Bash totally embarrassed and discredited herself during last night's interview

[SocialDemocrat61]

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2024, 11:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Dana Bash proved she is a total corporate media hack and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Harris and Walz did great. Bash doesn’t deserve to be on the same stage with them.

[LymphocyteLover]

1. same old tired limp GOP criticisms.... we're done with it!

[arlyellowdog]

2. Why should we cast any negative on the interview?

When I see this headline it makes me think, “Wow, our candidates must have been bad.” They weren’t. Can’t we just declare this a win?

[LymphocyteLover]

3. Kamala and Tim were great! CNN not so much!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-hits-it-out-of-the-park-cnn-not-so-much?source=twitter&via=desktop

[MaryMagdaline]

29. Excellent article

[LymphocyteLover]

90. Yes, agreed. I only saw a few snips last night. Didn't want to sit through the whole thing. I know they would do great.

[SocialDemocrat61]

5. So you only read the headline

And not the post

[FarPoint]

12. Relax....

Let's all be kind....alright ...😇

[SocialDemocrat61]

13. How am I not being kind?

Except to Bash of course.

[Demsrule86]

62. No. Let's not..Dana Bash was sent to spew the GOP lies and trip Kamala up. She is no journalist.

This is why I never watch CNN these days.

[kcr]

16. I'm sorry, but

your post and others have made me worry that things didn't go so well last night. Not because Harris and Walz performed badly, but because it was set up to make them fail. That CNN did exactly what I expected them to do.

[arlyellowdog]

18. EXACTLY!!!!!

[SocialDemocrat61]

21. Then don't just read the headline

And read the whole post

[kcr]

25. Maybe you should read

post 12 in this thread again, and chill out.

[SocialDemocrat61]

86. Why?

Other than Bash, who am I not being kind to?

[Think. Again.]

19. I see the point though....

....headlines do leave impressions on people who are skimming the page and don't focus on the OP content.

Marketers and advertisers rely very heavily on the powerful effects of immediate messaging such as slogans and taglines, and editors know how to set a pre-determined reaction to an article with a carefully worded first impression.

It might have been good to write "Bash" instead of "she", knowing that most folks would be thinking of Harris.

[SocialDemocrat61]

23. Well maybe they should

read the whole post.

[Tanuki]

37. There are hundreds of posts on this website every day.

Nobody has the time to read each one in its entirety, and you can't blame people if they don't appreciate clickbaiting headlines.

[azureblue]

82. I do

and anyone who thinks beyond sound bytes will. You mean people can't spend 5 minutes reading an article to learn something from it? My, My, you must be terribly busy... Doing something...

[Tanuki]

140. Do you really?

Me:"There are hundreds of posts on this website every day. Nobody has the time to read each one in its entirety..." You: "I do."
I find it hard to believe that you immerse yourself in every post, every day on the wide array of special interests represented here. Hundreds of posts, at "5 minutes" (your suggested time frame) apiece, would exceed the waking hours in a day. Spare me the snark and the offensive condescension about my ability to "think beyond sound bites." Accurate and informative headlines help one make a reasonable choice about which threads to open and read.

[SocialDemocrat61]

89. True

But it's not like my OP was that long. It's only 3 sentences.

[thesquanderer]

40. But i think you're ignoring that most people presumably do NOT click every single headline that appears on DU...

...so lots of people ONLY see your headline, and not your post. So they just see an impression of "well, I guess some people think she did badly" and will likely think you meant Harris. By not saying Bash in the headline, you give those page skimmers a wrong impression.

That said, people do sometimes create posts like that. It's a kind of clickbait gotcha. Some people will be amused when they see a post like that, others will be annoyed.

[SocialDemocrat61]

117. Which is why I corrected the Headline

[Think. Again.]

54. Yeah, I get that, if your priority is adjusting people's chat room habits...

...but I'm thinking the priority at DU right now should probably be focussing on a successful election in November.

[SocialDemocrat61]

60. But these days

one may be needed to succeed at the other.

[Think. Again.]

73. Good point.

[2naSalit]

7. The article...

Is pointing out how badly Dana Bash sucks at her job. Says nothing negative about our candidates.

[Srkdqltr]

78. I hate posts with pronouns not names.

[pattyloutwo]

94. Headline not good

Our brain gets the negative impression before we click on it to read the article; that’s why negative headlines are effective. I understand no harm intended 😊

[JohnSJ]

4. There was nothing wrong with the interview last night. Bash did her job, and VP Harris did well. What exactly

bothered you about what Bash said?

So, some of the questions centered what trump and his surrogates are pushing. Would you prefer they ignore those questions, and let the trump accusations still fester in the airwaves.

The big mistake in my opinion what Kerry did was when the swiftboat ads came out, Kerry effectively ignored them. If you don't push back on things like that, then you are giving fodder to it.

VP Harris did quite well, not only in answering the questions, but contrasting herself with trump and his thugs.

[SocialDemocrat61]

9. Asking questions based on bs talking points

Such as about if Harris is black.

People need to stop defending these corporate media hacks and call them on their bs.

[JohnSJ]

14. I disagree. That crap is out there, and to ignore it is giving ammunition to it. VP Harris not only answered

everything well, she contrasted herself with trump and his thugs.

Kerry messed up when the swiftboat ads came out against him. He ignored them. He should have pushed back on that bullshit, and I think it hurt him.

When asked about her "blackness authenticity" by trump, she said, "same old playbook from them. Next question"

She shut it down just like that.

In my view it was a good thing. Now we move forward.

[SocialDemocrat61]

17. No is doesn't

It gives those attacks a platform and legitimacy. The media should be asking questions based on truth, no on lies.

And everyone here needs to start supporting democrats and not the corrupt corporate media.

[JohnSJ]

26. Sorry, you don't push back on it, it becomes true. That is the old nazi tactic, say a false statement enough,

it becomes true.

VP Harris did exactly what she needed to do. Anyone on the fence who heard that should be persuaded with her answers in contrast to the "non-answers" that trump gives, or even worse, trump wanders off to an entirely different subject.

[SocialDemocrat61]

31. You're conflating two different things

While campaigns should push back on bs attacks, the corporate media should not be legitimizing them. That makes them complicit. They are the ones engaging in the Nazi tactic of repeating the lie to make people believe it’s true.And they need to be called out and criticized for their complicity.

[cab67]

39. Are they legitimizing?

Or are they offering the candidate an opportunity to push back?

I don't know the answer, but I can see it either way.

[SocialDemocrat61]

49. Fair enough

I see it as legitimizing.

[happy feet]

83. I see it as legitimizing

By asking the opponent as if it’s a serious accusation.

[JohnSJ]

43. Sorry, we disagree. I am glad those things were brought up, and VP Harris had the opportunity to push back on them.

instead of letting them drift out on the airwaves.

In my view any undecided voters who heard that interview will view VP Harris more favorably now.

I will give you an example of a disgraceful interview. The Matt Lauer interview with Hillary. The jackass wouldn't let her finish a question before interrupting her. In contrast, he asked trump softball questions, and let him ramble on without interruptions. It was a disgrace.

This was a good interview, and demonstrated that VP Harris isn't going to put up with garbage from anyone.

[SocialDemocrat61]

58. I agree, Harris and Walz did great

But Bash did not. When the corporate media bases questions on bs attacks they become an agent of those who make the attack. That’s not their job.

If Trump had accused Harris of being a pedophile, should Bash, without any evidence, asked Harris, ‘Are you a pedophile?’ I say no. The simple act of asking the question legitimizes it and regardless of Harris’ answer some will think that there may be truth in the accusation. The media’s job is to tell the truth that Harris is not a pedophile and call out Trump for lying.

[BattleRow]

93. I call the presstitutes

acquiescent accomplices.

[c-rational]

105. Presstitutes, a new word for me. It's perfect to describe most in msm - thanks.

[BattleRow]

110. Yw

[senseandsensibility]

136. The media has just as big an obligation to push back on lies as the Dem candidate

does. I think that's the point that's lost here. Putting all the responsibility on Harris to debunk everything alone and then continuing to cover all the BS talking points with both sider journalism is not fair. Unless the voter happens to be watching when Harris is talking, or seeks out her unedited responses later, they are still just being exposed to the talking points. All cheato has to do to answer questions with any kind of flip flop, lie, or insane brain fart, and he has no responsibility for correcting lies from Dems since they're aren't any.

[Demsrule86]

64. Dana Bash Legitimized the lies Trump spews...making Kamala play on his terms...fuck her (Dana). I would see her

in hell before I gave her another interview.

[JohnSJ]

74. She didn't legitimize anything because VP Harris did an excellent job of answering the questions. It appears that

many here only want to see "softball" interviews, and believe that will convince undecided voters.

In my view, those undecided voters who saw that interview will be more inclined to vote for VP Harris than before.

All those "concerned" about this interview should instead us VP Harris as an example, she is fearless.

[Scrivener7]

33. It's out there bc tsf says it and the legacy press puts it out there.

I think the best answer of the night was, "Move on."

For years our mistake has been answering their lies and thus giving them air.

The legacy press has forfeited any usefulness they might once have had in terms of information gathering.

She has umpteen other outlets that will get HER message out without her having to play defence against a constant stream of idiocy.

[cab67]

42. sometimes, it's important to address a lie.

The US is way behind the rest of the developed world in COVID vaccinations, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if the medical community hadn't aggressively countered the misinformation circulating on social media?

[Demsrule86]

67. That is what the GOP wants for us to play defense on their field. NO and no.

[cab67]

80. I really do see your point.

But on the other hand, allowing lies to be amplified until they become common wisdom can be a real problem. Countering them early and strongly does have a place. It also has the benefit of supporting the basic fact that Trump and most of his circle are pathological liars who can't be trusted.

Trump's base doesn't care, but that base is shrinking.

[Scrivener7]

95. And she has unlimited other venues to use

besides the legacy press that actually is helping to amplify the lies, and that for years has done nothing to dispel them.

[JohnSJ]

46. Are you kidding? Democrats rarely answer their lies. President Obama was an exception to that.

[Scrivener7]

101. The mistake Democrats have made is letting the lies

dominate the headlines. There are unlimited ways now to speak to the public and get the message across - and show the lies for the nonsense they are - without using the legacy press that does nothing but amplify those lies.

We are seeing how that works in action. Did you learn anything from that interview other than the newest MAGA smears? But before that interview, before she granted access to the legacy press, did you feel any lack of information about her? And did you notice how positive the portrayal of her has been?

Most important, did you notice how TSF was NOT dominating the headlines?

The difference between using the legacy press and not using them is pretty stark.

EarlG is right. Till they can learn how to formulate a reasonable question, fuck 'em.

[happy feet]

87. A great interview

Gives you insights to the interviewee beyond what you know. It was a waste of my time. They could have gone on Fox to refute Republican smears. The audience was the entire country to learn more about the candidates.

Trump cult voters will NEVER Change their minds and sentiment Repubs, Independents largely ignore the Repub insane rantings as foolishness and lies.

[TheProle]

91. People also need to stop infantilizing our candidates.

Bash did her job and Harris is a grown, professional and exceptionally knowledgeable woman.

I don't feel the need to have Two Minutes Hate every time she has an exchange with someone who is not an acolyte.

It's like sports fans whose every analysis has to include condemnation of the referees. It's lazy and boring.

[SocialDemocrat61]

96. No Bash's job is the truth

Not asking questions based on BS GOP talking points. Her doing so is lazy and boring.

[Scrivener7]

103. Spreading maga shit is not Bash "doing her job."

We're so inured to it we often don't even recognize when it's happening.

That interview? It was happening.

[TheProle]

104. I'm glad our candidate is more resilient and capable

than many of her supporters.

[Scrivener7]

108. That's nice.

[Blue_Adept]

10. The majority of her questions were basically just framing of republican attacks

She was playing to the team side instead of actually asking questions about policy, approach, or anything substantive.

It was a nearly empty-calorie interview with no substance.

You see more substantive interviews on local market network news talking to state candidates. ABC's Boston affiliate runs a show called On The Record every Sunday and 30 minutes of that will yield far better idea of what interviewing should be like.

Hell, this interview with a former rep was more informative.

&pp=ygUSd2N2YiBvbiB0aGUgcmVjb3Jk

&pp=ygUSd2N2YiBvbiB0aGUgcmVjb3Jk

[JohnSJ]

22. She not only addressed the republican talking points, but she talked policy and contrasted herself with trump and

his thugs.

The immigration and economy questions were answered well, and more than that it provided the opportunity to contrast herself explicitly with trump.

[BattleRow]

98. IOW

mostly fluff and little stuff.

[Playingmantis]

53. Yes I agree

Bash asked questions the GOP has raised and that gave them a chance to answer them.. Nothing wrong with that,,IMO

[JohnSJ]

55. and not only that, it provided the opportunity for her to contrast herself with them, which she did

magnificently.

[Playingmantis]

56. I dont know what the others here expect..

[arlyellowdog]

6. We don't want to be Trump ask our candidates anything

[PCIntern]

8. Her questions were the questions that people have

They were answered perfectly. Good enuf.

[SocialDemocrat61]

11. You really think people have questions

about Harris’ race?

[Blue_Adept]

15. MSNBC found a black voter in North Carolina who was completely unaware she identified as black

Of course, it turns out that this guy is also running as a Republican for the 12th district.

[JohnSJ]

51. There was no question that guy was a MAGA plant. Everyone here in Northern California knew VP Harris was

from black and Asian descent, and she was proud of both of her heritages.

The only ones who have a problem with it are the racists, sexists, and bigots.

[PCIntern]

24. Of course her race is not an issue...

This is America!



Facepalm to you.

[SocialDemocrat61]

27. So you support the corporate media

legitimizing racism and Trump’s racist attack on Harris? Interesting

[PCIntern]

38. You know...

There are millions of people in this country who are not as bright as you are, as intuitive and educated as you are, who don’t understand the intricacies of the “corporate media” as you do, and they are asking the questions that the corporate media asks. It is incumbent upon our candidates to know how to answer them, this is the country in which you live, OK? You can be whatever you want to be but the Americans that she is trying to reach are just not as terrific and insightful as you are.

And save your “interesting“ comments for someone else. I’ve been here for 20 years and have seen people come and go by the hundreds if not thousands.

[SocialDemocrat61]

44. I'm just an average American

And I want the media to ask questions based on truth, not on bs gop talking points.

[PCIntern]

48. If you're gonna convert GOPers,

Then you must address the issues which are in Their Brain, not yours. You are already voting for her, ostensibly. They require a refutation of what they hear 24 hours a day on AM radio or the equivalent.

[SocialDemocrat61]

72. You really think Harris is going to convert GOPers

By answering a question based on a lie?

[JohnSJ]

52. +++. Almost as good as "when did you stop beating your wife?

[PCIntern]

59. The answer to that is:

Funny… Your wife asked me the same question last night after I rolled off her.

[JohnSJ]

61. LOL. Now that is funny.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Bash didn't ask about her race. She asked about Trump trying to use it.

BASH: Speaking of Republicans, I want to ask you about your opponent, Donald Trump. I was a little bit surprised, people might be surprised to hear that you have never interacted with him, met him face to face. That’s gonna change soon, but what I want to ask you about is what he 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.

Bash clearly framed it as asking about Trump. VP Harris could have replied "he's trying to use race to divide people", "he's lying about what I've always said, and the way I grew up", or other things. Bash gave her the choice, and she chose to brush it of as old and tired - probably a good choice.

[SocialDemocrat61]

65. Harris gave the perfect answer

But Bash never should have brought it up in the first place. It was a cheap shot with the goal of putting Harris off balance. Glad she didn’t fall for the bait.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. So asking about the weird things that Trump does is off-limits?

That seems to ignore a huge part of the election - that Trump is weird.

[SocialDemocrat61]

84. Asking questions based on Trump's BS accusations should be off limits

When the corporate media asks questions based on lies, they are legitimizing the lie.

[Scrivener7]

107. It was not a serious question.

It translates to: "What do you think about trump acting like an asshole and saying something stunningly racist so he could dominate the news cycle as usual?"

She gave the perfect answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. I agree with the translation, but I don't see why that is "not a serious question"

I'm amazed at the number of DUers who think they have the definitive list of what interviewers should, but mainly shouldn't, ask about.

[Scrivener7]

122. You find that a serious, substantive question?

Will it's answer yield useful information, or will it just continue the churning of ridiculous bullshit?

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. Because it could be answered

with "his obsession with race indicates someone who doesn't see all Americans as full citizens. He wants to divide us into groups and cause resentment. He wants to control Americans." Or all other kinds of responses. The kinds that have been expressed here on DU about Trump's idiocy. I don't see them as useless or ridiculous.

[Scrivener7]

131. All those answers have been given about tsf

umpteen times before and for years. Those who can hear them have heard them.

A subtext of her whole campaign so far has been a sharp turn away from, "Let's just keep explaining why he's the worst guy ever." Instead they've chosen, "Seriously? You listen to that shit? Coming from that weird buffoon? What's wrong with you?"

And that's working.

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. When it's said by the candidate, in a format undecided voters are more likely to hear

(than in a speech), it can still be worth saying. And therefore a question leading to it is serious.

[Scrivener7]

135. We'll have to agree to disagree.

She needs to get off the media's and trump's treadmill and get her own message out. And she's doing that very effectively through non-legacy media, which makes tsf completely impotent against her.

So far, she's the first to crack his hold on every news cycle.

[JohnSJ]

30. Absolutely. Kerry messed up royally by not pushing back on the swift boat ads. Are people's memories that

that short?

Not only did VP Harris answer the questions well, but she used it as an opportunity to contrast herself with trump.

[jujubeets]

20. The strategy was working though

Avoiding interviews and debates works for our candidates. It's a waste of time. Most notably Katie Hobbs cruised right in. I've waffled on this but after this interview the path is clear. No more interviews and why bother with the debate!

[arlyellowdog]

28. This is called gaslighting, let me girlsplain it for you

We went on a date and I thought that everything went great. You call, “Well, it’s just that the lighting and the food were humiliating and embarrassing, but don’t worry, you were good. You did a good job.” It’s saying, “they did ok under the circumstances. Anything the interviewer asked, our candidates handled. Big headlines using words like “embarrassing” is a negative reflection on our candidates. I honestly thought VP Harris showed she’s boss. Gov, Walz looked sincere. I’d like to see Gov. Walz on Colbert or something where he could show more of himself.

[SocialDemocrat61]

32. Gaslighting is lying

You’re accusing me of lying?

I said Harris and Walz did great. It was a criticism of Bash.

[arlyellowdog]

81. No, but saying, "but I said they did great," that's kind of part of it.

[SocialDemocrat61]

85. How so?

I didn't criticize Harris or Walz in any way.

And you didn't answer my question, you accused me of gaslighting. Are you saying that I lied?

[Kaleva]

34. All that matters is how Harris and Walz did

And apparent they did fine

[elias7]

35. It was adversarial to be sure

I don’t care what Harris does on her first day. I personally would acclimate.
Asking why didn’t you do this before is a no-win question
Pushing and pushing on the fracking thing is purist and politically naive. Again, another gotcha question.
And so on….painful to watch

Harris figured this out quickly and took the high road, the expansive view, and used her power as a person who has risen to lead this country to convey authority in some of her answers.

[Zambero]

36. I consider the interview to be debate prep

Both candidates proved themselves to be quite well-prepared for that next step.

[List left]

41. click bait title of post seems designed to startle and get more attention...

Made my heart skip a beat
💙 💙 💙 🌴 🥥 🌴🥥🌴

[SocialDemocrat61]

47. Sorry

Hope you’re ok.❤️‍🩹

[PatSeg]

45. Bash has been a flake for as long as I can remember

I was always surprised she got as far as she did at CNN.

[TheRickles]

66. Her dad was a senior broadcast producer at Good Morning America.

So she's a nepo baby of sorts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Bash|

[BattleRow]

116. Her ex is

John King..another CNN reporter,btw.

[PatSeg]

125. Yes, but they weren't a couple

when Bash started out on CNN and John King was no more professional or competent than she was. They both were perpetually "not ready for primetime" and little has changed.

CNN tends to specialize in mediocracy it seems. Try watching more than five minutes of Wolf Blitzer...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

I miss Aaron Brown and Judy Woodruff. They were the real deal.

[BattleRow]

139. Echoing my sentiments exactly.

Aaron Brown was irreplaceable.
Judy's over at PBS.

Now it's the Idiocracy of mediaocrity.

Gave up CNN ,MSNBC ,Fox years ago.

[PatSeg]

123. Ah, I had a feeling it was something like that

Years ago, she came across as a real amateur and over time, she never really improved. I remember she just couldn't stop blinking her eyes which was very distracting.

[ramapo]

50. Her true test would be a Trump interview

I thought many of her questions bordered on foolish. She started with what would you do on day one and then kept at it. It's beyond dumb. It's not like Harris would be signng Executive Orders undoing bad stuff that Biden did, as that is what "Day One" is usually known for.

She nitpicked some 'controversies". Fine, that's the best they could dig up. I wonder how she'd deal with the lying, bluster-filled bullshit artist. I doubt we'll get to see it.

[SocialDemocrat61]

68. Actually we did see at the debate

Bash sat there and let Trump lie with impunity.

[Shermann]

102. Yeah, a better question would be to ask about the first 100 days

That's a softball question for a serious presidential candidate, really.

Trump is vulnerable to the Katie Couric gotcha question. Those are quizzes wrapped in questions like "which Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with", and "which parts of the Bush Doctrine" do you agree with, and "which newspapers do you read"?

[liberalmuse]

63. The stench of Trump has permeated legacy media.

They need to wash out their mouths before interviewing serious, sane, competent people. Instead their words stink of Trump, Trump, Trump. He is a stain and rot they are all too willing to spread to the detriment of us all. I long to hear real questions, but all we get is ridiculousness coming out of their Trump sucking mouths. We The (non MAGA) People deserve so much better from our media.

[lark]

70. Danna Bash made me sick. She'd never treat the orange anus this way.

CNN is sickening. When it's tsf it's all softball, fawning questions - with no follow up. When it's Kamala being quetioned, it's all disparage, and right wing drivel - except for the last minute or 2.

I thought CNN totally blew this whole thing, really poorly done. Thankfully Kamala and Tim were on message and didn't waver. They did good!!

[PatrickforB]

71. Because of the legal doctrine of shareholder primacy, Bash is obligated to generate profits for

shareholders. That is the ONLY fiduciary responsibility of corporate officers in publicly traded companies. Bash and the others, even our favorites on MSNBC, which is owned by Comcast, have the responsibility of generating SHAREHOLDER PROFITS. There really is nothing in their charter about truth in news reporting.

This is why they are so biased in favor of a 'horse race'. It's better for shareholder profits. Or so the media executives believe.

And this is ALSO why they have become increasingly irrelevant, and why Harris has become so sophisticated in pushing out her message on social media. Bottom line, most of the younger voters (and they are registering in droves) don't even watch CNN. Or ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox.

They watch the Comedy Channel for Oliver, Stewart and Seth Meyers. My son, who is in his late thirties, mentioned Meyers. We have not watched his show, but love Stewart and Oliver.

Want a 21st century Fairness Doctrine? Expand the legal doctrine of corporate governance (established through the MI Supreme Court 1919 decision in favor of the Dodge brothers against Henry Ford). Instead of shareholder profits being the end-all be-all of news reporting, how about we add worker, consumer (including TRUTH in news reporting) and environmental interests to the mix? And then have the SEC vigorously enforce this tiny little rule change?

Do this and we'll pull the teeth of Wall Street, and their greed motive will no longer create the 'horserace' bias wherein the Republicans always get a pass from their insanity, but Democrats are always held to a much higher standard, with every little thing being magnified beyond all logic.

I mean, the narrative about the interview this morning is she 'did herself no harm' but the headline was that Harris 'defended her changes in policy from 2019 vs now.' Seriously, that's what we're hearing on Morning Joe this am. And how Walz 'defended' his mis-speaking.

To their credit, they did talk about some of the policies, but now they are pounding on Trump for desecrating the graves in Arlington. He's just pissing people off right and left.

Oh, but it's still going to be a REALLY CLOSE RACE!!! Yep. Outcome determined by just a few hundred votes in a few swing states.

Truth is, I do not think the corporate media has yet been able to get its collective head around the massive numbers of new registrations among young voters. What did that bar chart show? New registrations among black women in the south are up by like 175%. The corporate media doesn't get it, or even if they do, they are still compelled by the Wall Street fund managers pressing for more PROFITS at all times to stick to the 'horse race' line.

One other thing - we need to get rid of the Electoral College once and for all. Why should a bunch of long-dead old white slave owners have this kind of say in our presidential elections? I'm sick of the argument, oh, this ensures that voters in smaller states have a say. That's bullshit. We need to have every one of our votes count, not only the votes in these swing states. The National Popular Vote compact is designed to do just that. You can look that up and find out if your state has passed it. My state has and we are nearing the 270 electoral vote threshold that will make the Electoral College moot. Here's a link: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

Because the effing Electoral College brought us W instead of Gore in 2000, W instead of Kerry in 2004, Trump over Clinton in 2016, and now the danger of Trump over Harris this year. That SUCKS and it needs to change.

[c-rational]

121. K&R, excellent summary!

[DaBronx]

75. At the end of the interview

Vice President Harris looked over at Governor Walz. I found this so interesting. It was as if she was saying to him, this is the kind of bullshit we need to walk through. I’m sure he was
Prepped ahead of time as to what to expect but it was such a telling glance. They did great! I’d
Like to see Lawrence O’D get the next interview.

[Clouds Passing]

76. Think Joker from Batman, that is Dana

[Hermit-The-Prog]

77. Conglomerated Not News shills have little relevance to the real world.

[Shermann]

79. Bash was reading from a script

Kamala explained that they inherited a mismanaged mess of a pandemic and that was the priority at the time. Some of those financial stimulation measures did contribute to inflation. Now dealing with that inflation is the priority. Bash then segued into "why didn't you do that already" from her script which had already been answered.

Bash wanted that Katie Couric gotcha moment but didn't get it.

[Silent Type]

88. The interview I watched had decent questions and the responses were excellent. The best part, was Bash/CNN showcasing

Gus and that wonderful photo of Harris and her niece. And Harris/Walz responses were just perfect. Got a little teary.

Honestly don't think it could have gone better, although could have done without the trump ad in the middle of interview.

[elocs]

92. A good headline informs the reader who "she" is. Otherwise, it's clickbait. n/t

[Shermann]

97. The clickbait version uses caps and punctuation to make it more hyperbolic

Dana Bash totally EMBARRASSED and DISCREDITED herself during last night's interview!

[SocialDemocrat61]

99. Fair enough

I was trying to avoid the usual corporate media sycophants from descending on the thread. Unfortunately, several have found their way here anyway.

[themaguffin]

100. Can we not have clickbait headlines (and yes it was clear that the thread title was misleading)

Just include Bash's name in the title.

[consider_this]

106. just curious, SocialDemocrat61...

why did you word the headline as you did, instead of directly saying "Dana Bash totally embarrassed and discredited herself during last night's interview". As it stands, it seems like click bait and maybe intended to freak members out a bit? It certainly did get my click, so then I had to read your post to see what you thought of Bash. A directly worded headline would've told me up front, and saved me the click. I'm guessing you probably did it as it seemed fun or a way to get folks to read your post?

I am not bashing you - but I AM saying - such 'trick' post titles can rile or confuse readers during this rather heated political time, as I see has occurred in some earlier replies. Now that I am reading what I am writing - I'm saying what's the point, others have said it, so you are now aware of this, but then I realized. Clicking on your link made me feel like a sucker. And let's hope outside interests don't see your headline alone and then start reporting around that 'even dems at that DU site had negative things to say about her interview performance'.

[SocialDemocrat61]

109. Answered in post #99

And I apologize, my goal wasn't to make anyone feel like a sucker.

[consider_this]

111. Since you already have 108 replies and almost as many recs...

how about updating the title to more accurately reflect your meaning??

[SocialDemocrat61]

113. OK

[consider_this]

114. AWESOME! Thank you, friend!

[iluvtennis]

112. Zerlina Maxwell: Only 4 questions weren't a GOP attack or talking point in the form of a question. 🙁

[SocialDemocrat61]

115. Exactly

Thanks for posting this.

[Scrivener7]

124. This needs to be an OP.

[iluvtennis]

126. I'll post it separately then. n/t

[Scrivener7]

128. Thank you!!!

[iluvtennis]

130. https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219401936

[jaxexpat]

118. Oh yeah, we forget the rules, again. Dana's working for the Republicans. Kamala is running on the Democratic ticket.

That pretty well summarizes the situation.

Tradition and Republican values demand that in every question and in every interview, a Democrat is a "gotcha" target. It is a tactic. If missed, the pressure will continue no matter how ridiculous the premise. Unfairness is not so much a result as it is, again, a tactic.

Democratic candidates cannot rebel against this tactic. Especially on stage and in that venue. They cannot respond in kind, much less make credible attempts to elucidate the issues. Any attempt will be responded to by "moving onto the next question". Their ultimate goal is ALWAYS, with every audience, to reveal just how untrustworthy the Democrats really are.

Wanna fix this? GOTV

[Chakaconcarne]

120. I'm pretty sure most Americans aren't engaged enough to realize anything Dana may have done...

What matters is Kamala and Tim answered the questions in a composed, constructive and detailed manner providing a very clear contrast with their opponents.

[Skittles]

127. I used to like her

but something has changed with her, as it has with CNN in general - and it's nothing good

[Cirsium]

137. I heard a recording

I heard a surreptitious recording a while back of Dana Bash describing the pressure they are under as "reporters" to boost Trump. I wish I could find it again. Trump and the controversy around him boosts rating, and that boosts revenue, she said. We are talking about a lot of money. The "reporters" are expected to do their part to boost revenue, if they value their income, their lavish lifestyle, and their careers.

[Skittles]

138. someone with integrity should resign and go public

why disgrace yourself and your country pimping for fascist slime like Donald Fucking Trump

disgusting

[Klarkashton]

132. The Wall Street Journal hated it too, for the opposite

Reasons. So WTF?

[gibraltar72]

133. Horrible journalist, great Parrot.