I apologize this post is a bit late…..life caught up with me and I had a bunch of personal stuff to get out of the way.
I know this event took place last week and I am late to the game….
With Republicans criticizing Vice President Kamala Harris first for not granting interviews, then for appearing with running mate Tim Walz at her first major interview since becoming the Democratic nominee, the bar for success wasn’t especially high in her CNN interview. Analysts say Harris—who did most of the talking—delivered a capable but unexceptional performance in discussing issues including her changes in policy positions with Dana Bash. Some takeaways:
- “Comfortable and in command.” “From a strictly performance standpoint, Harris was clear, calm and didn’t get rattled when pushed about changes to her positions on certain issues,” Domenico Montanaro writes at NPR. He says Harris has seemed “defensive” in previous interviews, “but that wasn’t the case here. She seemed comfortable and in command, which is important for a presidential candidate who people are still getting to know.”
- She makes it through to the next round. “Harris parried questions from Dana Bash … without causing herself political harm or providing herself a significant boost,” writes Reid J. Epstein at the New York Times. He says she was “methodical and risk-averse in the 27-minute interview, performing like a top seed in the early rounds of the US Open tennis tournament trying to hold serve, survive, and advance to the next round”—which for Harris, is the Sept. 10 debate with Donald Trump.
- She defended policy changes. Pressed on her shifts on some major issues since she embraced progressive positions in 2019, Harris said the “most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed,” NBC News reports. She didn’t provide the “most edifying or enlightening explanations” for why she moved away from policies like the Green New Deal, Aaron Blake writes at the Washington Post, but she “suggested she’s still working with the same set of values in mind, but employing different tools in changing times.”
- Boring is a bonus. Donald Trump described the interview as “BORING!!!” in a one-word Truth Social post, but Niall Stanage at the Hill says he was missing the point that “boring” is “probably just fine for Harris.” “The CNN interview won’t be going in any hall of fame for the art of political persuasion—but it won’t get close to the hall of shame either,” he writes. “For Harris and Walz, they ticked the box of having conducted a major interview. They didn’t do anything that seems likely to choke off their momentum.”
- She defended Bidenomics. Instead of trying to put some distance between herself and President Biden’s economic policies, as some had expected, Harris defended the administration’s achievements and blamed Trump’s “mismanagement” during the pandemic for problems the administration had inherited, Montanaro writes at NPR. He says this “shows what a lot of Democrats have been crying out for—someone to make the case on the economy well, instead of how Biden often responded, which came off as him taking the attacks personally and acting defensively.”
- A “serene” Walz. The interview showed that Walz is “good at sitting and smiling,” Epstein writes at the Times. Compared to his “excited cheerleader” role at joint rallies, his role here “was more serene,” Epstein writes. “He mostly sat there, silent, waiting for Ms. Bash to ask him to say something. At one point during the interview’s first segment, he went a full eight minutes without speaking.
This interview showed me that if elected very little will change in the White House from Biden.
Her ‘new way forward’ is nothing more than a minor change on the path forged by Biden.
I know, I know….whatever…..she is better than trump…..that whole thinking is getting a bit tiring….this election should be more about some sort of change and not a ‘hold your nose’ and vote.
I am not happy with this election at all.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
The Republicans are really scrambling to find something, anything, that they can use against Harris and Walz and can’t seem to be able to come up with anything except bizarre conspiracy theories, vague claims about them being “evil liberals”, etc. They’ve been trying to shift the focus away from policy issues into the realm of personal insults because that’s all they got.
It is interesting to watch their tactics…..a more than a bit pathetic. chuq
I think that, judged by low standards (that is, Donald Trump and Joe Biden), Kamala Harris did well.
But from my standpoint as a voter, she provided little information on where she stands on issue and no arguments to justify her stands.
She admitted she was for fracking, but she adamantly refused to state why, except for “values” (what values?)
She should not have had to stop and think about what she would do on Day One, or had to be asked twice. She should have been able to look Dana Bash in the eye and rattle off her talking points right away.
I do not agree that she spoke with authority. Compare her body language and demeanor to Tulsi Gabbard, Marianne WIlliamson or equivalent female political figures interviewed during the past year. (I’m speaking of manner, not content.) She looked down, as if at notes, instead of at the interviewer. Her tone of voice was defensive. Of course these things would not matter if she had defined her position on major questions of war and peace and the economy.
Her interview was not a disaster. There were no sound bites that the opposition could have taken out of context and used as Internet memes.
But neither was it a great success. There was nothing in her interview that the Democratic Party can use in its campaign.
I agree with every word…..she offered no specifics….I like specifics…..chuq
Her main challenge is to appear calm, composed and serious. That means no inane laughter , giggling, and she should answer questions directly. She is running a good campaign with no mistakes this far.
It is early a lot can happen between now and November 5…..but so far so good….chuq
That is the hottest spotlight in the world and we’ve seen many a politician wilt under it…still time to go until November so we will see what sort of “October surprise” emerges for one or the other – or both.
I had forgotten about the ‘October surprise” thingy…..we shall see. chuq
I’d not worry too much about it though, chuq. With each passing administration the reigning POTUS becomes more subject/susceptible to occurring events outside his/her control simply because most events will be unpredictable. When politicians pontificate their promises to make life better for all Americans they really have little control over that. Now, that does not mean that a single sitting president could not just blunder along doing arbitrary nonsense and mess up society in general (ala Trump). That alone would support electing a person that tries to promote some kind of balance within a status quo. After all, a president has no control over the immediate effects of changing weather. When a president says he/she will pass this or deny that.. well… unless they have some level of control in Congress the only impact might be the occasional decree, which then itself gets challenged in the levels of our court system.
A president does not have sole control of our economy or the free market, which more often that not, acts according to its own forces of supply and demand. Yes.. more Presidential decrees can impose sanctions to affect our international whims and impose our will across the globe… but again, more often than not, sanctions seldom affect the “other guy” more than it affects our own domestic production.
If the president’s political party has no influence in Congress, especially for as divided as we are now, then little will get done that the president might have promised in the campaigning. So it seems to me the current election goal is to keep Trump out… and if we get another “Biden” with Harris, well, we could do far worse.
[“I know, I know….whatever…..she is better than trump…..that whole thinking is getting a bit tiring….this election should be more about some sort of change and not a ‘hold your nose’ and vote.”]
Not sure I’d call it a “hold your nose” vote given each new administration is aspirational at best… but I am all for a rest from nearly a decade of Trumpian chaos and MAGA crap.
I would call it just that….we have had nothing exciting in politics since the 90s….so hold your nose says it all for me. chuq
They are reporting here that Harris and Trump are still neck and neck. It seems that nothing he can say or do puts off his loyal fans and supporters. And I saw Harris being called a Communist again online. Such nonsense!
Best wishes, Pete.
Those Right wingers love to call some ‘commies’…I laugh at their ignorance. chuq