It seems the Washington Post made a scandalous announcement on Friday: The paper that says “Democracy dies in darkness” is not endorsing Kamala Harris for 2024.
The announcement sent shockwaves… through the left, at least. It was met on the right with amusement. Editors and writers at The Post are furious, some of them believing that the paper’s owner, Jeff Bezos, is going to lead the paper (and the country) straight into the arms of a fascist dictator.
Because, you know, objectivity in journalism and whatnot.
In a piece titled, “Breaking: The Washington Post Has a Kamala Problem”, Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes newspaper, D. Earl Stephens, frames the Post’s decision as if it were akin to a hostile takeover by Fox News. His piece suggests that the Post’s reluctance to give Kamala a gold star is symptomatic of a broader campaign to destroy her political career.
He also implies that the Post’s position is nothing less than a dangerous betrayal of progressive ideals.
SEE ALSO:
WaPo Declares It Will Not Endorse a Presidential Candidate This Election
HOT TAKES: WaPo Staffers Throw Delicious Temper Tantrums After Announcement on Presidential Endorsements
Now, let’s get something straight: The Washington Post has historically leaned left—this is not exactly a secret. But the newspaper deciding not to fall over itself to praise Harris’s lackluster vice presidency and completely incompetent presidential campaign is less of a betrayal and more of a shrug.
It’s not that they’re suddenly auditioning to be the next Fox News; it’s that Kamala Harris isn’t exactly setting the world on fire.
Washington Post’s Not-So-Shocking Move
The Washington Post’s editorial board wrote:
“What officeholders do — and how they do it — is more important than any historic firsts.”
Translation? Yes, being the first female vice president of color is historic. But you can’t govern on symbolism alone, and performance matters. This is a message Kamala’s biggest fans in the media need to hear, but will continue to ignore. The Post isn’t out to destroy her—they’re merely doing the bare minimum of accountability journalism. Even other observers noted this.
Her role as Vice President has been, let’s just say, a bit mysterious. Border czar? Still no solutions there. Key communicator on major policy issues? Not really—her public appearances are often a source of viral memes for all the wrong reasons.
So, when the Left laments that the Post is somehow being unfair to Kamala, it feels more like wishful thinking than reality. The truth is this: The Washington Post, like the rest of us, knows Kamala Harris’s resume is more impressive on paper than in practice. They’re just acknowledging what everyone else sees—she’s not the savior progressives hoped she would be.
A Paper’s Job Is to Be Honest (Occasionally)
What’s really ridiculous here is the outrage at the Post’s decision.
Look, editorial boards aren’t bound by political loyalty—they’re not supposed to write puff pieces just because someone checks the right demographic boxes. And frankly, Harris’s record so far just doesn’t merit an endorsement. It’s not betrayal; it’s basic editorial discretion.
At this point, the criticism isn’t even that harsh—the Post didn’t endorse Trump either. They’re saying the quiet part out loud: Kamala Harris is struggling to prove her worth as vice president, much less as a contender for the nation’s top political office. The reluctance to endorse someone based on identity alone shouldn’t be seen as a controversy—it should be seen as common sense.
Where Is This Outrage Coming From?
What Stephens and others on the Left, including writers at the Post, seem to be upset about isn’t just the lack of endorsement—it’s that the media isn’t playing ball.
Progressives had hoped Kamala Harris’s historic identity would grant her a smoother path through criticism, but the reality is less cooperative than wishful thinking. The fact that even mainstream media outlets are starting to question Harris’s viability is a sign that performative politics is running out of steam.
And look, it’s not just the Post throwing shade. CNN’s senior political analyst, Ron Brownstein, recently discussed on air how Democrats are increasingly uneasy about Harris’s ability to galvanize the base or lead in a future presidential run. There’s a growing consensus, even among left-leaning commentators, that Harris has failed to meet expectations—and expecting endorsements without substance is the real absurdity here.
Maybe Focus on Results, Not Outrage
Journalists on the left would have you believe that the Post’s move is part of some vast conspiracy to “have a Kamala problem.” But the truth is a lot simpler: The Washington Post is just not that into her.
And why would they be? A vice president’s role isn’t just to exist—it’s to lead, communicate, and contribute meaningfully. If Kamala Harris isn’t getting glowing endorsements, maybe the problem isn’t with the media—it’s with the results (or lack thereof).
So, here’s a thought: Instead of hand-wringing over who did or didn’t endorse Kamala, let’s ask ourselves a more important question. What has Kamala Harris actually done to deserve an endorsement at this point? Because if the answer is “not much,” it’s not the Post’s fault for pointing it out—it’s just the truth.
