Anonymous wrote:Hey MAGAs, care to explain Donny boy’s flip flops on abortion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cuz he’s a man and you’re sexist.

No. Given the camera angle, she looked small, hunched over leaning on the table, not confident, and her clothes blended into the gray of the background. He sat straight up, look large and dominant given the angle, and wore colors that stood out. Your eye went to him, not her. Nothing to do with gender. Shrink Walz, have him slouch over the table, and wear all gray and it would be the same verdict.

Anonymous wrote:Hey MAGAs, care to explain Donny boy’s flip flops on abortion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t do a great job with the interview anyhow. She should’ve asked Kamala the first obvious question “why was Walz there?”

I think the first obvious question should have been "why have you avoided being interviewed for 39 days since you were nominated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cuz he’s a man and you’re sexist.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why does she use Jeremy Bash’s last name and not King? She had kids with John king? I guess the Bash name goes further in Washington.

It’s not PP’s fault they assumed she was still with Bash. She’s called Dana Bash

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The page must have been removed. It does not come up.

Anonymous wrote:She didn’t do a great job with the interview anyhow. She should’ve asked Kamala the first obvious question “why was Walz there?”

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

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.