Kamala Harris’s Selective Interviews: A Cozy Chat With MSNBC Host Who Defends Her Inability to Answer Questions
Vice President Kamala Harris, who has largely avoided tough interviews during her tenure, has chosen to sit down with MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle—who recently defended her habit of dodging direct questions. This move raises eyebrows, especially considering the context of Ruhle’s remarks just days before the interview, where she downplayed the need for Harris to address pressing policy issues.
In a recent appearance on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Ruhle stated, “Kamala Harris is not running for perfect. She’s running against Trump.” This comment came in response to criticism from New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, who argued that voters deserve clear answers about Harris’s positions on critical domestic and foreign policies.
The irony is palpable. As the Vice President prepares for her interview, she seems intent on rewriting her narrative, distancing herself from the failures of the Biden administration, particularly in areas where she was supposed to lead, like immigration and foreign policy. Despite being appointed as the border czar, her administration has faced widespread criticism for the border crisis, yet she continues to try to present herself as separate from the chaos.
Ruhle’s defense of Harris’s evasiveness further illustrates a troubling trend in corporate media. She asserted that voters know Trump’s track record well enough that they can forgo Harris’s policy specifics. “We have two choices,” Ruhle said, insisting that Trump’s history is clear enough for voters to make their decision without knowing Harris’s stances.
This will make Harris’ second sit down with someone who supports her candidacy (Oprah being the other).
Here is Ruhle last Friday: “Kamala Harris is not running for perfect. She’s running against Trump. We have two choices.” https://t.co/janIn8jcNw pic.twitter.com/WKsWNpG8Xi
— Alex Thompson (@AlexThomp) September 25, 2024
This soft-ball approach reflects a broader pattern in how Harris has navigated her campaign. For over a month since she became the Democratic nominee, she has largely shunned interviews that might press her on her historically low approval ratings and the radical views that have drawn criticism even from her own allies. When she finally agreed to an interview, it was with a sympathetic host and in a setting designed to avoid any uncomfortable questions.
Now, as she gears up for another anticipated interview with Ruhle, it seems evident that Harris is opting for a safe space where she won’t face challenging inquiries.
Americans deserve a transparent dialogue about what Harris stands for, especially as the election approaches. However, the corporate media landscape continues to shield her from real scrutiny, allowing her to sidestep difficult conversations while bolstering her image as a candidate. The question remains: will voters accept this calculated avoidance, or will they demand accountability and clarity from those seeking the highest office in the land?
