FOXy Lady

Harris has agreed to an interview on FOX, but during her 60 Minutes "interview" last week she continued to give sometimes unintelligible, often non-responsive answers. Will she "outfox" Fox too?

Kamala Harris has agreed to appear on Fox News’ “Special Report” program this evening (Wednesday) with host and Fox News chief political anchor Brett Baier. According to Fox, Harris is scheduled to “sit” for 25-30 minutes of questions, though they were careful not to say “answer” 25-30 minutes of questions.

Harris has been widely criticized by media foe and friend alike for, up to very recently, refusing to sit for interviews—with the exception of a few fawning psuedo-interviews with the likes of MSNBC, The View, and the Howard Stern Show. Hardly journalistic heavyweights. It was only last week that she finally gave her first “real” news interview—on 60 Minutes—ostensibly to answer tough questions from an experienced interviewer.

But before the biggest audience she is likely to have before the general election just weeks away, Harris mostly danced around interviewer Bill Whitaker’s questions—with Whitaker sometimes playing the willing dance partner. “All politicians evade some questions,” Washington Post columnist and editor of the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru, said during a Washington Post podcast. “She does it a lot, and she has not mastered the art of hiding when she’s doing it.”

New York Times political reporters, Reid Epstein and Katie Rogers, described Harris’ performance as “a departure from some of her recent appearances on cable news and podcasts, she was repeatedly pressed on questions she did not initially answer.” It would have been more accurate, however, to note that she “never” answered many of the questions lobbed her way. Whitaker repeatedly tried, sometimes feebly, to follow up a few non-answers, though he quickly gave up when Harris reverted to gibberish mode. He often appeared frustrated.

Harris was again the serial question evader. If you were looking for thoughtful answers to tough questions, the interview got off to a bad start and never recovered. Whitaker has come under increasing criticism for asking slanted, or leading questions, and for failing to follow up evasive answers—60 Minutes for airing an edited version of the interview that made Harris look more decisive and, frankly, intelligible.

On the one year anniversary of Hamas’ slaughter of more than 1200 Israelis and the capture of 250, mostly civilian, hostages, Whitaker led off with questions about the Israeli-Hamas War. “What can the U.S.,” Whitaker asked, “do at this point to stop this from spinning out of control?” Israel, Harris replied, has “the right to defend itself,” but “Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. This war has to end.” Sorry, but that did not answer the question. No Whitaker follow-up. Moving on. Disappointing.

America, Whitaker asked next, supplies Israel “with billions of dollars in military aid,” but Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, “seems to be charting his own course. The Biden-Harris administration has pressed him to agree to a ceasefire. He's resisted…Does the U.S. have no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu?”

Both the question—and as it turns out, the answer—were problematic. First, Israel has agreed publicly, at least twice, to US brokered ceasefires that Hamas rejected. It’s Hamas that stands in the way of a ceasefire, not Israel. Whitaker should know better. Second, Harris’ answer was pure babble.

On August 20 the New York Times reported that “Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, making his ninth visit to Israel since the war began, emerged from a three-hour-long meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and announced that the Israeli leader had assented to the new U.S. proposal intended to bridge the differences between the two sides, introduced at talks in Qatar last week.” The Times also reported at the time that President Biden was “hopeful” there would be a ceasefire “by the end of the week.” Hamas, not Israel, rejected that ceasefire proposal.

Back in February 2024, Hamas rejected yet another US brokered ceasefire proposal that Israel had agreed to. Vice President Harris said at the time “Hamas claims it wants a cease-fire. Well, there is a deal on the table.” Matthew Miller, a State Department spokesman, said of the proposal, “Ultimately, some of this comes down to Hamas and whether Hamas is willing to agree to a deal that would provide significant benefits to the Palestinian people that they claim to represent.”

As troubling as the premise of the the question was, Harris’ answer, in the edited version, was equally head-scratching. “The work that we do diplomatically with the leadership of Israel is an ongoing pursuit around making clear our principles,” Harris told Whitaker. “We are not gonna stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.” She didn’t say what those “principles” were, or “where we stand,” and Whitaker seemed to be uninterested in knowing what she meant as well.

In the unedited version, Harris also said: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” This quote was edited out of the version that aired. Good luck untangling that one. Again, moving on.

Throughout the rest of the interview, Harris continued to rely on slogans and vague promises, like blaming high food prices on greedy grocers. In the interview’s narration, Whitaker says “Harris says she'll press Congress to pass a federal ban on price gouging for food and groceries, but details are yet to be defined.” It would have been nice if Whitaker had asked her to define those details during the interview, and not resorted to a voice-over to make his point.

But enough of the 60 Minutes interview. Tonight’s FOX News interview is likely to be the must-see highlight of the campaign. Harris is going into the lion’s den and can’t expect to be treated with kid gloves. So far, Harris has played it safe, mostly unwilling to subject herself to aggressive questioning. Why then, you might be wondering, would Harris be willing to subject herself to be grilled by FOX, with the possibility of getting burned?

“Ms. Harris will have a chance to deliver her message to a viewership that may be skeptical of her candidacy,” writes the New York Times media correspondent Michael Grynbaum. “Her willingness to appear on Fox News may aid the perception that she is open to facing tough questions. And she can reach a swath of independent voters, more of whom watch Fox News than CNN or MSNBC, according to research by Nielsen.”

The race, with only three weeks to go, is a dead-even heat according to the most recent national and battleground state polls. The good news is that we only have to endure three more weeks of this. The bad news, there’s three more weeks of this. “This is a margin-of-error race,” Harris said during an appearance on Charlemagne Tha God’s radio talk show. “I’m going to win, but it’s tight.” With the race so close, Harris may be trying to woo moderate, non-MAGA, Republicans and independents who are uncomfortable with Trump, but unconvinced by Harris.

If that’s her goal, she’s going to have to give meaningful answers to questions about the border, the economy, and about Israel, if she wants these voters to trust her. But in doing so, so might alienate on-the-fence left-leaning voters. It’s a high-wire balancing act that Harris might not be up to—and if she falls there’s no net to catch her.

The pre-taped interview will air this evening (Wednesday, October 16) at 6pm. Baier has promised that the interview will be unedited and with limited commercial interruption. No one, however, has promised that Harris will actually answer the questions with other than slogans of vague generalities. Will she out-FOX the FOX?

I’ll be watching.