public will bite. But as Stewart, with his signature wit and biting commentary, has pointed out, this approach has been anything but effective.

A Hollow Resume and Lost Leadership

The problem with Kamala Harris’ candidacy isn’t one that can be pinned on a single gaffe or a misstep. No, the issue runs deeper. In her four years as Vice President, Harris was handed an enormous platform—a role that should carry significant weight and influence. However, what Harris and the DNC have presented to the American public is far from impressive. Instead of showcasing a strong track record of legislative achievements, bold leadership, or crisis management, the DNC opted for a glossy image with little substance behind it.

Stewart’s critique of Harris’ “resume” is ruthless but effective. He points out that while the DNC tried to sell Harris as a beacon of change, what they actually provided was a collection of photo-ops, vague buzzwords, and recycled talking points. There was no clear leadership, no defining moments, no game-changing legislation to point to. Harris’ time as VP was, in Stewart’s words, akin to a “ghost job”—all presence, no substance.

The most damning part of Stewart’s analysis? The DNC’s insistence that the public should overlook Harris’ lack of accomplishments simply because of her identity. For a party that claims to stand for progress, they failed to offer any concrete evidence that Harris was more than just a token choice for the ticket.

The DNC’s Identity Politics Fail

At the heart of the DNC’s misfire lies an uncomfortable truth: they were so focused on identity politics that they lost sight of what truly matters to voters—real leadership and tangible accomplishments. The selection of Kamala Harris as Vice President was, in many ways, a calculated move to appease certain factions of the party. The goal was clear: balance the ticket by picking a woman of color. But what was left out of the equation was whether or not Harris had actually earned the right to stand on the national stage.

In an attempt to address this, the DNC tried to sell Harris as a leader who had “paid her dues”—a narrative that crumbled under the weight of scrutiny. Stewart wasn’t the only one to call out this performative politics. The entire convention, from its flashy moments to its generic speeches, was a showcase of style over substance. The DNC treated it like a marketing campaign, pushing viral moments, celebrity cameos, and superficial narratives instead of providing a clear, bold vision for the future.

The Performance That Wasn’t

Stewart’s brutal takedown of the DNC’s convention is both funny and painfully accurate. The event was less a political rally and more a circus designed to dazzle viewers with optics rather than substance. Musical numbers, awkward speeches, and celebrity endorsements were all thrown into the mix as if they could distract from the absence of a coherent message. The DNC, it seemed, was betting on superficial charm and media spectacle to win over voters—yet, as Stewart humorously points out, the public wasn’t fooled.

It’s hard not to laugh when Stewart pokes fun at the DNC’s insistence on highlighting Kamala Harris’ “connection to the people,” including an absurd moment where Harris reportedly calls people on her birthday. In a typical political move, the DNC tried to sell this as a sign of her genuine leadership. But when you stop to think about it, it’s clear how backwards this entire narrative is. Why is the candidate calling people on her own birthday, as though she’s the one doing a favor?

For Stewart, this moment encapsulates the entire problem with the DNC’s approach: they were so disconnected from the needs of the voters that they couldn’t even get the basics right. If you’re going to sell leadership, you better have something to back it up—and in the case of Harris and the DNC, there was nothing but empty gestures.

A Flawed Strategy and the Media’s Role

But the DNC’s failure wasn’t just about poor messaging and a lack of substance—it was also about how they allowed the media to frame their narrative. As Stewart and others have pointed out, the mainstream media wasn’t just an observer; they were active participants in this performance. Rather than holding the DNC accountable for their hollow strategies and lack of real ideas, the press played along, polishing up every misstep and pretending it didn’t matter.

This, in Stewart’s view, was a betrayal of the role the media is supposed to play in a democracy: holding power to account. Instead, the media became complicit in the DNC’s narrative, amplifying their message without questioning its legitimacy. The result was a dangerous combination of political malpractice and media complicity, one that ultimately led to the DNC’s downfall.

The Real Cost of Empty Politics

When all is said and done, the DNC’s gamble on optics and identity politics instead of tangible achievements and leadership has left them in a precarious position. Their decision to bet on surface-level appeals instead of substance has cost them dearly. The American people are not interested in gimmicks—they want leadership that delivers results. By treating the convention like a spectacle instead of a serious moment to outline a vision for the future, the DNC alienated the very voters they were trying to win over.

The consequences of this failure are already being felt, as the DNC continues to struggle with a lack of direction and purpose. The rise of figures like John Stewart, Michael Costa, and others who are not afraid to call out this political circus is a testament to the growing frustration with the current state of politics. People want leadership, not performances.

In the end, Kamala Harris and the DNC have learned a hard lesson: you can’t sell style without substance, and you can’t lead a nation with empty slogans. Voters may have been entertained by the circus, but they’re not fooled—and they won’t be buying what the DNC is selling anytime soon.