Last night’s interview can be summed up in a word – vacuous.  Here is the transcript.  If you did not watch, read.  Before you deal with the highlights and the commentary, including this commentary, read.  Know all of it.  The biggest take-away from the transcript is the repeated insertion in it of “(LAUGH).”  When you see it in print it becomes obvious that the cackle is her tell.  Know when you hear that unpleasant noise or read “(LAUGH)” that she is very uncomfortable.  She may be lying, or she may be admitting something she does not want to admit, but she is very uncomfortable.  As to the vacuousness, this exchange says it all:

“The voters are really eager to hear what your plans are. If you are elected, what would you do on day one in the White House,” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Harris, who was flanked by her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

“Well, there are a number of things I will tell you. First and foremost, one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class,” Harris said.

Let me summarize – Q: “What are you going to do?” A: “Things.”  That may be the most non-answer answer in the history of non-answers.

Mom: “Where ya goin’?” Teenage me: “Out” meaning “I have no clue; I just don’t want to be here.”  That’s where we are.

The media fail here is stupendous in its scope but given the direction media has been moving since the rise of Obama it is also unremarkable.  It is almost predictable.  When I answered my mom with “Out” there came a virtual avalanche of questions until she knew precisely where I was going and what time I would be home.  And in so doing she often prevented me from doing something really stupid because, of course, I was not going to tell her I was going to do something stupid even if I had been contemplating it.  The media has not the curiosity, or the courage, of the average mom.

I have no idea when VDH wrote this piece, “New Rules for Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris” but he nailed it.  She cannot answer because her answers would be admitting she was going to do something quite radically left, in other words stupid.

Yesterday I wrote a post noting that her candidacy represents the continued rise of the administrative state.  Over at RCP, J Peder Zane penned a piece that makes the point better than I did:

Our fixation on what Kamala Harris knows and believes is rather quaint.

It reflects a traditional view of leadership that Democrats have largely rejected. Instead of decisive figures who guide the nation, the party is driven by untold numbers of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, academics, and media voices who share a leftwing ideology. Harking back to its earlier history, the party is once again a machine. Its candidates are not visionaries but apparatchiks committed to the program.

The name on the ballot is largely irrelevant. No one is really voting for Harris, but for the party she represents. Still, politics needs a face, so when President Biden’s turned too craggy, she was tapped as a more youthful, attractive spokesmodel. Like Biden, her vacuity is her appeal; she is another empty vessel that Democrat marketing whizzes can fill with blithe slogans – Joy! Freedom!! Goldilocks!!!

I think the phrase “view of leadership that Democrats have largely rejected,” sums it up well.  Of course Kamala Harris is vacuous.  If she had an idea in her head, she’d try to lead and that’s the last thing the minions of the administrative state want.  They want their anonymity while exercising autocratic, sometimes tyrannical, levels of power.  After all, you cannot fight what you cannot find.

I wrote Monday that our situation is deeply rooted in Trump hatred.  Trump came to office promising to “drain the swamp.”  The administrative state is the swamp, and they are fighting back.  To do so they had to make sure there was no one above them that would dare have an actual idea.  Well, last night’s interview demonstrated that they have found the perfect candidate.