The owner of Time – America’s best-selling news magazine – isn’t terribly happy with Kamala Harris. “Despite multiple requests,” complained Marc Benioff yesterday, “Time has not been granted an interview with Kamala Harris – unlike every other presidential candidate. We believe in transparency... Why isn’t the vice president engaging with the public on the same level?”
Since he asks, I think the reason is obvious. She, and her aides, are now in full-on panic mode.
The fact is that, after three months, Ms Harris has still done hardly any serious interviews – instead favouring chummy lifestyle podcasts and liberal comedians’ chat shows, on which she can treat audiences to the sound of her delightful laughter. This strongly suggests that she, or her aides, or possibly both, think she simply couldn’t cope with a proper interrogation about her record as VP, and certain views she’s expressed in the past (for example, that tax-payers should be made to fund sex-change ops for prisoners and illegal immigrants). They must be terrified that, under pressure, she’d blow her already faltering campaign.
But if the US public has picked up on this trembling fear of scrutiny, she’s doomed anyway. Because if her own team don’t have confidence in her, why should voters?
readers must be relieved. Because now they won’t be forced to wade through page after page of her garbled, vacuous, pseudo-profound wittering.
This is, after all, the woman who once said: “I think it’s very important for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualise it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future.”
Since he asks, I think the reason is obvious. She, and her aides, are now in full-on panic mode.
The fact is that, after three months, Ms Harris has still done hardly any serious interviews – instead favouring chummy lifestyle podcasts and liberal comedians’ chat shows, on which she can treat audiences to the sound of her delightful laughter. This strongly suggests that she, or her aides, or possibly both, think she simply couldn’t cope with a proper interrogation about her record as VP, and certain views she’s expressed in the past (for example, that tax-payers should be made to fund sex-change ops for prisoners and illegal immigrants). They must be terrified that, under pressure, she’d blow her already faltering campaign.
But if the US public has picked up on this trembling fear of scrutiny, she’s doomed anyway. Because if her own team don’t have confidence in her, why should voters?
readers must be relieved. Because now they won’t be forced to wade through page after page of her garbled, vacuous, pseudo-profound wittering.
This is, after all, the woman who once said: “I think it’s very important for us at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualise it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past but the future.”
