Main Edition
US
FR
August 30, 2024 - 10:00am
Last night, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for their first interview since accepting the Democratic nominations for president and vice president. The 22-minute exchange, conducted on a campaign bus in Georgia, was a curious affair: in parts a policy discussion, an attempt to humanise the candidates, and an awkward dance around Harris’s evolving positions on key issues.
The Vice President’s responses on fracking — a third rail in the critically important purple state of Pennsylvania, where many jobs depend on it — exemplified her delicate balancing act. When pressed about her 2019 statement supporting a ban, Harris pivoted: “No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020, that I would not ban fracking. As Vice President, I did not ban fracking. As President, I will not ban fracking.”
This abrupt reversal seemed forced, especially given Harris’s attempt to retroactively clarify her position by referencing the 2020 vice-presidential debate. However, a review of that debate transcript reveals no such clarification occurred. Harris merely stated then that Joe Biden would not ban fracking, without addressing her own stance.
The fracking exchange highlighted a recurring theme: Harris’s efforts to distance herself from her more progressive past positions while maintaining her liberal bona fides. On immigration, she touted her work addressing the “root causes” of migration from Central America, while also emphasising her support for increased border security. “I’m the only person who has prosecuted transnational criminal organisations who traffic in guns, drugs, and human beings,” she noted, eager to burnish her law-and-order credentials a few years after claiming she was open to rethinking the funding structure for law enforcement.
This careful repositioning extended to economic issues as well. Harris defended the administration’s record on inflation and job creation, while acknowledging persistent affordability concerns. Her “opportunity economy” proposals — including an expanded child tax credit and first-time homebuyer assistance — seemed calibrated to appeal to struggling middle-class voters without alienating the Democratic base.
Throughout the interview, there was a palpable effort to humanise Harris, who in past elections came across as stiff and unlikeable on the campaign trail and behind the scenes. She shared an anecdote about making pancakes for her nieces when Biden called to tell her he was withdrawing from the race. Even in these more personal moments, however, Harris appeared somewhat ill at ease, her responses feeling rehearsed rather than spontaneous.
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.
SubscribeBeing neither senile nor Trump will probably suffice
Sadly, I think you’re right. What a sorry mess.
It was an infomercial. She will not have to ban fracking. An agency will do it for her. Same with building the wall. An agency will prevent it. Same with the EV mandate. Congress won’t reverse it.
No one will believe any promises she makes and Democrats couldn’t care less. They just want Trump to lose. They will just hope that, if elected, she won’t tread on their toes.
The woman is a dim narcissist, as is Trump. The difference between them is that Trump’s natural instincts are more aligned with social and economic reality than are Harris’s acquired ones. If she wins Harris will leave the US in deeper economic and social difficulties than would Trump. The MSM will simply rewrite that reality.
Reality is that tariffs are ultimately taxes on consumers because companies pass the cost of tariffs through to consumers. Reality is that tariffs are inflationary. Trump’s “natural instincts” are wrong in this instance. Most of his “natural instincts” are divorced from reality.
By that logic increased regulations and corporate taxes are also taxes on customers…
Sure. But as with everything in life there is a cost/benefit analysis. Are you willing to accept regulations that ensure you’re not eating in a cockroach infested restaurant? Are you willing to pay taxes to fix crumbling bridges?
I would prefer not to eat in cockroach infested restaurants. I would prefer roads and bridges are in good shape because if trucks have to take roundabout routes to avoid crumbling infrastructure commerce will be less efficient and more expensive.
Tariffs protect local industry and local jobs. DJT’s instincts are right on the money, your instincts are far off, sister.
It would seem Harris is following the Starmer “Ming vase” approach to campaigning with the added dimension of the less actual campaigning she does the better (at least Starmer pretended to be engaging with the electorate).
The cautionary tale for Americans is just look how quickly the woke revert to their true nature once they are elected. What Starmer has done over the past 8 week comes as no surprise to me, maybe he would have been a bit more subtle about it if the “far right riots” had not occurred to give him the excuse to look down and sneer at the ordinary electorate (only 20% of whom actually voted for him).
The sneering was done by drunken racist yobs and those that encouraged them on-line to attack the Police and others, while robbing a few shops at same time. Fact played straight into an ex DPP hands and he ensured full weight of Justice system clobbered alot of them been delightful. Hopefully more to come esp the on line influencers who didn’t have the gonads to actually be there themselves.
It has nothing to do with years of people saying unfettered immigration would be a problem and being called racists or xenophobes in response. It had nothing to do with little girls being stabbed to death, just the latest criminal act from a certain demographic whose name can only be said in hushed tones. It had nothing to do with the accompanying cost of taking in immigrants, legal and otherwise, who have no desire to assimilate and often despise the host culture. Maybe when you see this personally, you’ll finally wake up, though it may be too late by then.
at least Starmer pretended to be engaging with the electorate
When was that? Sorry, I think I must have blinked or something.
Isnt she taking a leafout of Starmers pr election book ..waffle and say nothing ..just obfuscate!
The difference is that she is facing opposition unlike Starmer.
Is she though? Trump seems to be doing his best to lose the election by his various ramblings. In 2016 they were new and much more aligned with the median voter, even if proposed rather crudely at times. The 2024 version appears to be almost a caricature of the the previous model unfortunately, and his opponents have (probably correctly) decided that simply staying quiet and letting Trump put his foot in it is their best chance at electoral success
The biggest glaring piece of hypocrisy for Democrats is always the constant need to “move” to the center on all issues in order to get elected, then revert back to the true self when in office. If you can’t run on your core beliefs, then who are you but a lying, slithering politician? And why don’t average folks deplore this?
What do you consider “core beliefs?” One example of a core belief is “women should be able to control their own bodies.” Democrats and Kamala certainly are running on that, are they not?
There’s nowhere in the Constitution that addresses women–or men for that matter– controlling their own bodies, hence the matter was sent back to the States. Absent packing the Court, there’s nothing that can be done about that, by either side, absent a Constitutional amendment. It depresses me how many Americans are one issue abortion voters.
“Evasion” implies a strategy and thought process that Kamala has never demonstrated herself capable of doing. She cannot articulate policy positions because she holds none. She never has. This is the same woman, who as AG in California, warehoused black men on petty drug charges and used them as slave labor, frequently suppressing exculpatory evidence and otherwise abusing her post. Absent her skin tone and genitals, she offers nothing and never has.
Good point. Kamala Harris is the Barbie doll of politics, to go with Gavin Newsom’s Ken. A talking pair of dolls, they look and sound good. But between their ears there is nothing but air.
Untrue and unfair. What they have between their eyes is a lot more evil than air.
Says the guy who worships a fat orange moron!
Ooh, that was harsh!
I read it as “a fat orange moon” which makes sense now autumn’s coming.
If Harrtis sounded good that one would be one thinbg. But she can’t utter a single cogerent sentence when not reading off a teleprompter.
“Absent her skin tone and genitals, she offers nothing and never has.”
For Democrat tastes, her “POCwoman” image is right on brand. Could’ve been a shade darker perhaps — but a brown pantsuit subliminally does the trick. As to offering nothing, isn’t that totally the point? She’s an empty vessel, a blank canvas, the perfect puppet — the Party will teleprompt her every word.
I made the observation to a friend a few months ago that any half-decent Democrat would beat Trump but they were stuck with Biden…. and also that any half-decent Republican would beat Biden… and they are stuck with Trump. They will play it like Starmer did – say as little as possible and don’t make mistakes.
Harris is clearly playing defense, backpedaling while protecting her slim lead. If elected, her party will run the show. However, I cannot picture her as the president of the most powerful country in the world, especially the CIC.
I recall how in 1992 G.H.W. Bush deserved to be re-elected, but the economy was his undoing. I vividly recall Bill Clinton acting increasingly “presidential” over the campaign. I don’t see that in Harris.
Harris is a dim Narcissist. As is Trump. The difference between them is that Trump’s natural instincts on social and economic factors is far more in line with reality than Harris’s acquired ones. If she wins Harris will leave the US in a worse position than would Trump. The MSM will rewrite the whole thing of course.
“At some point, Harris will need to make a more compelling case for why she — rather than just any generic Democrat — should be the next president.”
No, Kamala Harris won’t have to make a more compelling case. Democrats don’t care. They’ll vote for her anyway. Just like they would any generic Democrat.
Savvy voters don’t listen to what candidates say, as that means little. They look at their record. Anyone who takes a serious look at Kamala Harris’s record has ruled her out already.
Well, see, here’s the thing – politics is truly the art of the possible. I do not need super detailed – book, chapter and verse policy proposals to decide who I’ll vote for. What I want to know is what are the candidates’ values and what are her party’s values.
Values are about what we want to do, for example, solve the US’ affordable housing problem. Policies are how we do it. And there is never only one way to solve a problem. Sure, throw out some general policy ideas but to get into the capillaries is ridiculous. It will be facts on the ground that determine which policy proposals are available to us – i.e., what’s possible.*
I’ve long thought that Democrats can be too wonky and put people to sleep when they go into excruciating detail. More important I believe that the media’s demands aren’t really serious. They don’t really want (or even truly care about)detailed policy. They want gotcha moments.
They are like whiny children demanding that mommy take them to the beach. But mommy says no because there is a f-ing hurricane. The children still whine because “but mommy you said you would.”
*Although the green lanternists think that our leaders have magical powers and can make anything happen. President Obama could have used the magical ring of power to get a “public option” into Obamacare. Right?
Strongly disagree. Voting is not about emotion. It’s about policy. Covid policy was awful because politicians viewed it through the lens of emotion – we need to stop covid deaths at all costs. I make decisions based on policy. Values are wonderful, but very few politicians actually have them, even less so in the American system, which is uniquely vulnerable to corruption.
You just parrot whatever nonsense Trump is peddling on any given day and you think you are a policy guy?
Pretty funny, Jimmy!
Good to see you’ve taken my advice and given up trying to say anything intelligent. It wasn’t working, was it? The insults are great, though.
You gave me advice? That’s very funny! I guess I missed it. Were my big words confusing you?
You guess? So you don’t know if you missed it? You thought those were ‘big words’? Oh dear, how tragic.
What are you rambling about, gramps?
Values are not strictly about emotion. Although emotion does inform our values, of course. As I said in my comment values are about what you want to do. Values are about the problems one wants to solve. Policy is about how you solve the problem.
With policy “facts on the ground” determine what solutions are available and possible. Example of “facts on the ground” – which faction controls a legislative body. Good and effective policy making requires flexibility – a willingness to adjust how you solve the problem given the circumstances.
Value: no one should be homeless
Policy: for example, build more affordable housing by, for example, increasing property taxes and earmarking revenue for affordable housing or whatever (I’m not a policy wonk)
Or….
Value: if people are homeless, that’s on them
Policy: do nothing
That’s fair.
Policy is everything. No-one wants homeless people on the streets – left or right. Everyone wants prosperity, good health, good education – motherhood-and-apple-pie policies. The difference between politics groups is much less what they want, which is mostly the same (opinions of borders and boundaries being clear exceptions), but how you get there.
Left-wing might go for rent controls, welfare and government subsidies. Right wing might go for less regulation, easier employment and more free market to allow more buildings to be built. In their obsessive purist forms, neither will be right – rent controls reduce supply, unregulated building creates sprawl. But despite both sides wanting the same outcome (values) the policy ‘solutions’ are opposite and incompatible, or need balance and trade-offs. You have to choose which side you are on policy-wise much more than which side are you on value-wise because no-one wants to live in a ‘bad’ country.
I think in the past there was much more agreement on what problems need to be solved. The disagreements were over policies, that is, how you solve these problems.
Today we don’t even agree on what the problems are. Climate change is a good example – many do not believe that climate change is a thing. If there is not a problem no solution, no policies needed.
I actually don’t think you necessarily have to pick a side policy-wise. But I guess it depends whether one thinks solutions are only ever the right one or the wrong one. Person A may think only free market solutions are the way to go. Person B may think only government solutions are acceptable. Policy-wise I take the pragmatic approach, because I do believe that politics is the art of the possible. Solving the problem is the goal and there’s rarely only one policy that will work. And, yes, not all solutions/policies are equal or desirable.
Dead right about the media’s responsibility in such cases. The media see politics as entertainment and the ‘gotcha moment’ is the equivalent of a car chase or a cowboy being shot. Incredible to see the low level of political debate in so called civilised countries, neanderthals would do better.
I watched the entire interview, and agree with the author. The lef-wing MSM will endlessly show small segments to make Kamala seem great. Walz was a piece of furniture.
That wasn’t my point. I was responding to the statements about democrats/kamala not having core beliefs and not running on them. It was just an example of a “core belief” held by democrats one which is part of their campaign. I wasn’t opining on the constitutionality or lack thereof of Roe.
Undoubtedly she left doubts. She’s work to do. If it’s true Barack was right to have some doubts.
And the answer on Biden weak, although understandable. What she thinks privately she might not wish to wound him with publicly.
One suspects the issue is that whilst Biden’s currently still able to do a decent job (if not a good interview) it’s recognised his cognitive ability is inevitably aging and 4 more years unmanageable. Which of course begs the same question about Trumpster – he’ll be in his 80s for couple of years if we regains White House. He gets confused, lies and changes his mind now. His cognitive decline much more the issue as he’s still in the race.
You mean the blob is still doing a “decent job”. He has nothing to do with governing anymore, except taking a vacation… He is beyond doing any job. His eyes are empty, and if you had any relative, who suffered from severe dementia, you recognise the look.
More or less the same will happen with Harris, because she is vacuous, so happily the blob will fill the void.
We just have to look at the White House Briefing room to see that Biden has now been retired.
Biden promised to cure cancer if he was elected (yes, he really did)
He has now proclaimed September 2024 as National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.
If anybody thinks he wrote the https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/08/30/a-proclamation-on-national-childhood-cancer-awareness-month-2024/ , then you are crazy.
All he does now is sign things.
As it transpires I work regularly with the elderly in a hospital, so have reasonable feel, I think, for dementia (and of course the confusion often with a bout of delirium caused by infection).
I think it’s fair to say that majority of us show some cognitive decline as we get beyond 70, although it varies in rate of decline.
Cognitive decline though can happen earlier. Latching onto simplistic twaddle like ‘Blobs’ rather than engaging with a complex world a bit of a classic example.
I have not done a lot of research, but it seems to me that Donald Trump is unlikely to be a Joe Biden. He doesn’t show the decline Joe Biden did.
Myself, I had hoped Donald Trump would step aside in 2020 to let someone else take the Republican nomination. Doubly so in 2024. But he didn’t, and here we are.
There seems little question Donald Trump has lost a step. But he’s still plenty capable of doing the job. I can’t say the same about Kamala Harris.
When has Donald Trump done any truly unselfish act a day in his life?
Borrowing this comment from another poster:
“Trump’s totally selfish and only cares about himself” is a really weird line that’s frequently used by people who don’t really think about it.
Trump could be taking the easy life in retirement. Instead he’s been prosecuted and pursued, his businesses fined more than Boeing, his name smeared and slandered, censored, impeached (twice), the subject of hoaxes and media lies, lost money while the president, and he’s been shot at and one inch from being killed. But he’s still running.
If he’s in it for himself, then he is one hell of a masochist.
The thing is CD Trump’s cognitive powers are only going one way. He no more than Biden can arrest nature. And he didn’t have the greatest powers of concentration in his first term. It is a risk to put someone in the White House who will be over 80 and if anything the Biden experience should have folks more sensitised to that. The problem of course is that partisanship blocks out the common lesson.
As regards why he’s pursued office again in 24 – I think it’s overwhelmingly about staying out of prison and got v little to do with some overriding desire to help the ‘left behinds’ in the US. I still think it’s poss he does a form of ‘plea deal’ before any Jan 25 Inauguration that gets him a Presidential pardon.
I don’t think there’s any chance of Donald Trump going to prison, whether he wins reelection or not. His reasons for running are not clear, but staying out of prison is not one of them.
As to Donald Trump’s mental state, I’ve seen no sign of significant impairment. Certainly he is on the decline, but both physically and mentally he is much sharper than Joe Biden has been the last few years.
And the Democrats let Joe Biden run unopposed during the primaries when he was already clearly incompetent. Kamala Harris should be shunned by voters for that deceit alone. She should be president now, so that we have a president who can function as one.
I don’t think you really believe any of that. Isn’t it more a case of ‘she maybe a total vacuum, but she’s our total vacuum. Just like Starmer.’?
She’s economically a bit right wing for me HB. With your elite US graduate background thought you’d have grasped that?
She’s economically a bit right wing for me
Says the man who defends the tsunami of unearned property wealth that is destroying the UK’s productive economy. Who are you trying to kid? Thinking that all resources should go to people who live off the state isn’t left wing economics, it’s just greed.
I’d tax it HB. I’d start will rise in Council tax this autumn for highest bands. I think you nicked the idea off me and just a bit sore as your US Graduate elite education made you look a little less the working class hero you pretend to be.
I’d start will rise in Council tax this autumn for highest bands.
The lowest of which, no doubt, will be one step higher than the one your property is in, eh?