The funny thing about Kamala Harris's "interview" Thursday evening was that some on the left defended her performance—as you would expect them to. But, overall, it didn't help her. And you don't even have to take my word for it.
"Kamala Harris's odds of winning the 2024 presidential election deteriorated noticeably after her CNN interview, which took place along with running mate Tim Walz, on Thursday evening, according to two leading bookmakers," reports Newsweek.
I'm not surprised.
As I said after watching the interview, Dana Bash actually did ask some pointed questions. But she also spoon-fed Kamala answers. For instance, when questioning Harris about her flip-flopping on issues, Bash essentially gave her a multiple-choice question. Worse, Bash didn’t push back nearly enough when Harris was clearly being evasive. There were plenty of opportunities for more rigorous follow-up, which would have put Harris on the spot. Even Fox News wouldn’t have given Trump such a softball interview. Independents certainly noticed this.
Of course, there were other issues as well.
I caught most of Kamala Harris’s interview on the radio, and by the time I got home to watch the rest, I was shocked by the poor staging. It was bad enough that she needed Governor Tim Walz by her side, but the setup only made things worse. Harris was seated awkwardly, kitty-corner from the imposing Walz, which made her appear small and weak in comparison—a terrible look for someone vying for the presidency. Walz had the "adult in the room" vibe, while Harris was like the little kid being interviewed for winning the science fair.
Related: Kamala's First 'Interview' Was the Dumpster Fire You Expected It Would Be
The choice of location was equally baffling. Instead of a well-lit studio that would lend some gravitas to the event, the interview was staged in a café, of all places. Perhaps they thought it would make the interview feel more casual and relatable? Whatever the reason, it backfired. The background featured tables cluttered with mugs, making the setting look anything but presidential.
Of course, Kamala's performance itself was lacking.
For example, it wasn’t surprising when Bash brought up Trump’s recent comment that he “didn’t know [Kamala] was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn, ‘black,’ and now she wants to be known as black.” But Harris’s response to the question was to simply not answer it.
“Same old, tired playbook,” she said dismissively. “Next question, please.”
Seriously? Why dodge the question? I expected her to launch into the usual “Trump is racist” narrative, but instead, she brushed it off. It almost seemed like she was conceding that Trump had a point—which, frankly, he did—and sought to take the incident completely off the table.
And then there's the moment when Dana Bash pointed out the “crisis of affordability” many Americans are facing. She hit a nerve. Bash then asked a question that really needed an impactful answer: “I wonder what you say to voters who do want to go back— when it comes to the economy, specifically—because their groceries were less expensive and housing was more affordable when Donald Trump was president?”
Harris’s response was underwhelming, relying on the same tired talking points Joe Biden had been pushing for years with little success. She rattled off a list of policies she claims are working, but when Bash asked, “So you maintain Bidenomics is a success,” Harris’s answer was revealing:
I maintain that when we do the work of bringing down prescription medication for the American people, including capping the cost—of the annual cost of prescription medication for seniors at $2,000; when we do what we did in the first year of being in office to extend the child tax credit so that we cut child poverty in America by over 50%; when we do what we have done to invest in the American people and bringing manufacturing back to the United States so that we created over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs, bringing business back to America; what we have done to improve the supply chain so we’re not relying on foreign governments to supply American families with their basic needs, I’ll say that that’s good work. There’s more to do, but that’s good work.
You'll notice she didn’t say, “Yes, Bidenomics is working.”
Pollster Frank Luntz summed it up perfectly after the interview: “If tonight’s interview is judged not on policy but on performance, Kamala Harris will be found lacking.”
He also disagreed with pundits who claimed that Kamala was actually doing well. “I realize a lot of people think Kamala Harris has done well so far in this interview,” he noted. “I disagree – a good debater will find it easy to challenge her.”
And we all know what happened in the last presidential debate.
If you think Kamala will do another interview anytime soon, don't hold your breath.
