Bret Stephens: A vague, vacuous TV interview didn’t help Kamala Harris
Kamala Harris didn’t hurt herself in her interview Thursday with CNN’s Dana Bash. She didn’t particularly help herself, either.
On the positive side, she came across as warm, relatable and – to recall Barack Obama’s famous 2008 exchange with Hillary Clinton – more than “likable enough.” She refused to be baited into the identity-politics trap, emphasizing that she was running for president “for all Americans, regardless of race and gender.” And she had a nice line of attack against Donald Trump, observing the distinction between leaders who measure their strength according to who they “beat down,” as opposed to those who measure it based on “who you lift up.”
Less positive: She’s vague to the point of vacuous. She struggled to give straight answers to her shifting positions on fracking and border security other than to say, “my values have not changed.” Fine, but she evaded the question of why it took the Biden administration more than three years to gain better control of the border, which it ultimately did through an executive order that could have been in place years earlier. It also doesn’t answer the question of why she reversed her former policy positions – or whether she has higher values other than political expediency.
Harris also relied on a few talking points that may not serve her well in the next two months. She mentioned price gouging, but Americans won’t likely believe that grocery chains with razor-thin profit margins are the real culprit when it comes to their rising food bills. Her $100 billion plan to give first-time homebuyers $25,000 in down-payment support is mainly an incentive for ever-higher home prices. Even Trump may be smart enough to explain just how inflationary the gimmick could be.
A bigger weakness in the interview was the presence of Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz. Though the Minnesota governor delivered a fine speech at the Democratic National Convention (brightly enhanced by his cheering son, Gus), he was transparently evasive in answering Bash’s questions about his misstatement about his military service, false claims about a DUI arrest and misleading statements about his family’s fertility treatments. If there are other lies or untruths in Walz’s record, the campaign ought to get ahead of them now.
As for Bash, she is an intelligent and insistent reporter who isn’t afraid to ask follow-up questions when she gets flighty answers. But there was too much fluff in this interview to lay to rest doubts about Harris’ readiness for the highest office. Tougher questions next time, please.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.