American and international media outlets are offering their assessment of Kamala Harris‘s first sit-down interview since becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, conducted by Dana Bash on the friendly network CNN, with support from running mate Tim Walz. Sympathizers could offer only muted support for her performance, describing it as “adequate” or “solid” while being forced to acknowledge she offered few policy details. More critical voices were harsher, saying she had “fumbled” an interview “softer than a scoop of ice cream.”

(Article by Jack Montgomery republished from TheNationalPulse.com)

DAMNING WITH FAINT PRAISE.

The lack of praise dished out to Harris by those most eager to support her indicates how poorly the interview went. The left-wing Guardian spun the performance as “radically normal” rather than simply dull, suggesting it was a good thing that she “turned a much-hyped first interview as nominee into a soon-to-be-forgotten pit stop along the campaign trail.”

Michelle Cottle of the New York Times could only say the interview was a “solid first effort” that went “pretty well.” Fellow NYT columnist was more honest, also claiming Harris’s performance was “solid” but admitting she was evasive, “vague to the point of vacuous,” and “struggled to give straight answers to her shifting positions on fracking and border security.”

Even CNN acknowledges she was “elusive” and “declined to fully explain reversals on issues like immigration and energy.”

‘TRAIN WRECK.’

The Daily Mail led on remarks describing the interview as a “train wreck,” calling the conversation with Bash a “softball interview.” Like The Telegraph, the Mail noted how short the interview was, at only around 27 minutes, padded to roughly an hour by CNN interspersing it with clips of Harris campaigning.

The Mail said Harris “appeared nervous and hesitant in her responses which were branded ‘word salad’ by many on social media,” quoting Barack Obama advisor David Axelrod as admitting Harris had not “moved the ball forward that much.”

The Telegraph appeared astonished that Harris “managed to fumble even this cozy chat,” noting, “Viewers were left none the wiser about what sort of president she would be.”

‘SLIPPERY.’

The Times of London said the interview with Harris and Walz was “softer than a serving of President Biden’s favorite ice cream,” again noting how CNN had stretched out the conversation with “schmaltzy clips of the pair at the Democratic convention, on the campaign trail or ordering a meal of brisket.”

“Both were allowed to present a series of glib answers without any real probing of some glaring holes in their responses, notably Harris’s new catch-all reply to all inconsistencies — ‘my values have not changed’,” The Times observed.

It was particularly unimpressed with Harris‘s “slippery” answers on fracking. She said there was “no question” she supported a “day one” ban during her 2019 run for the presidency. She now claims she has been clear that is no longer her position since 2020, but The Times notes her only comment on the subject during a 2020 debate was that Joe Biden would not ban fracking.

Read more at: TheNationalPulse.com