Tipsheet

Is This Why the NYT Obliterated Kamala's MSNBC Interview?

Matt Vespa
Matt Vespa  |  September 27, 2024 6:50 AM

The New York Times took a blowtorch to Kamala Harris’ MSNBC interview. Since Kamala can’t go off-script, her transcript worked against her by default, exposing her inability to grasp the issues or address the elephants in the room. One of which is that Republicans are likely to flip the Senate with Jon Tester of Montana now on political life support. 

Like most who watched this trainwreck, the publication noted that Harris dodged answering the questions. Like everyone else, they also said Kamala has yet to sit down for an interview. MSNBC and CNN aren’t going to attack her or press her. During CNN’s interview, host Dana Bash arguably answered some of the questions for Harris (via NYT):

In her discussion with a friendly interviewer, the vice president again presented herself as a champion of the middle class and hit many of the same themes from her pro-business economic speech earlier in the day. She largely avoided direct questions about how she would govern and why some voters remain fond of former President Donald J. Trump’s stewardship of the economy. 

[…]

Instead of offering any explanation for why Mr. Trump polls better on the economy — a matter that has vexed Democrats as President Biden has overseen a steadily improving economy — Ms. Harris instead blasted Mr. Trump’s record. She blamed him for a loss of manufacturing and autoworker jobs and said his tariff proposals would serve as an added sales tax on American consumers. 

She said nothing about why voters think Mr. Trump and Republicans would be better on the economy. 

But she did say her policies are for everyone. 

“If you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations of what I believe you do, you’re in my plan,” Ms. Harris said. 

Yeah, that’s not a plan or a serious policy proposal—that’s something you’d hear on Barney & Friends. Like Biden, this was done so that surrogates and Kamala communications staffers can say the vice president had an interview. Voters know better, and everyone knows a Democrat being interviewed on MSNBC might as well be done at the offices for the Democratic National Committee spokesperson: 

Since Ms. Harris began granting more interviews in recent days, her media strategy has been to sit with friendly inquisitors who are not inclined to ask terribly thorny questions or press her when her responses are evasive. 

Nothing about that changed during her interview with Ms. Ruhle before her audience on MSNBC, the liberal cable channel whose viewers overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates. 

It’s not quite clear what Ms. Harris gained, aside from giving her campaign aides the ability to say she held a one-on-one cable television interview. 

Now, was this a brutal assessment of the interview? Yes, but it could also be that the Times is irked that Harris refuses to speak with them: