The Harris and Walz interview was a lackluster and awkward affair
In last night’s CNN interview with Dana Bash, Kamala Harris exhibited problems on two levels: content and process. Content is what a person says, and process is just about everything else, including tone of voice, facial expression, and posture.
It seems to me that, even objectively speaking, this interview wasn’t the sort of thing that would convince anyone not already a Harris voter to support her. Much of the content of the interview involved Harris trying to explain her past statements that are at variance with what she’s saying now, and her failure to do anything about so many of the country’s problems even though she’s been vice president for three and a half years. Although a very effective speaker might be able to give some sort of convincing explanations and/or excuses for those things despite the fact that it’s difficult to think of any, Kamala is not that speaker.
Which brings us to the second problem: process. Last night Kamala Harris transmitted a lackluster energy, a hesitancy, and a problem with what many pundits evaluating her performance called authenticity. Her words, and in particular her tone of voice and facial expressions, seemed manufactured and mismatched – not in the slick and practiced way of Hillary Clinton, for example, but in an awkward way that was unsettling to watch.
It didn’t help that Tim Walz was part of the equation, leading to the almost inevitable mockery of Harris as needing her Dad there for emotional support. The taunting boiled down to the idea that, if she’s such a strong woman, why would he be there at all for this interview? Good question, and to make things worse there was another problem: the seating and perspective. Harris was in the center of the three participants, but she looked somewhat shrunken not only because Walz is a much larger person, but also because she was further back from the camera than either Walz or Bash. Her position made it even more difficult to convey power, and only fed the perception of lack of force on her part. Here’s an article at RedState that gives many examples of people pointing that out.
As for the content of Harris’ message, here’s some fact-checking that shows that even CNN was at least somewhat critical:
When Bash again noted that Harris said in 2019 that she supported a ban on fracking, and asked Harris if she changed her mind during that campaign (which Harris ended in December 2019), Harris said, “In 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024 and I’ve not changed that position, nor will I going forward.”
Facts First: This is misleading. Harris did not make her position on fracking clear during her only debate in 2020, the general election’s vice presidential debate against then-Vice President Mike Pence; Harris never explicitly stated a personal position on fracking during that debate. Rather, she said that Joe Biden, the head of the Democratic ticket at the time, would not ban fracking if he was elected president.
Harris has another built-in content problem when asked about her support of Joe Biden. She was a loyal VP who pooh-poohed any talk of him being cognitively challenged, and now she’s the current nominee because everyone saw how seriously cognitively challenged he actually is. But to turn on him now would be to exhibit disloyalty, as well as implicating her in the obvious coverup. Threading that needle is beyond her, and what she did in the Dana Bash interview was to reiterate her support of Biden – the person whose record has also been one from which she desperately wants to distance herself.
The Trump War Room quickly made use of a clip of that moment:
? Kamala says she has NO REGRETS about covering up Crooked Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline — and LYING to the American people pic.twitter.com/FMkLhhSqWw
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) August 30, 2024
I had originally thought that Harris’ and Walz’s decision to appear together for this interview was an attempt to spark a perception in the viewer of a genial Mom and Dad taking care of America and Americans. They may have thought that the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts, but I don’t think they succeeded.
Or maybe they just wanted to get it over with. How many interviews will Harris give in the next two months? Or will she try to continue to convey a lukewarm version of Obama’s “hope and change” in 2008 while simultaneously hiding out like Joe Biden in 2020?
Which brings us to the second problem: process. Last night Kamala Harris transmitted a lackluster energy, a hesitancy, and a problem with what many pundits evaluating her performance called authenticity. Her words, and in particular her tone of voice and facial expressions, seemed manufactured and mismatched – not in the slick and practiced way of Hillary Clinton, for example, but in an awkward way that was unsettling to watch.
neo:
Yes. What was all that?
Unsettling is a good word. When I watched her my internal meters went tilt.
I suspect a good people-reading expert could spend a worthwhile couple hours explaining the video replay.
One of the callers on AM radio this morning, who is a recovered alcoholic, said she presents as a drunkard. Other callers with similar experience agreed. For what it’s worth. The MSM won’t touch this.
So far, I believe, the Democratic Party has put up two women as candidates for the presidency: Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris. Clinton was put up because it was “her turn” after Obama had horned in and usurped her place. Harris was put up because we had already passed the primary season and the party let Biden determine who should replace him when Nancy Pelosi told him he had to give up any hope of running for a second term.
Kamala’s nomination is a rather convoluted situation, and it’s possible I don’t have the details right. But that aside, my real question is, can’t the Democrats field a candidate who would be a good one?
I know, you may ask the same thing about Trump: why can’t the Republicans put up someone who is not convicted of a crime? I guess my response would be to point out the attacks on Trump are law fare, and should not be taken seriously. But that surpasses the elevator talk test: gotta finish in a few sentences.
And there are plenty of Democrat rank and file who would just shake their head at the arguments and say “he’s a felon.” That’s probably a good retort to “she’s not even able to do an interview with a friendly TV host!”
About this point I just want to step back and wonder which one of the two candidates would Xi or Putin prefer to see in the White House? That would be enough for me to vote for the other one.
Whoever did Kamala’s makeup should be fired. She looked like the haggard drunk she indubitably is. Top it off with her largely unresponsive, meandering and evasive answers and you have the perfect storm of visual and verbal vacuousness, the empty vessel into which democrat voters can pour their fever dreams of utopian bliss.
Mark Hemingway wrote a piece in RealClearInvestigations a few weeks ago about the Harris/Willie Brown affair and how Kamala, as DA, let some of Brown’s people off the hook for corruption. He repeats some of it here.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/08/30/if-donald-trumps-sex-life-is-fair-game-for-the-election-so-is-kamala-harris/
A commenter over at the Professor’s place noting Kamala’s posture said, “she looks like a child sitting in the Principal’s office.”
She’s a fraud and deep down knows it. It’s not “imposter syndrome” if you really are an imposter.
“The Harris and Walz interview was a lackluster and awkward affair”
Mox nix.
No one is going to vote for Harris. Registered democrats will be voting against Orange Man Bad. Independents who vote democrat in Nov. are part of the “useful idiot” crowd.
Harris was in the center of the three participants, but she looked somewhat shrunken not only because Walz is a much larger person, but also because she was further back from the camera than either Walz or Bash.
That is the first thing I noticed in the clip. Was she also slouching? Was her chair smaller than the other chairs? That’s also not the set-up or staging I would have expected. It seemed to me to be giving more authority to Bash than she deserved, as if she were the teacher and they were her students. In other words, I didn’t expect the table, or a table of that size and shape.
Threading that needle is beyond her, and what she did in the Dana Bash interview was to reiterate her support of Biden – the person whose record has also been one from which she desperately wants to distance herself.
You thread the needle by portraying Biden as a heroic and tragic figure who struggled mightily for America as his disability increased and engulfed his presidency. Will the public buy it? I don’t know, maybe the point isn’t to get voters to consciously understand and rationally accept that story, but to implant it in their minds as an image or emotion so that they assume it and rely on it without being able to articulate it.
I thought eventually why everyone H8ed her would come back. She has to be worse candidate ever, more so than Hildabeast was. And she and Walz are avowed Marxists
“She’s a fraud and deep down knows it. It’s not ‘imposter syndrome’ if you really are an imposter.”
Great line, John Guilfoyle! (and accurate)
I’m vague on what Harris has done as VP. Here’s ChatGPT’s six section headings on her “notable achievements.”
1. Leadership on Voting Rights
2. Tackling the Root Causes of Migration
3. COVID-19 Response
4. Advancing Gender Equity
5. Environmental and Climate Initiatives
6. Judicial and Administrative Appointments (Tie-Breaking in Senate)
Of course, I see these all as hard left agenda items, which I’d rather no one was working on.
But that aside, it sounds like taking meetings busywork, that could well fit into a 10-4 Bidenesque schedule for all I know.
Whatever she was doing, judging by this 27-minute softball interview, she doesn’t seem to have grown or learned much from the experience.
She seems like the kid playing right-field in baseball, who just stands out there daydreaming, hoping the ball doesn’t come her way.
Steve (retired/recovering lawyer) on August 30, 2024 at 4:32 pm said:
“… with her largely unresponsive, meandering and evasive answers and you have the perfect storm of visual and verbal vacuousness, the empty vessel into which democrat voters can pour their fever dreams of utopian bliss.”
Very nicely phrased. Why, you must be (or have been) a lawyer! 🙂
“She seems like the kid playing right-field in baseball, who just stands out there daydreaming, hoping the ball doesn’t come her way.”
Also a great line.*
(*from a kid who played right field often)
No matter how badly Kamala Harris – THE CACKLER – presents herself, it will not change the minds of any voters.
Critique her interview performance all you want; it’s meaningless.
Political preferences are akin to a deeply held religious belief; they are
unshakeable.
She has a very good chance of becoming your next president.
Walz:
An escapee from Norman Rockwell’s nightmares.
It seems that Kamala has no core “values.” She’s a San Francisco liberal, because that’s how she was programmed. As far as coherent thought, there’s no “there” there.
JohnTyler:
Will “many” voters change their minds? Of course not, and I don’t think anyone here is alleging they will. But these days every vote counts, and some people haven’t made up their minds yet and probably could be influenced by her performance.
In addition, thinking about the Harris phenomenon is of interest on its own.
@ JohnTyler > “No matter how badly Kamala Harris – THE CACKLER – presents herself, it will not change the minds of any voters.”
I don’t know if this voter’s mind was changed, or if she always felt this way about Harris.
However, the publication of her decision might cause someone else to think about changing course.
https://notthebee.com/article/this-woman-on-a-mixed-race-msnbc-focus-group-on-kamala-just-made-my-day-i-want-to-see-you-do-more-than-giggling–having-a-girl-moment