… and it was still awful. You can see many articles about it: for example this from Legal Insurrection, this at RedState, and this from Ace.

Ace quotes a NY Times: article:

Here are three takeaways from Ms. Harris’s interview.

Ms. Ruhle’s first question was about how Ms. Harris might respond to people who hear her proposals and say, “These policies aren’t for me.” The MSNBC host’s second was about why voters tend to tell pollsters that Mr. Trump is better equipped to handle the economy.

Ms. Harris responded to the fairly basic and predictable questions with roundabout responses that did not provide a substantive answer.

Instead of offering any explanation for why Mr. Trump polls better on the economy — a matter that has vexed Democrats as President Biden has overseen a steadily improving economy — Ms. Harris instead blasted Mr. Trump’s record. She blamed him for a loss of manufacturing and autoworker jobs and said his tariff proposals would serve as an added sales tax on American consumers.

She said nothing about why voters think Mr. Trump and Republicans would be better on the economy.

But she did say her policies are for everyone. …

A hard-hitting Harris interview is still yet to come.

Since Ms. Harris began granting more interviews in recent days, her media strategy has been to sit with friendly inquisitors who are not inclined to ask terribly thorny questions or press her when her responses are evasive.

Nothing about that changed during her interview with Ms. Ruhle before her audience on MSNBC, the liberal cable channel whose viewers overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates.

It’s not quite clear what Ms. Harris gained, aside from giving her campaign aides the ability to say she held a one-on-one cable television interview.

For the vice president, speaking with Ms. Ruhle was roughly in the same ballpark as Mr. Trump having one of his regular chats with Sean Hannity of Fox News.

Remember, that’s from the NY Times. And no, the Times isn’t withdrawing any support from Harris; the writers there are probably just frustrated that she’s so bad at this. They may labor under the delusion (at least, I think it’s a delusion) that if she were to face more interviewers who actually challenge her, she’d give more persuasive and detailed answers that might sway more undecided voters. There is no indication that’s the case. If Harris had answers to the hard questions, she’d be giving them, instead of mouthing convoluted platitudes mixed with lies.

Those Harris supporters who hate Trump – and that’s most of them – could not care less in terms of their own votes for Harris, which are solid no matter how vapid or mendacious she is. Their excuse – which I’ve seen explicitly stated – is that Trump is worse. Period, end of discussion.