Harris Walz interview w CNN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz did such a good job and the reason we all now that they did is because the corporate owned media didn’t get their gotcha moment despite the questions being asked by a festering right winger.

They didn't hurt themselves, so I guess that's a win? Both did make unfortunate comments that will still be used in Trump battle ground state ads. They should have come up with better lines than my values haven't changed and I used poor grammar. PPs have explained how they could have handled things better, which means they need better media consultants.

They were helped by CNN editing the interview. Live press conferences and the debate will not be edited. That's the risk going forward and why the campaign will try its utmost to minimize instances where Harris speaks off-the-cuff. The more she speaks off-the-cuff, the more support she loses as happened in 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz did such a good job and the reason we all now that they did is because the corporate owned media didn’t get their gotcha moment despite the questions being asked by a festering right winger.

They didn't hurt themselves, so I guess that's a win? Both did make unfortunate comments that will still be used in Trump battle ground state ads. They should have come up with better lines than my values haven't changed and I used poor grammar. PPs have explained how they could have handled things better, which means they need better media consultants.

They were helped by CNN editing the interview. Live press conferences and the debate will not be edited. That's the risk going forward and why the campaign will try its utmost to minimize instances where Harris speaks off-the-cuff. The more she speaks off-the-cuff, the more support she loses as happened in 2020.

No need to be concerned. Here is Harris off-the-cuff in Michigan. Tough, direct, presidential.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/video/kamala-harris-hecklers-interrupts-speech-digvid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tim Walz is still her emotional support dog during the interview and Dana Bash even takes up over 1/3 of her speaking time in the highlight clip.

Are we going to see less than ten minutes of speaking from Kamala Harris tonight?

The problem is the interviewer. Dana never shuts up! Too many networks droning on and on when leading into a guest commentator, interview, panel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Who says it was "absolutely necessary"? He was there bc he/they wanted to be? They can do whatever interview type they feel like.

Whose perferences should they have followed w respect to interview style, place, network, interviewer, questions covered etc? Yours? A random internet person? Mine? Where are you getting this standard they were supposed to adhere to? Stop watching Fox and use your brain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz did such a good job and the reason we all now that they did is because the corporate owned media didn’t get their gotcha moment despite the questions being asked by a festering right winger.

They didn't hurt themselves, so I guess that's a win? Both did make unfortunate comments that will still be used in Trump battle ground state ads. They should have come up with better lines than my values haven't changed and I used poor grammar. PPs have explained how they could have handled things better, which means they need better media consultants.

They were helped by CNN editing the interview. Live press conferences and the debate will not be edited. That's the risk going forward and why the campaign will try its utmost to minimize instances where Harris speaks off-the-cuff. The more she speaks off-the-cuff, the more support she loses as happened in 2020.

When did she stop being about to speak off the cuff? Did she have an accident and get injured? I think there is something to dusting off any rust but why would she have changed in this respect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Who says it was "absolutely necessary"? He was there bc he/they wanted to be? They can do whatever interview type they feel like.

Whose perferences should they have followed w respect to interview style, place, network, interviewer, questions covered etc? Yours? A random internet person? Mine? Where are you getting this standard they were supposed to adhere to? Stop watching Fox and use your brain

And they pay whatever price that decision carries. Right now, Walz's preference is a question mark at the very least, but many people perceive his presence as indicating Harris couldn't handle the interview alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz did such a good job and the reason we all now that they did is because the corporate owned media didn’t get their gotcha moment despite the questions being asked by a festering right winger.

They didn't hurt themselves, so I guess that's a win? Both did make unfortunate comments that will still be used in Trump battle ground state ads. They should have come up with better lines than my values haven't changed and I used poor grammar. PPs have explained how they could have handled things better, which means they need better media consultants.

They were helped by CNN editing the interview. Live press conferences and the debate will not be edited. That's the risk going forward and why the campaign will try its utmost to minimize instances where Harris speaks off-the-cuff. The more she speaks off-the-cuff, the more support she loses as happened in 2020.

No need to be concerned. Here is Harris off-the-cuff in Michigan. Tough, direct, presidential.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/video/kamala-harris-hecklers-interrupts-speech-digvid

Off-the-cuff responses to policy questions from the press are the risk. They will try to shield her from those. Biden's campaign did that successfully in 2020, but without covid, it's harder to do now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

Who says it was "absolutely necessary"? He was there bc he/they wanted to be? They can do whatever interview type they feel like.

Whose perferences should they have followed w respect to interview style, place, network, interviewer, questions covered etc? Yours? A random internet person? Mine? Where are you getting this standard they were supposed to adhere to? Stop watching Fox and use your brain

And they pay whatever price that decision carries. Right now, Walz's preference is a question mark at the very least, but many people perceive his presence as indicating Harris couldn't handle the interview alone.

He also looked more presidential than Harris in the interview. The staging was poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz did such a good job and the reason we all now that they did is because the corporate owned media didn’t get their gotcha moment despite the questions being asked by a festering right winger.

They didn't hurt themselves, so I guess that's a win? Both did make unfortunate comments that will still be used in Trump battle ground state ads. They should have come up with better lines than my values haven't changed and I used poor grammar. PPs have explained how they could have handled things better, which means they need better media consultants.

They were helped by CNN editing the interview. Live press conferences and the debate will not be edited. That's the risk going forward and why the campaign will try its utmost to minimize instances where Harris speaks off-the-cuff. The more she speaks off-the-cuff, the more support she loses as happened in 2020.

No need to be concerned. Here is Harris off-the-cuff in Michigan. Tough, direct, presidential.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/video/kamala-harris-hecklers-interrupts-speech-digvid

Off-the-cuff responses to policy questions from the press are the risk. They will try to shield her from those. Biden's campaign did that successfully in 2020, but without covid, it's harder to do now.

Grade A concern trolling. You should hear DonOLD on policy issues. I mean we all should, but he can’t talk about it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Is it weird that the Republican presidential nominee and vice presidential nominee see m to never be in the same room together, but the Democratic presidential nominee and vice presidential nominee seem attached at the hip?

[Anonymous]

He's willing to talk to the press. She isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz did such a good job and the reason we all now that they did is because the corporate owned media didn’t get their gotcha moment despite the questions being asked by a festering right winger.

They didn't hurt themselves, so I guess that's a win? Both did make unfortunate comments that will still be used in Trump battle ground state ads. They should have come up with better lines than my values haven't changed and I used poor grammar. PPs have explained how they could have handled things better, which means they need better media consultants.

They were helped by CNN editing the interview. Live press conferences and the debate will not be edited. That's the risk going forward and why the campaign will try its utmost to minimize instances where Harris speaks off-the-cuff. The more she speaks off-the-cuff, the more support she loses as happened in 2020.

No need to be concerned. Here is Harris off-the-cuff in Michigan. Tough, direct, presidential.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/video/kamala-harris-hecklers-interrupts-speech-digvid

Off-the-cuff responses to policy questions from the press are the risk. They will try to shield her from those. Biden's campaign did that successfully in 2020, but without covid, it's harder to do now.

You mean like this? Harris handled herself well, despite the inanity of the “questions” posed.

https://x.com/MentallyDivine/status/1821780063991255347/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1821780063991255347¤tTweetUser=MentallyDivine

[Anonymous]

The question on tracking seemed out of left field. Who is even talking about this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz did such a good job and the reason we all now that they did is because the corporate owned media didn’t get their gotcha moment despite the questions being asked by a festering right winger.

They didn't hurt themselves, so I guess that's a win? Both did make unfortunate comments that will still be used in Trump battle ground state ads. They should have come up with better lines than my values haven't changed and I used poor grammar. PPs have explained how they could have handled things better, which means they need better media consultants.

They were helped by CNN editing the interview. Live press conferences and the debate will not be edited. That's the risk going forward and why the campaign will try its utmost to minimize instances where Harris speaks off-the-cuff. The more she speaks off-the-cuff, the more support she loses as happened in 2020.

No need to be concerned. Here is Harris off-the-cuff in Michigan. Tough, direct, presidential.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/video/kamala-harris-hecklers-interrupts-speech-digvid

Off-the-cuff responses to policy questions from the press are the risk. They will try to shield her from those. Biden's campaign did that successfully in 2020, but without covid, it's harder to do now.

There's only about 2 months left. You'll have a debate or two and that's about it. The rest of any Harris interviews will be local ones in the 6-7 battleground states.

[Anonymous]

I like how she refused to address Trump's comments about her Black background. It does not deserve any explanation. Good for her.