After nearly six weeks of preparation, Vice President Kamala Harris finally sat down for her first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee with CNN’s Dana Bash. However, despite the extended period of time to craft her responses, Harris struggled to provide meaningful answers to pressing questions about her record and policies.
When asked about her previous stance on immigration, Harris seemed to pivot from her earlier assertion that undocumented immigrants should not be considered criminals. “I believe there should be consequences,” she said, adding that laws must be followed and enforced. However, she failed to provide a clear explanation for her shift in position.
Bash also pressed Harris on her past support for a fracking ban, which Harris had previously advocated for. However, Harris now claims that she can support a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking. When asked to defend her reversal, Harris stated that she has seen evidence that the two goals are not mutually exclusive.
The vice president was also questioned about the economic record of the Biden administration, which has seen significant price increases and a decline in real average wages. Harris responded by highlighting various initiatives, such as capping prescription medication costs for seniors and extending the child tax credit. However, she failed to address the underlying economic concerns and instead touted the administration’s achievements.
When asked about her top priorities if she were to win the presidency, Harris provided a vague response, citing the need to strengthen and support the middle class. She also emphasized the importance of restoring hope and optimism to the American people, but failed to offer specific policy proposals or a clear vision for her presidency.
Throughout the interview, Harris relied heavily on familiar talking points, repeatedly referencing the administration’s achievements and proposed solutions such as expanding the child tax credit and implementing government price controls. However, she failed to provide any meaningful substance or depth to her responses, leaving many questions unanswered.
