By Paul Ingrassia 

The takeaway of any honest viewer of Kamala Harris’ much-lambasted interview with CNN’s Dana Bash this past week is that of someone overwhelmed – burdened, one might say – by the stresses of campaigning, and for that reason, wholly unsuited to the office that she seeks.  Even though the Left would beg to differ, one can still level a criticism against a so-called “person of color” that is not based on race or gender, but rather, stands alone as an objective assessment of the candidate’s performance.

In terms of conviction, Harris cut the opposite of the image of a confident leader.  The fact that she needed Tim Walz with her in tow, who has been needled by the press as “Kamala’s comfort dog” – someone who is supposed to provide assurance for a candidate palpably in over her head, is hardly the look of a strong, independent woman.  Rather than be the change candidate, the impression was a candidate ill-equipped in every possible way to take on the solemn and sober duties of the highest political office in the land.  Not a good look for a president.

Kamala’s uncertainty began with her non-responses, which invariably devolved into “word salads” of jumbled and confused thoughts, decoupled from specifics on policy or anything resembling a novel or coherent line of reasoning.  This was immediately on display when Bash pressed Harris on her pivot on several policies, especially fracking.  In 2020, as a Democratic candidate for president, Harris ran on a platform of banning the practice unilaterally.  Her change now is obviously born of political expediency, plain and simple.  Everyone knows this gambit: she is desperately trying to pander to crucial voters in Pennsylvania and other rustbelt states, whose economies so heavily depend on the oil and gas industries.  Only a fool would deny that incontestable fact.  So too would a fool believe Kamala at her word, and think she has come to a genuine change of heart on that issue.

Luckily, most people aren’t fools. This was evident by the downward trends in prediction markets and major pollsters, which had Kamala Harris riding the wave of a manufactured “honeymoon period” narrative in the weeks after Joe Biden was forced out of the race. The fallout of the CNN debacle was swift and unforgiving: Polymarkets, a betting platform, which had Kamala leading Donald Trump before the CNN interview, immediately reverted to having the 45th President ahead once again.

Nate Silver, a left-leaning pollster who created FiveThirtyEight, also yielded a forecast model that gave Donald Trump a five point advantage over his opponent in taking the electoral college. These polls and prediction markets indicate that Americans can detect a choke and bullshit artist when they see one, and Kamala Harris, whose acted out the Art of the Choke in realtime on CNN, came across in the worst possible way: an unapologetic liar, willing to say anything — including adopting President Trump’s own policies, and rhetoric — to get herself elected.

This is especially true given her previous, well-documented devotion to the Cult of Climate Science, which was zealous and extreme. In 2020, if it were up to her, she would have wiped the oil and gas producers off the face of a planet.  Now, of course, her handlers tell her to speak out of both sides of her mouth to pander to what they hope are gullible voters.  This explains Kamala’s garbled answer to Bash, professing that her “values have not changed,” even though she now, apparently, supports fracking – at least until November 5^th.