Tonight marked Kamala Harris’s first interview since she was announced as the Democratic candidate for President, over a month into her campaign. The interview was conducted by Dana Bash of CNN at a nondescript café.
The strategy behind this interview was smart in one sense—by avoiding live interviews for so long, anticipation had built up, effectively drawing an audience for what turned out to be more of a campaign ad. For Harris, this was a clear win, as she can now claim to have tackled the tough questions from the supposedly tough Dana Bash, even though she prepped extensively and didn’t quite address the questions directly.
Did she come across as Presidential? In my view, not really. She appeared small, fidgety, and evasive. However, undecided voters might look for validation of Republican critiques. Bash allowed Harris’s flaws, misstatements, and shortcomings to pass without challenge, to the extent that they might seem insignificant.
Harris continues to avoid accountability for her record; some might label this behavior as “gaslighting” or akin to “doublethink” (a term from George Orwell’s 1984). Watching this, I wished I could have counted the number of misdirections and outright lies. Policies she passionately endorsed in 2020 have been swapped out for their opposites.
From this interview, several things are clear:
- Kamala Harris certainly knew the questions in advance. The interview felt as scripted as her campaign speeches.
- CNN appeared to be complicit in making this a promotional piece for Harris. The aim seemed to be more about boosting Harris’s image than challenging her. Dana Bash’s approach was remarkably gentle, with weak follow-ups, and any content that could negatively affect Harris appeared to be edited out.
- Many of the views Harris expressed were not her own. It seemed clear that some of her policy stances were imposed on her as conditions for her candidacy. She seemed unable to genuinely support many of the positions she stated.
- Harris consistently claims her values remain unchanged, even when faced with evidence of flip-flopping. Expert coaching was evident, and combined with the soft nature of the interview (which felt more like a show), any controversial remarks were easy to overlook, at least superficially appearing consistent with her past.
Dana Bash first gave Harris a platform to outline what she would do on her “first day.” After some evasion, Harris repeated a few of her usual vague promises, emphasizing the nebulous “opportunity economy.”
She spoke about “price gouging” (correctly pronouncing it this time), which hinted at her misguided idea of price controls, and mentioned a $25,000 credit for first-time homebuyers—a policy that would likely drive up, not lower, housing prices. Does she not have any economic advisors at all?
When asked if Bidenomics was successful, she dodged the question, avoided saying yes, blamed Trump for the state of the economy (despite nearly four years in office), and shifted to touting supposed achievements. She cited several negative economic indicators but expected the audience to feel their lives were improved. This was classic doublethink.
In response to why her advocated policies hadn’t been implemented, Harris sidestepped, blamed Trump, and, unsurprisingly, took credit for $35 insulin prices and Medicare’s right to negotiate—achievements initiated by Trump.
Asked about fracking, Harris stated she wouldn’t ban it, despite having pledged to do so emphatically four years ago. Another flip-flop.
On illegal immigration, Harris evaded again, ultimately blaming Trump for not passing an immigration bill she claimed would have solved the problem (though it likely wouldn’t). She asserted she’s against decriminalizing illegal border crossings, yet four years ago, she strongly supported it. Flip-flop.
Concerning the Israel-Hamas conflict, Harris expressed unwavering support for Israel’s defense, yet also advocated for Palestinian self-determination and a deal to free hostages (what about defending Israel?). Her previous criticism of Israel ceased once she became the Democratic candidate. Her true stance remains unclear, but this too feels like a flip-flop.
The most insulting moment was when Tim Walz was asked about his “carrying weapons into war” remark, his incorrect use of “IVF,” and lying about a 1995 arrest. He didn’t own up to any of it, instead deflecting by blaming the Trump campaign. This behavior is disgraceful. I have a radical, unsubstantiated theory that Biden, still under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (via Hunter), forced Walz on Harris, making him a Chinese intelligence asset. Does that scare you?
From a conservative viewpoint, this interview was painful to watch—a blatant propaganda piece for a not particularly intelligent presidential candidate.
But this wasn’t aimed at well-informed conservatives. It targeted the “drive-by” voter seeking validation or refutation of Kamala Harris’s credibility. In that respect, this interview could be deemed a win for Kamala.
