It has long been axiomatic in politics that a "gaffe" is what happens when a politician inadvertently tells the truth. But what is it called when a newspaper accidentally tells the truth about a politician's incompetence while trying to make them look strong and decisive? The New York Times has just such a story: Harris Has Targeted Racism and Sexism While in Office. She Doesn’t Broadcast It.

The story is an attempt to portray Harris as the enemy of racism and sexism in government while rising above the fray of racial politics. To say it failed is an understatement.

Paging through intelligence reports just weeks after she was sworn in as vice president, Kamala Harris was struck by the way two female foreign leaders were described. The reports used adjectives that, in her view, were rarely used to describe male leaders.

Ms. Harris, the first woman to hold her office, ordered up a review that scrutinized multiple years of briefing reports from various intelligence agencies, looking for possible gender bias.

The study found some questionable word choices but no widespread pattern, according to a senior intelligence official, one of five who requested anonymity to discuss the review. (None would disclose the words flagged by Ms. Harris because the reports were classified.)

Still, the exercise had an impact: Intelligence officials added a new training class for analysts on how to judge and assess female foreign leaders, according to another official.

The episode proved to be a preview of Ms. Harris’s priorities. The vice president put questions about gender and race at the center of many of the policy discussions in her office, aides and former administration officials said. Throughout her career, she pushed for policies aimed at systemic disparities and often used her bully pulpit to speak about what she saw as injustices.

While Ms. Harris’s allies describe this as a defining feature of her vice presidency — one that separates her from her predecessors, including Democrats — she is not running on this part of her record.

It is hard to imagine this story being true, much less the subject of anything but guffaws. Yet the New York Times reports on the story approvingly, showing how Kamala is "down with the struggle" every single day. Imagine the vice president receiving the Presidential Daily Brief and being offended by the word choices used to describe actions by "two female foreign leaders." She then orders a review of "multiple years" of daily briefings to determine how the CIA described actions by women to see if there was "implicit bias" or whatever the fine young Marxists are calling it. As if this parody were not complete, it resulted in a finding of no bias, but just to be safe, the DEI Gestapo was sicced on the intelligence analysts who prepare the daily intelligence briefing for the President to make sure that they didn't offend Kamala's sensibilities.

This is stark, raving insanity. However, it is a metaphor for Harris's entire political career. She has focused on sexism and racism to the exclusion of concern for the voters or the nation. 

One wonders if the Abbey Gate catastrophe, in which Kamala said she was the "last person in the room" when decisions were made, would have ended differently if Kamala had focused on the operation and not the pronouns and adjectives.