Kamala Harris did just enough in the debate -- with help from ABC

Going into Tuesday’s debate, Kamala Harris had a bigger challenge than Donald Trump. She had to comport herself in ways that would allow undecided voters to imagine her sitting in the Oval Office.

She passed that test. She was composed and mostly clear and there was nary a word salad to be heard.

That’s not to say she’s now on the path to victory. It’s simply that because of the unprecedented way and timing of how and when she got the party’s nomination, and because she would be the nation’s first female president, she had work to do with independent voters.

She did it sufficiently well to clear the threshold requirement of looking and sounding presidential, a test that Trump had to pass in 2016 in his first run for the prize.

Donald Trump and Kamala Harris debate — Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump participate in a debate hosted by ABC on Tuesday, September 10, 2024. ABC News

At the same time, Harris’ achievement is undercut by the fact that she had the help of the biased ABC moderators. They were on her side and let her get away too many times without responding to their questions.

She consistently gave speeches instead of answers, yet the moderators didn’t press her for a clear response to their questions.

Asked, for example, how much responsibility she had for the Afghanistan withdrawal debacle, she never answered except to say that she supported President Biden’s decision.

She then turned to the Democratic talking point that Trump negotiated the original terms with the Taliban, and moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis let it pass. There was no mention of the 13 dead American service members.

When it came to Trump’s answers, several times the moderators insisted he was wrong and offered what can only be called corrections. They were way out of line and once again proved that mainstream media outlets simply cannot be trusted to play fair.

One of those instances involved a Democratic abortion bill that would have allowed a full-term fetus born alive to be euthanized.

Trump was right, but the moderators unfairly undercut what he said by casting doubt on it for viewers.

That’s not moderating. That’s election interference.

Overall, Trump gave a so-so performance. He appeared to be glowering at the moderators for most of the evening, and turned too often to the Biden-Harris decision to let in millions of unvetted, illegal migrants. Sheer repetition does not by itself make a convincing case and he missed an opportunity to broaden the argument.

Correct on fracking

On the other hand, he was right about fracking. With the debate being held in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania shaping up as the do-or-die state for both sides, he cited Harris’ 2019 comment that she would ban fracking.

She denied it, and the moderators moved on.

Otherwise, Trump didn’t seem nimble about using their questions to make points about his policies and too often was on defense against Harris and the moderators.

ABC debate moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis did not press Harris on major issues and were on her side, writes columnist Michael Goodwin. REUTERS

She, on the other hand, often turned to speak to him, or at least about him, and went after him on a broader range of topics.

And where he rarely changed expressions, she was posing for the camera, alternately smiling, shaking her head no and putting her chin on her hand in a pensive look. Several times she tried to interrupt Trump while he was answering.

Hers was a practiced performance aimed at undecided voters, and it’s odd to imagine her rehearsing it. Still, it probably offered some reassurance that she was competent, at least at debating, and it could matter down the stretch.

Up to now, she and her campaign have played it excruciatingly safe by making sure she doesn’t speak for more than a few seconds without a teleprompter.

Aides also developed a peculiar habit of responding to public pressure about her hiding in a late, grudging way. After more than a month of refusing to answer media questions and grant an interview, she agreed to sit down with CNN.

Still no details

It was a nothing burger that lasted for 26 minutes and was instantly forgettable. If remembered at all, it will be for the fact that Harris brought running mate Tim Walz, who looked like a cross between a father figure and security, and for host Dana Bash’s gentle tone and willingness to take no for an answer.

Similarly, pressure was building for weeks for Harris to detail her policy positions, especially because anonymous aides kept saying she no longer supported some of the most controversial ones. These included a ban on fracking, which could have sunk her in Pennsylvania, and an embrace of all-forgiving border policies.

And so on Monday, on the eve of the debate, her campaign filled its previously barren “issues” page with scores of … platitudes.

She’s now on the record for promising to support “Good Paying Jobs” and “Ensure Safety and Justice For All.” She’ll also “Secure Our Borders” and “Lower Energy Costs and Tackle the Climate Crisis.”

She didn’t get much deeper Tuesday night, but none of this matters to her supporters, including, incredibly, her media handmaidens. Their willingness to support a candidate who gives them the cold shoulder marks a new low for media corruption.

Catch up on The Post’s debate coverage

It’s not incidental that ABC has, by one study, the most lopsided coverage, with nearly all Harris coverage positive and nearly all Trump coverage negative.

The moderators’ performance was consistent with that record, and shows they care more about the outcome than their duties to inform the public about a candidate. Beating Trump is all that matters to them.

The acceptance of her stiffing them — and voters — also suggests the media don’t have much confidence in her. If they believed she was capable of advocating for and articulating popular positions, they would be urging her to do so.

Instead, they accepted her campaign’s decision to keep voters in the dark because they believe it’s more likely to get her elected than if she is forced to explain and defend her positions publicly.

The question now is whether her debate performance will give Harris and her handlers enough confidence to let her be a true candidate unfettered by restrictions.

The first sign is yes, in that the Harris camp reportedly demanded a second debate.

Trump should say yes. And next time he should bring an occasional smile and let viewers see a happy warrior ready to finish the job he started.