The Harris-Walz CNN interview offered voters no clarity

I hate to use the Democratic Party’s favorite word against them, but the Harris-Walz tag-team interview on CNN was… well, weird. The two grinning progressives sat side by side and tried their best to handle Dana Bash’s steady stream of softballs.

Unfortunately, the starlets’ most recent experience answering questions is when they are asking them of each other for schmaltzy social media videos, so to say they were rusty is an understatement.

Bash first asked Kamala what she would do on day one if elected. Harris, never one to divulge any concrete courses of action, instead waxed poetic about optimism, hope and a “new way forward.”

Back it up. A new way forward? To steal a line from Jake Tapper, how can Harris talk about a new chapter when Democrats are the ones writing the book?

Kamala Harris, whether Politico likes it or not, is tethered to Joe Biden. Besides the fact that she puts the Harris in the Biden-Harris administration, her stances on everything from the economy to climate change are the same — if not more progressive — than those of her president.

If you thought Bidenomics was a disaster, just wait until Kamala tries to implement price fixing. Then you’re in for a real treat. Build Back Breadlines is just an election away.

Speaking of the perpetually-vacationing commander-in-chief, Kamala showed no remorse over misleading the American people about her boss’s cognitive decline over the last four years. “He is so smart and — and loyal to the American people,” she explained. “And I have spent hours upon hours with him, be it in the Oval Office or the Situation Room.”

If what Kamala Harris is saying is true, then why isn’t Joe still running for president?

But this was not an appropriate setting for real questions. This was an interview on CNN. Because Harris’s ever-evolving stances and non-existent policies have been the focus of her critics (the seizers and pouncers), you might assume that the VP would have been prepared to knock said topic out of the park. You would be wrong.

When confronted with two quotes from 2019 in which she explicitly said that there was no question that she supported banning fracking, Kamala made no effort to explain her “evolution.” Instead she told Dana how she had made her stance “clear” that she would not ban fracking.

And when pressed for the reasoning behind this reversal, the clarity continued. “Well, let’s be clear,” she insisted. “My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.”

We can do what we have accomplished thus far. That quote is less “let me be clear,” more “something you would find on an inspirational sign in the clearance section of Home Goods.”

After watching Harris for a few of these pre-packaged segments, it is obvious that the weeks of bubble-wrap treatment insisted on by her team and supported by the mainstream media have not served her well.

One thing that is becoming clearer? Why Kamala’s team has been so disagreeable to the terms of the September 10 debate on ABC. I don’t think the live microphones or notes or podiums are the issue. The root cause of Team Harris’s hesitancy is something else entirely.