
In her first interview as the Democratic Party’s presidential contender, Vice President Kamala Harris was questioned on Thursday about her changes in policy while seated next to running mate Tim Walz.
The much-awaited interview with CNN’s Dana Bash came about as pressure mounted on Harris to respond to more questions from unbiased reporters and provide a detailed explanation of how her vision differed from President Joe Biden’s. In the 39 days after he announced his intention to not seek reelection and instead endorsed her, she has mostly refrained from doing either.
When asked about how her policies have evolved, Harris responded, “The fact that my values have not altered is, in my opinion, the most crucial and noteworthy component of my policy viewpoint.”
She did admit, though, that her time serving as vice president had caused her to reconsider some of her positions.
“I think it’s crucial to create unity and discover a shared comprehension of how we can genuinely resolve issues,” Harris continued, ostensibly acknowledging the potential influence of political circumstances on her opinions.
In 2019, Harris ran for president on a progressive platform that includes “Medicare for All,” a Green New Deal, and an outlawing of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which is a technique used to extract natural gas or oil. After that campaign fizzled out, Biden picked Harris to be his running mate, and she instinctively embraced his message and goals.
However, since Harris is now leading the ticket and the political landscape has shifted, it is unclear how her 2019 campaign objectives differ from Biden’s, some of which are incompatible.
Since Biden resigned and backed Harris, she has not agreed to an interview or appeared at a press conference. As a result, the public’s only exposure to Harris has been via the prism of the campaign, which includes rallies, online videos, and last week’s Democratic National Convention.
Before meeting for a combined interview with their running mate in late summer, every other modern presidential contender in history would have conducted multiple solo interviews during the primary and general elections.
However, Harris did not have this privilege because of when her rise occurred. In the heat of a presidential general election, she has been forced to reevaluate her policy stances and improvise a campaign infrastructure.
In addition, as is customary for presidential contenders approaching the November election season, Harris is attempting to carry out a simultaneous shift to the ideological middle.
For example, Harris informed Bash that she no longer supports outlawing fracking because, in her experience as vice president, the United States can achieve its climate change objectives without outlawing the technique of extracting natural gas and oil, which is a significant industry in Pennsylvania, a crucial battleground state.
Harris stated, “We can do it without outlawing fracking.” As vice president, I really cast the tiebreaking vote that resulted in an increase in fracking leases, Dana, Dana. I therefore make it quite obvious where I stand.
However, when asked to comment on the evidence that caused her to change her mind or to admit that she had changed her mind, Harris occasionally came out as defensive.
In response to a question about whether she still supported decriminalizing illegal border crossings in 2019, Harris stated that “there should be consequences” for unauthorized crossings and cited her experience as “a border state attorney general” in California prosecuting transnational gangs.
In addition, Harris stated that she would consider adding a Republican to her Cabinet.
“I have made it my job to welcome a range of viewpoints. When some of the most significant decisions are being made, I think it’s critical to have people with a variety of perspectives and life experiences at the table,” Harris stated. “And I believe that having a Republican in my Cabinet would be beneficial to the American people.”
After remaining mute for the majority of the interview, Walz was questioned about his personal scandals, including instances in which he appeared to exaggerate certain aspects of his twenty-four-year tenure in the Army National Guard.
Even though he had never been in battle, Minnesota Governor Walz said in a speech following a school shooting in 2018 that the weapon used was comparable to one he carried “in war.”
Walz claimed that his English teacher wife Gwen warned him that “my grammar is not always correct,” but he mainly wrote off the dispute as political posturing.
“If it’s not this, it’s an attack on my dog, or it’s an attack on my kids for loving me. I won’t do that. And I promise never to disparage in any way the services provided by another member. I will never do so, and I never have. I have been widely known. Former people I’ve worked with believe they can see my students emerge, and they do. They attest to my integrity. When I make mistakes, I definitely own up to them.
There was only so much that the 30-minute interview could cover. Harris and Walz still have a lot of difficult questions unanswered. Furthermore, it lacked the time to explore the more nuanced subjects of the candidates’ relationships with one another and personalities, which are frequently just as fascinating to voters.
For example, there were no inquiries concerning the disorganized American pullout from Afghanistan or the contentious visit by former President Donald Trump to Arlington National Cemetery this past week.
Republicans and a large portion of the media have been urging Harris to respond to more challenging questions, and the one interview is unlikely to completely allay those concerns in front of the debate with Trump on September 10.
Before the interview, David Axelrod, a former Obama top adviser, remarked on a CNN panel, “You put yourself in a more vulnerable position if you can make [an interview] into an extraordinary occasion.”