Harris didn't dazzle, but neither did she flop

Walz flopped, but who cares.

I agree with what I take to be the consensus about Kamala Harris’ CNN interview: Harris was far from impressive, but did well enough to maintain her standing in the race. That standing makes her a very slight favorite to defeat Donald Trump.

Tim Walz, by contrast, was awful. He did not come close to defending his lies about military service, alleged use of IVF, and drunk driving. His attempted defense boiled down to an expression of “pride” in the military service he did render and in the “passion” with which he discusses important issues. I didn’t know that pride and passion were defenses for lying.

But Donald Trump is running against Harris, not Walz. And Harris did passably well.

Her flip-flopping is perhaps her biggest vulnerability. I think Harris handled it about as well as she could have.

Her specific defense for abandoning her 2019 campaign position in favor of a ban on fracking is that the (alleged) environmental fixes enacted under the “Inflation Reduction Act” will enable us to protect the environment without banning fracking. She also pointed out that later in the 2020 campaign season, she came out against such a ban, and that the Biden administration hasn’t attempted to impose one.

I doubt Harris believes her explanation. I doubt anyone who has thought about the issue believes it. Indeed, there’s a tension between her explanation and the fact that she flipped on fracking before Biden was elected.

But I think Harris gave Pennsylvanians who favor fracking but want to vote for her, or against Trump, enough comfort to do so. In any case, I don’t think there’s a better answer Harris could have given.

Harris’ more general response to the flip-flop question is that her values haven’t changed. I think that’s a clever, albeit disingenuous, way to address the issue.

It signals to her base, the Democratic left, that she’s still on its side and will likely swing back its way once she becomes president (if she does). At the same time, non-leftists who want to vote for her, or against Trump, can tell themselves that Harris is true to her values. Again, I can’t think of a better way for her to handle the issue.

To me, the most interesting exchange of the interview was this one:

BASH: What I want to ask you about is what [Trump] said last month. He suggested that you happened to turn Black recently for political purposes, questioning a core part of your identity.

HARRIS: Yeah.

BASH: Any—

HARRIS: Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please. (LAUGH)

BASH: That’s it?

HARRIS: That’s it.

Ed Morrissey thinks Harris’ response demonstrates an unwillingness to fight back, even on a question that she easily could have used to hit Trump hard. Ed might well be right.

But I think Harris’ answer was perhaps her most effective moment in the interview. Instead of whining and/or serving a word salad, Harris demonstrated (1) that she’s not letting Trump’s nastiness get to her, (2) that she’s doesn’t want to play the victim, even on a matter of race, and (3) that she can take the high road.

All of this is likely to play well with an electorate that’s sick of gratuitous nastiness, whining, and always “hitting back hard.” An electorate that, in short, is sick of Donald Trump.

Harris’ response reminded me of Dick Cheney’s in the 2004 vice presidential debate when John Edwards gratuitously pointed out that one of Cheney’s daughters is a lesbian. Cheney, with a look of contempt, simply thanked Edwards for his remark. When the moderator asked him if that was it, Cheney said it was.

The exchange made Cheney look like someone temperamentally fit to be president. It made Edwards look like a nasty punk.

I want to be clear. Harris gave nothing like a command performance last night. Frank Luntz says he would grade her a “C.” I think that’s about right.

Unfortunately, in this race if Harris can maintain a “C” average, her chances of winning are pretty good.