Harris Walz interview w CNN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say the interview was a disaster but it didn’t inspire confidence about the debate and it is concerning CNN won’t release the unedited version.

I wonder just how many edits they had to make. I also wonder if she had an earpiece on or if she was reading because she kept looking down.

It’s concerning that CNN allows a lady to moderate a presidential debate if her husband tried to discredit damming evidence of one of the participants that was 100% true.

She is an individual person. Her husband is an individual person. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Walz was not needed and actually a distraction.

He had the biggest gaffe of the whole interview with the grammar comment immediately headlined by CNN.

She needs more confidence if she wants to be POTUS. She should’ve handled that interview alone

Joint interviews for a new ticket are common.

Are you aware of this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say the interview was a disaster but it didn’t inspire confidence about the debate and it is concerning CNN won’t release the unedited version.

I wonder just how many edits they had to make. I also wonder if she had an earpiece on or if she was reading because she kept looking down.

It’s concerning that CNN allows a lady to moderate a presidential debate if her husband tried to discredit damming evidence of one of the participants that was 100% true.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say the interview was a disaster but it didn’t inspire confidence about the debate and it is concerning CNN won’t release the unedited version.

I wonder just how many edits they had to make. I also wonder if she had an earpiece on or if she was reading because she kept looking down.

It’s concerning that CNN allows a lady to moderate a presidential debate if her husband tried to discredit damming evidence of one of the participants that was 100% true.

+1

You MAGAs are so uninformed. Dana Bash and Jeremy Bash divorced in 2007. Why do you keep bringing up this dumb point? At least check your facts first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Walz was not needed and actually a distraction.

He had the biggest gaffe of the whole interview with the grammar comment immediately headlined by CNN.

She needs more confidence if she wants to be POTUS. She should’ve handled that interview alone

Joint interviews for a new ticket are common.

Are you aware of this?

After the Presidential candidate has done some solo interviews first....

Can you explain really what Walz added to the interview - and why he was deemed absolutely necessary to be there?

Harris' team could have explained Walz' presence much better before the interview. For example, Harris could have said that because there is so little time before the election, it was crucial for America to get to know Walz, etc... In other words, Harris should have sent the clear message that she didn't need Walz there, but thought that America could benefit more in hearing from both of them - a 2-for-1 interview. Instead, Harris let conservative media characterize Walz as her "emotional comfort governor".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say the interview was a disaster but it didn’t inspire confidence about the debate and it is concerning CNN won’t release the unedited version.

I wonder just how many edits they had to make. I also wonder if she had an earpiece on or if she was reading because she kept looking down.

All it did was take away a talking point about not doing interviews with the media. However, the line "my values haven't changed" was not the best way of explaining her change in policy positions.

Why isn’t MAGA enlightening us about Trump’s flip flop on abortion rights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say the interview was a disaster but it didn’t inspire confidence about the debate and it is concerning CNN won’t release the unedited version.

I wonder just how many edits they had to make. I also wonder if she had an earpiece on or if she was reading because she kept looking down.

All it did was take away a talking point about not doing interviews with the media. However, the line "my values haven't changed" was not the best way of explaining her change in policy positions.

Why isn’t MAGA enlightening us about Trump’s flip flop on abortion rights?

Because maga now knows they shouldn’t be holding onto that third rail.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say the interview was a disaster but it didn’t inspire confidence about the debate and it is concerning CNN won’t release the unedited version.

I wonder just how many edits they had to make. I also wonder if she had an earpiece on or if she was reading because she kept looking down.

I just watched it and she looked and sounded a lot better than I expected from reading the comments here. The looking down was odd but I wondered if she was subconsciously doing it a lot to appear very serious. Like how people look up when they laugh. She was looking down and talking in a low serious voice. She looked tired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t say the interview was a disaster but it didn’t inspire confidence about the debate and it is concerning CNN won’t release the unedited version.

I wonder just how many edits they had to make. I also wonder if she had an earpiece on or if she was reading because she kept looking down.

It’s concerning that CNN allows a lady to moderate a presidential debate if her husband tried to discredit damming evidence of one of the participants that was 100% true.

+1

You MAGAs are so uninformed. Dana Bash and Jeremy Bash divorced in 2007. Why do you keep bringing up this dumb point? At least check your facts first.

Birds of a feather…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the whole thing. Harris reads as qualified for a city, perhaps state, position.

Her replies didn’t have the depth or nuance I expected from someone who has been part of Biden administration for 3.5 years.

When she talks about spending HOURS in the situation room, I suspect she was being honest—more than one. Less than five.

Okay, she's a mediocre candidate.

But she's still much better than the alternative. Trump is a nearly an octogenarian (and will be part-way through the next presidential term) and is rapidly declining both mentally and physically. This job is one of the most stressful and aging jobs and he will not be able to survive competently for a four year term. Biden was much more stable both physically and mentally in 2020 than Trump is now and look where Biden is. The same will happen to Trump. It is quite likely that should Trump be elected, Vance would have to execute 25A to have Trump removed from office for age-related incompetency and then we would be left with Vance who is even less qualified than Harris to assume the office. At this point, Trump is not fit for office and he will only get worse, not better.

Trump did not pay attention to his daily briefings when he was last President. He will have even less attention span for them now and we would be risking a aging senior who needs to have elder care making uninformed decisions for national and international events and having access to the football. Additionally, an aging senior who has alienated our European and NATO allies, has courted relationships and proudly touted relationships with Russia's Putin and North Korea's Kim. You are risking world-wide political instability entrusting the US international relations to someone in his state of age-related decline.

Huh. I noticed your side never thought about that having Biden as the front runner until mid June. You personally may not have thought this, but the fact that democrats use this as an argument , well, no one is listening.

It’s sounds like the grown-ups in peanuts. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kamala Harris answers softball interview questions the way a child tries to summarize a book he was supposed to read but clearly didn’t.

Tom Sawyer: He was Tom. Tom Sawyer. He was a boy. A boy named Tom who did all the things young boys do. The book’s author, who wrote Tom Sawyer, told a wonderful tale about the boy and his adventures. He laughed and he loved and he loved to laugh. And we can all learn a lot about what this boy Tom Sawyer experienced in this book.

You have that backwards. She answers the questions the way you summarize an issue to a third grader. As a prosecutor she was trained to keep her questions simple and her responses simpler. You explain your position on a third grade level, so that everyone on your jury understands the connections. It's in her training.

So… what you’re saying is she going after the stupid vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sources say the CNN interview of Harris and Walz was originally 41 minutes long.

The Harris Campaign objected to over HALF of the interview being shown.

Release the transcripts!!!

yet it started at 9:00 eastern time and ended at 9:49 eastern time, with commercials. So, they pretty much showed all of it.

How many? How long?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was against fracking before she was for fracking.

And Trump was for abortion rights before he was against abortion rights.

But now he is for them but also against them at the same time. Both positions in one week. Evangelicals tightening the purse strings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Walz was not needed and actually a distraction.

He had the biggest gaffe of the whole interview with the grammar comment immediately headlined by CNN.

She needs more confidence if she wants to be POTUS. She should’ve handled that interview alone

The grammar comment was very unfortunate and not a good explanation. It's particularly bad because he was a widely-recognized English teacher in China.

A better explanation would have been that Walz routinely trained with weapons of war - like any soldier, sailor, airman, marine, or guardian. He could even have cited the types of "weapons of war" he trained with, how often, and perhaps even any marksman medals he earned (if any).

I don’t know, the Cold War felt like a real war.