Tulsi Gabbard’s attack on Kamala Harris’ record as a prosecutor during Wednesday’s debate is a test for the California senator’s surging campaign.
As Harris tries to cement her place in the top-tier of candidates for the long haul, she faces a challenge in responding to negative attacks without giving more fuel to her opponent, a Hawaii congresswoman best known for anti-interventionist foreign policy views.
After Gabbard criticized Harris on the debate stage for her role in marijuana convictions and the handling of a death penalty case, Harris, a former state attorney general and San Francisco district attorney, tried to downplay Gabbard’s importance.
“This is going to sound immodest, but I’m obviously a top-tier candidate and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight because there are a lot of people trying to make the stage for the next debate,” Harris told CNN on Wednesday following the debate. “Especially when people are at zero, 1%, whatever she might be at.”
Gabbard on Thursday called Harris’ response “pathetic,” making way for more headlines. “#KamalaHarrisDestroyed” trended on Twitter following the debate exchange.
On Thursday, Harris’ press secretary retweeted a warning that the social media focus on Gabbard was an example of Russian disinformation. During the debate, he tweeted an article from February warning that sites linked to Russia have propped up Gabbard.
David McCuan, professor and chairman of the political science department at Sonoma State University, told the Washington Examiner that if the Harris campaign over-responds, Gabbard’s narrative will “litter the ocean of water of what’s being talked about.”
“The Gabbard campaign is that annoying gadfly of a campaign, but it raises some of the issues of someone who is rising” like Harris, McCuan said. “The response back to that is a learning experience more for the person who’s ahead of the person who’s behind.”
Scott Ferson, a Democratic strategist based in Massachusetts, noted that both candidates are both women of color, heightening the ideological contrast between Gabbard and Harris. Gabbard is “very much an individualist,” Ferson said, and not a typical type of Democratic candidate.
Harris, 54, also criticized Gabbard’s positions on foreign policy and refusal to condemn Syrian strongman Bashar Assad. But in doing so, she runs the risk of highlighting her own lack of foreign policy experience compared to Gabbard, 38, an Army National Guard veteran.
Gabbard deployed an attack based on that distinction last week, when she said that Harris “is not qualified to serve as commander in chief.”
“She’s got no background or experience in foreign policy, and she lacks the temperament that is necessary for a commander in chief,” Gabbard said.
McCuan suggested the Harris campaign’s challenge is not looking like it’s punching down, but without letting a bottom-rung candidate appear to be getting into its skin.
“This is also a test for the Harris campaign as they reach some type of top-tier status for how they handle attacks in general, because if she does become the nominee, obviously she’s going to face just a wrath from the Trump campaign and from Trump allies,” McCuan said.
The Harris campaign needs to “do a better job of threading the needle about how to navigate while moving up and still respond to critics,” McCuan said. “And they’re still learning how to do that.”
