Harris/Walz CNN interview: ‘Vague to the point of vacuous,’ or a ‘solid first effort’?

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Bret Stephens: Harris was evasive and Walz even more so

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.

Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times.

Michelle Cottle: The defining is not done, but she looked the part

I think that went pretty well, don’t you?

After all the hand-wringing about how Kamala Harris has been avoiding extended media interviews, the Democratic presidential nominee did a solid job Thursday night in her sit-down with CNN’s Dana Bash.

Did we get a deep dive into Harris’ policy positions? No we did not. But that was not the point of this interview. This was about Harris introducing herself to Americans in her new role — and proving a few basic things to everyone.

Let’s zip through just a few of the things Harris needed to do — and how she did:

For starters, the vice president fielded awkward questions without ducking them and without getting flustered. This included multiple inquires about why, since 2019, her positions have changed on issues like fracking and border security.

Her response was that her values have not changed, but her experience as vice president has given her a different perspective and made her appreciate the importance of achieving consensus. You may not like that answer, but she was confident and unapologetic in explaining herself.

The not getting flustered part was as important as the answers themselves. She absolutely needed to avoid giving any opening for the MAGA trolls — who are obsessed with machismo and performative toughness — to accuse her of being overly emotional or weak or easy to rattle. Amusingly, Bash looked more flustered than Harris did for most of the interview.

Moving right along: Harris needed to come across as serious and thoughtful and, well, presidential.

Mission accomplished. She consistently struck a tone that was reassuring and self-assured. She was serious and at times even a bit salty — as she was when contrasting the decency of Joe Biden with the utter indecency of Donald Trump. But she never seemed nasty or even super-angry, which was also vital, since women simply cannot get away with that like men can. I’m sorry, but you know it’s true.

Bonus: She looked the part. Dignified. Put together. Confident. Steady. All the things.

Even as she projected strength and seriousness, Harris needed to give people a sense of her as a real person, to let them peek behind the curtain a bit. Her story about the morning that Biden called to tell her that he was stepping aside did this nicely. There were baby nieces and pancakes and bacon involved. What could be more American?

Does Harris still have questions to answer and concerns to allay? Yep. The self-defining is not yet done. But this felt like a good first effort.

Michelle Cottle is a member of the New York Times Editorial Board.