"In February 2023, the New York Times published an article titled, 'Kamala Harris Is Trying to Define Her Vice Presidency. Even Her Allies Are Tired of Waiting.'"

"The headline was generous, given what followed. 'The painful reality for Ms. Harris is that in private conversations over the last few months, dozens of Democrats in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and around the nation … said [Harris] had not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, much less the country,' the New York Times reported. 'Even some Democrats whom her own advisers referred reporters to for supportive quotes confided privately that they had lost hope in her.'... [T]he New York Times reported that 'a quiet panic' had 'set in among key Democrats about what would happen if President Biden opted not to run for a second term.' Harris made the situation even worse by retreating to 'a bunker' for about a year, the New York Times said, 'after her disastrous interview with Lester Holt of NBC News.'..."

Writes Byron York, in "Remember when Democrats (and everybody else) thought Kamala Harris was a bad vice president?" (Washington Examiner). Discussion of other articles at the link and the statement that "there were many more, all of which could be summarized by one, brief sentence: Kamala Harris made a mess of the vice presidency."

These days, the press have tried to boost Harris, but even though they seem to want to help her, she's avoiding them. As for the NYT, it's still musing about Harris's need to "define" herself. There's this, from "Harris Says She’s Ready for Debate as Poll Shows a Tight Race: Election Updates":

Harris does seem to have more room for growth than Trump. Twenty-eight percent of voters said they feel like they need to learn more about her, compared to 9 percent who say the same about Trump. It’s a reminder of how even though she is vice president, she remains less defined as a candidate. 

Yeah, thanks for the "reminder." How about an expression of outrage that she has shirked serious engagement with the voters? She took the nomination away from the man who'd dragged himself through the primaries and won the votes of the people. How can she not feel obligated to subject herself to tough interviews? And yet here's the NYT calling that "room for growth" and merely noting the condition of being "less defined"! Where's the outrage?

At least she's going to do that debate tomorrow... isn't she?