That's the first of the 3 — only 3? it's usually 5 — "takeaways" offered by the NYT in "3 Takeaways From Kamala Harris’s Interview on MSNBC."
The piece, by Reid J. Epstein, is subtitled "In her first one-on-one cable TV interview since becoming the nominee, the vice president repeatedly dodged direct questions and stuck firmly on message." That is harsh, but I have to assume it's written tactfully. (And I did try to watch it myself.)
Fleshing out "takeaway" #1, Epstein writes: "Ms. Harris responded to the fairly basic and predictable questions with roundabout responses that did not provide a substantive answer."
The other 2 "takeaways" are: "She avoided a looming scenario: What if Democrats lose the Senate?" and "A hard-hitting Harris interview is still yet to come." Sorry, I think #3 repeats #1. And though #2 looks specific, it's just specific about the same generality that constitutes ##1 and 3: She didn't say anything of substance.
And this was with what Epstein called a "friendly inquisitor" — Stephanie Ruhle — on a "liberal cable channel whose viewers overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates" — MSNBC. It was "roughly in the same ballpark as Mr. Trump having one of his regular chats with Sean Hannity of Fox News."
Posts
