Kamala Harris’ Fox News interview demonstrates a lack of coherent responses and solid convictions

When Kamala Harris began her 2024 presidential campaign, her team had to decide whether to shield her from the public eye or let her engage more with the public.

Both options presented political risks.

Continuing to portray Harris as a standout candidate was challenging due to her lack of interviews or press conferences, undermining her image.

On the other hand, Harris’s tendency to deliver empty clichés in abundance raised concerns as people heard more from her.

Harris has a knack for excessive platitudes, often failing to convey substantial information with her words.

Her expressions are so exaggeratedly simplistic that they could serve as examples of “tautology” in educational materials.

After a recent interview with Fox News’ Brett Baier, it became evident that speaking spontaneously is not Harris’s strong suit.

She has a peculiar talent for responding to straightforward questions with convoluted, irrelevant tangents.

To navigate this issue, Harris’s media appearances were carefully selected to avoid challenging questions.

Before her Fox News appearance, she spoke to friendly hosts such as sex podcaster Alex Cooper and shock jock Howard Stern. She also engaged with allies in the media at outlets like MSNBC and “The View.”

Even in favorable settings, Harris struggled to provide meaningful answers to inquiries.

During an unscripted Univision town hall, audience members pressed her about inflation, to which Harris emphasized her middle-class background without offering new insights.

During a “60 Minutes” interview, Harris’s response to questions about the Israel-Palestinian situation was so incomprehensible that CBS News had to edit in a coherent answer.

In a different political climate, a candidate with Harris’s inability to articulate a clear foreign policy stance would face intense scrutiny.

However, today, political journalists often reframe Harris’s words to make them more coherent.

Former President Donald Trump, despite his own speech issues, was not afforded the same leniency.

So why does Harris consistently sound unprepared in her responses?

She appears to rely solely on scripts and talking points, lacking genuine thoughts or knowledge on various issues.

Her inability to provide coherent answers suggests she may have never seriously contemplated these topics.

Furthermore, Harris’s frequent changes in position and lack of consistent beliefs raise questions about her true convictions and guiding principles.

It seems unlikely that Harris possesses a well-defined explanation or moral compass, aside from a focus on her own empowerment.

Despite recent missteps, Harris’s qualifications match the typical standards for a presidential candidate.

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner. Twitter @davidharsanyi