Staff Reports
Clips from CNN featuring Vice President Kamala Harris’s first formal interview since Joe Biden’s faltering campaign exit are now being broadcast, and predictably, they are raising eyebrows—though probably not the kind she hoped for. The latest installments showcase Harris dodging tough questions like a politician in a game of dodgeball, all while presenting a polished veneer that only the most dedicated party loyalists can appreciate.
In the first clip, CNN’s Dana Bash throws Harris a flattering question regarding her ever-evolving policy positions since announcing her candidacy in 2019. Harris is quick to assert that despite her various flip-flops, her core values remain unchanged. Of course, the only thing constant about her values seems to be their fluidity. Her remarks about the Green New Deal serve as a classic example of her “urgent matters” stance, echoing the climate hysteria that has become a staple in modern Democratic rhetoric. It seems Harris is less interested in presenting solid policies and more focused on pandering to eco-warriors with fashionable buzzwords.
Kamala is ripped to shreds for 'word salad' CNN softball interview
https://t.co/SGcVRhrqhv— Bernard B. Kerik (@BernardKerik) August 30, 2024
The second clip continues in the same vein of easy questions, with Bash daring to ask whether Harris might consider appointing a Republican to her cabinet should she win the presidency. In true politician fashion, she says she would—an answer that hints at her desire for a “big tent” approach. However, the vagueness of her response invites skepticism. Just like the many vague promises made during campaigns, her answer gives off more fluff than substance. While she talks a good game about “inviting diversity of opinion,” the likelihood of a genuinely conservative figure taking a seat at her table appears slim, at best.
There’s a term that comes to mind: “window dressing.” It’s worth questioning how many actual Republicans would find themselves vying for a spot in a Harris administration. The mention of a member “who was a Republican” raises further suspicion about her sincerity. After all, if appointing a “Republican” is just about having a token figure to showcase bipartisanship, then one is forced to ask: how much real influence would they possess?
These interview clips beg for deeper engagement, yet they serve as little more than a regurgitation of politically correct platitudes. The American electorate deserves real policy discussions, not a series of non-answers camouflaged as inclusivity. Instead of meaty content that can actually shape opinions, viewers are presented with a carefully curated narrative that lacks the necessary substance to impact voters’ decisions meaningfully. It seems that for now, CNN is content to play cheerleader for Harris rather than serving the higher goal of directly addressing voters’ concerns.
