NY Times columnist says 'vague', 'vacuous' Kamala Harris interview did not help her
New York Times columnist Bret Stephens published a scathing piece Friday that called Vice President Kamala Harris’ first sit-down interview as a 2024 candidate "vague" and "vacuous."
Stephens, a conservative columnist who’s vehemently opposed to former President Trump, laid into Harris’ performance, saying she offered little details about the policies she would enact as president, avoided straight answers, and relied on flimsy talking points, all while CNN anchor Dana Bash seemed reluctant to ask tough questions.
"But there was too much fluff in this interview to lay to rest doubts about Harris’s readiness for the highest office," Stephens declared.
Harris and Bash won some praise in liberal corners for the interview such as Poynter and a New York Times write-up, but conservatives unsurprisingly were harsher on the vice president and CNN, stating it was light on details regarding Harris’ policy proposals.
Stephens did begin his column with the positive aspects of Harris’ interview, stating, "she came across as warm, relatable and — to recall Barack Obama’s famous 2008 exchange with Hillary Clinton — more than ‘likable enough.’"
He also praised her for refusing "to be baited into the identity-politics trap, emphasizing that she was running for president ‘for all Americans, regardless of race and gender,’" and for distinguishing herself from former President Trump as someone who looks to "lift up" people as opposed to beating them down.
Then came the negatives: "She was vague to the point of vacuous. She struggled to give straight answers to her shifting positions on fracking and border security other than to say, ‘My values have not changed.’"
He added, "she evaded the question of why it took the Biden administration more than three years to gain better control of the border, which it ultimately did through an executive order that could have been in place years earlier," and noted that the interview didn’t clear up "why she reversed her former policy positions."
Even CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale called out Harris after she claimed during the interview that she "made clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking."
CNN ANCHOR: DID HARRIS ‘WAIT TOO LONG’ TO SCHEDULE HER FIRST INTERVIEW?
"The fact-check bottom line … is that she did not actually make clear at a 2020 debate that she had changed her previous support for a fracking ban," Dale said, citing transcripts from her debate with then-Vice President Mike Pence that showed she promised President Biden would not ban fracking.
Stephens continued, slamming Harris’ for her talking points, particularly her bit about her policy proposal to prevent so-called price gouging.
"Harris also relied on a few talking points that may not serve her well in the next two months. She mentioned price gouging, but Americans probably won’t believe that grocery chains with razor-thin profit margins are the real culprits when it comes to their rising food bills."
He added, "Her $100 billion plan to give first-time home buyers $25,000 in down payment support would mainly be an incentive for ever-higher home prices. Even Trump may be smart enough to explain just how inflationary the gimmick could be."
Stephens also called running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's presence during the interview a "bigger weakness" for Harris, writing, "Though he delivered a fine speech at the Democratic National Convention (brightly enhanced by his cheering son, Gus), he was transparently evasive in answering Bash’s questions about his misstatement about his military service, false claims about a D.U.I. arrest and misleading statements about his family’s fertility treatments."
"Tougher questions next time, please," he urged Bash.
The Harris campaign did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.