Since I can’t find the other thread on the topic of the CNN interview, and I finally got around to watching it in full, and I need to try to learn how this format works, I figured I’d give my analysis and hear what others thought about it.
Dana Bash was non confrontational but did ask questions about policy and position changes (banning fracking, decrminalizing border crossing, distortions of Walz’ record etc.). She was not a hostile interviewer but did press when and where appropriate.
What struck me most is that, best I can tell, she didn’t lie or exaggerate or take unnecessary shots at her opponent. It was fact based, policy driven, reliable narrator politics. She was relaxed, engaged, engaging, personable, and responsive to every question asked. There are questions I would have liked to hear more detailed answers on, like connecting safer fracking techniques to the growth of the green energy economy instead of just reaffirming that she won’t ban it.
On the substance:
Inflation: noted repeatedly that it’s down under 3%, and mentioned that the US fared better under their administration than most other developed nation post-COVID. She acknowledged that it isn’t enough and that people are still feeling sticker shock at the grocery store. I think she covered the issue well, and with confidence and assurances.
Fracking: she reaffirmed that she did not ban it, that she will not ban it, and that it can coexist in a mixed energy market while we continue to develop the renewable energy economy. In fact she cast the deciding vote as VP to increase fracking leases in the United States. Kamala Harris will not ban fracking.
Border security: she reaffirmed that she will make sure the ccnservative sponsored border security bill will reach her desk and be signed into law. She gave details about what that bill entailed (1,500 additional border security agents, among others) and that the Border Patrol supports the bill as well. She reminded viewers that it was Donald Trump, for his own personal gain, who torpedoed the bill, and that she will sign it not if but when it hits her desk. She reminded viewers that she is the only person in the race who has prosecuted transnational criminals (while resisting the temptation, I’m sure, to remind everyone that her opponent is a convicted felon awaiting sentencing and additional felony charges).
Identity politics: she brushed aside the topic of her racial and gender identity more than once and refocused the conversation on her experience, her values, her competence, and her desire to be a President for all Americans. It felt very different from the Hillary campaign in that regard, though that may be a matter of circumstance in that Hillary was in uncharted political water at the time.
Optics: having seen the interview in its entirety, she seemed very much in command, and the senior politician of the two, which is impressive for a brown woman juxtaposed a white haired male Governor. If I had to choose three words for her performance, they would be: Competent, thoughtful, and grounded.
I’m curious what you thought of it and if it met, failed to meet, or exceeded your expectations.