Main Edition
US
FR
September 26, 2024 - 2:00am
“It was a normal interview,” Stephanie Ruhle insisted on Wednesday, having just demanded Kamala Harris confirm — on the record — she once worked at McDonald’s. It’s hard to argue the point.
Ruhle’s self-assessment came during an after-interview debrief with Chris Hayes, who congratulated his colleague on a “refreshingly substantive” discussion with the Vice President. Ruhle, selfless sentinel of Park Avenue, pierced straight to the heart of Harris’s bid with questions like, “For those who say ‘These policies aren’t for me,’ what do you say to them?” and “[Trump] said he will be the protector of women if elected, can you respond to that?”
To be sure, Ruhle tossed in some heat with references to the “tremendous economic wins” under Joe Biden and Harris. She agreed with Harris mid-interview on tariffs, affirming that Trump’s “plan is not serious when you lay it out like that.” Referencing poll results that show voters “still” trust Trump more on the economy, the MSNBC host wondered, “Why do you think that is?”
Harris is on track to give the media very few interviews throughout the course of her historically short campaign. It’s no coincidence the veep chose to sit down with Ruhle of all people just days after the MSNBC host made an explicit and impassioned case for Harris on “Real Time with Bill Maher.”
This is the strategy, and it’s honestly brilliant: why rock the boat by disrupting the wave of positive press and positive vibes it’s floating on? Interviews with media figures like Ruhle give the illusion of transparency without risking much. Sure, Ruhle — senior business analyst at NBC News — asked about some legitimately substantive topics like communities who feel they’re at “capacity” amid the immigration surge, why unions don’t seem to connect with Harris like Trump, and how Harris plans to “balance” hiking corporate tax rates without sending business out of the country. Her exchange on trade wasn’t awful, and she brought up the issue of “red tape” increasing housing costs in places like the suburbs of Pittsburgh.
But that was it. And while the topics may have been tough, the questions were softballs and the follow-ups were often non-existent. Even so, Harris missed some easy pitches, falling back into her old habits of pausing awkwardly and stumbling into nonsense.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeKamala Harris is very lightweight intellectually and has a bizarre outlook on the lives of the average American. Only she and Hillary Clinton could be beaten by Donald Trump in a US Presidential Election.
Disagree. Trump goes against the Washington Consensus on foreign policy. Anyone who rocks that boat is an extreme underdog. The Media doesn’t really care what your domestic policies are but their foreign policy agenda is fixed. If you go against it they will cover your opponent favorably and you unfairly.
That was quite apparent when Trump launched that missile strike on Syria; all of a sudden, the media had good things to say about him.
It remains to be seen whether Harris loses to Trump, but I agree that Hillary was the only candidate that could have lost to Trump in 2016.
This is how democracy dies.
Yes, it dies because a candidate got interviewed by MSNBC, not because another candidate once sent his Brownshirts to trash Congress.
Peacefully and patriotically
It dies because one political party can enlist the support of the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, big tech, the regime media – and virtually all the institutions – to cover up its scandals and lie in its behalf.
The regime media continues to debase itself and shovel dirt while digging its grave.
“Which would you say is your bigger weakness: your generosity or your down-to-earth-ness?”
Oh God. That reads like bad fan-fiction where the Mary Sue self-insert’s only flaw is “being too perfect.”
Perhaps an interviewer could ask Trump “When did you stop beating your wife?”
It was also pre-recorded. Leftists must be proud!
OMG! Some TV isn’t live nowadays?
Americans want their commander-in-chief to be able to think and respond to hostile environments in real time.
And they want him (or her) to be on live TV while they are doing it?
Well, it would certainly make for a more testing interview. And I would imagine seeing your would-be commander-in- chief tested in some way would be regarded as a good idea.
If there were a private messaging function, someone could explain to you how video editing works.
So why is Trump ducking a second debate? If she’s getting an easy ride shouldn’t he seize the opportunity?
Oh wait a minute who unravels when matched up?
Trump and the pollsters realize that even these softball interviews (Oprah!) are revealing Kamala to be an airhead.
Sun Tzu: “Never interrupt your opponent while (s)he is in the middle of making a mistake.”
Another debate would generate another tongue-bath for Kamala from the sycophantic MSM. Why give them the chance?
I agree with this. Everyone in the media think this Kamala honeymoon is going to just carry on until the election and she will win. They are in for a rude awakening. The majority aren’t as dumb as many people think.
Trump sucks at debating, but why on God’s green earth would he agree to a second debate after that crap show on ABC? The only network he can trust is Fox and she would never agree to that.
The MSM is merely a propagand arm of the DNC.
What they don’t realize is that many people are beginning to see through their smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately, too few.
Senior people in the US MSM couldn’t care less about the loss of trust in their trade as many of them will hope to get jobs from the administration under a Harris Presidency. She will owe them a lot.