为什么哈里斯不擅长接受采访

m
milctea
楼主 (北美华人网)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/us/politics/kamala-harris-interviews-campaign.html
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.
The first question Vice President Kamala Harris faced on Wednesday night, in her first solo interview with a major cable network as the Democratic presidential nominee, was posed as a gentle hypothetical: What would she say to the many Americans who do not see how her economic policies would serve them? “Well,” Ms. Harris began, shaking her head, “if you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations — of what I believe you do — you’re in my plan.” She paused and smiled. “You know, I have to tell you,” she said, eyes lightly closed, hands raised, “I really love and am so energized by what I know to be the spirit and character of the American people.” In her dizzying ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, Ms. Harris has proved to be a disciplined and effective debater and a tireless campaigner, nimble and energetic in rallies. But one-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal. She often winds her way slowly toward an answer, leaning on jargon and rehearsed turns of phrase, using language that is sometimes derided as “word salad” but might be better described as a meringue. As a presidential candidate, Ms. Harris has largely eschewed such interviews, a calculation by her campaign that she can reach more of the voters who matter through town-hall events with celebrities, local television spots, curated videos and social media, without the risks of a prime-time spotlight. But the avoidance also appears to reflect something deeper, a nervousness that is palpable from the moment Ms. Harris takes her seat across from an interviewer, looking as if she were bracing for a hostile cross-examination — from the witness stand. Ms. Harris’s background as a prosecutor and as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared her to be the one asking difficult questions in high-stakes exchanges; she has had less experience on the other side of the microphone. It has opened her up to mockery from her opponents and detractors — if she does not do an interview, she is hiding something; if she does, she is a lightweight. It has also led to grumbling in the news media, where it is an article of faith that somebody seeking the presidency should be willing and able to answer questions from nonpartisan journalists about her plans for that role. It is a fundamental imbalance of the campaign, not lost on Ms. Harris’s supporters, that while her every remark is scrutinized, her opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, seems to suffer few consequences for his public remarks, which are often undisciplined explorations of grudges, rumors and preoccupations, laden with innuendo and outright falsehood, often untethered from standard syntax and, at times, reality. To many, the disconnect smacks of sexism. While her responses are parsed for proof of slipperiness or incompetence, Mr. Trump’s can drift out of public consciousness, evidence only of his persistence in being Donald J. Trump. Consider an answer Mr. Trump gave last month in an interview with Dr. Phil McGraw, in response to a question about what he thought about Ms. Harris: “She’s a Marxist. Well, I can see, by action, she’s a person that wanted to defund the police very strongly, bailed out a lot of people in Minnesota from jails who did some really bad things. I saw that very loud and clear then, when that took place, a lot of bad things. She’s done a lot of bad things. There will be no fracking. There’ll be no drilling. She doesn’t want to drill, which will mean our country is going to shrivel up and die. You can’t run the country without fossil fuel, at least not for quite a while because you don’t have the power. They don’t have the power. You have all sorts of nice contraptions, but they don’t have — wind is fine, but it kills the birds. It destroys the fields. Destroys the fields, what it does.” Reporters and fellow prosecutors who have known Ms. Harris over the years say that she has always been polite but cautious with the press, even in informal settings, a wariness that stems not from lack of preparation or curiosity but from a fear of saying the wrong thing. “She can be very engaging, very quick; she’s witty, a lot of eye contact,” said Dan Morain, a longtime political journalist in California who covered Ms. Harris starting with her run for state attorney general in 2010, and who wrote a biography of her in 2020. “She was well briefed. She knew the issues. She was very good at answering questions, and very good at not answering questions.” With few exceptions, Mr. Morain said, she did not “go out of her way” to speak with the press, and he did not expect that to change. “Why would she take the risk?” Ms. Harris is acutely aware of the consequences of a public misstep. Her clumsy 2021 interview with the NBC anchor Lester Holt, in which she responded to a question about the crisis on the southern border with a retort about going to Europe, deeply bruised her confidence. She avoided interviews for a year and, according to people who covered her, she became fearful of making mistakes that would upset the White House. These days, when Ms. Harris gives an interview, she hews to a set of well-rehearsed talking points, at times swimming in a sea of excess verbiage. Her first answer is often the most unsteady, a discursive journey to the point at hand. Like all politicians, she sometimes answers the question she would prefer to address, rather than the one actually asked of her — but not always artfully. She tends to muddy clear ideas with words or phrases that do not have a precise meaning. On Wednesday night, in response to a question about how the federal government could encourage the building of affordable housing despite stringent local regulations, she used the word “holistic” three times in the space of one long sentence: “For example, some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.” She relies on rhetorical touchstones: In many ways. Let’s be clear. And when she is asked about her economic agenda, in particular, she tends to begin with a familiar windup: I grew up in a middle-class family. “I think we can’t and we shouldn’t aspire to have an economy that just allows people to get by,” she said on Wednesday night. “People want to do more than just get by. They want to get ahead. And I come from the middle class.” She is best with a live audience, especially when she has a scrip t but also when she has a foil (like Mr. Trump at the debate), where she can work an applause line or a long silence, marshal a theatrical brow or hand gesture, or react to something unexpected.
Ms. Harris’s background as a local prosecutor, including as the district attorney of San Francisco, gave her a different kind of media training than almost any presidential candidate in recent history. Prosecutors are not expected, like a mayor or an elected political representative might be, to speak — let alone spar — regularly with the press, and they are constrained, by law, in what they can and cannot share with reporters. While prosecutors in some places, like New York City, tend to engage more openly with the press, that is not the norm. The power dynamics are different, too: Reporters are eager for details about a case and might be more inclined to be solicitous of prosecutors, who hold the secrets, and the cards.  “There’s a little bit of walking on a balancing line, telling the truth, but not telling things you shouldn’t be telling,” said Summer Stephan, the district attorney of San Diego County and the president of the National District Attorneys Association. As district attorney, Ms. Harris spoke with the press, including live television hits with a local news station — for example, she spoke in 2005 about a case involving a woman charged with killing her three young children by dropping them into San Francisco Bay. Ms. Harris’s role was to provide clear answers, within the limits of the law and ethical guidelines, about a complicated and tragic episode. She seemed quite at ease. Still, her own description of the early days of her career hints at another factor in her uneasy relationship with reporters. Last week, in a panel discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists, Ms. Harris pivoted from an answer about the Trump ticket’s disproved claims about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, to a reflection on the power of public speech, and a lesson she learned “a long time ago in my career, having a background as a prosecutor.” In those positions, she said, “when you have that kind of microphone in front of you, you really ought to understand at a very deep level how much your words have meaning. I learned at a very young stage of my career that the meaning of my words could impact whether somebody was free or in prison.” “When you are bestowed with a microphone that is that big, there is a profound responsibility that comes with that.”
看最后一句,NYT挽尊也是很用力了……
不过从另一个角度看,大家都不喜欢不信任媒体,结果不擅长被媒体采访又是罪过,也挺矛盾的。

 

🔥 最新回帖

y
yummy_agpr
120 楼
哈里斯就一empty vessel.从政这么多年,从没解决过什么问题,甚至没提出过什么可以解决问题的方案。你看到她在采访中的表现就是她真实的展示。
t
tonybcsd
119 楼
She is a fxxx PHONY, a MORON, we can not let her be the president, or America is going to hell!
g
gblinda
118 楼
麻辣鸡丝22 发表于 2024-09-27 06:53
正常啊,时商不是很好。但是很多深度思维的人(不知道她怎样),都是时商不好的。
不是那种张嘴就可以信手拈来的。
有的人,就是说一句话,必须自己内部的逻辑很清晰,想的很深入,才可能很自信。
但是有的人,就是可以很自信,随口长篇大论,但是其实是经不起推敲的。搞得听的人,当下都被虎的一愣一愣的。

确实有这样说话深思熟虑的智者,但绝对不是她😄 这么比起来美联储讲话靠谱多了,言辞谨慎还能答记者问,不像政客们车轱辘话来回说或者满嘴胡扯
117 楼
定慧寺 发表于 2024-09-27 15:12
这帖子是骂贺锦丽的,想骂川普另外去开一个。别把自己个儿给气坏了。🤔

看川粉是快乐的,怎么会气坏呢。
116 楼
定慧寺 发表于 2024-09-28 01:20
呵呵,就你这号上来就name calling 的2B, 俺实在是不稀得搭理 🤪

川粉还有脸说别人name calling?

 

🛋️ 沙发板凳

d
duoweisa
她能力不行,底下的人也不行,到现在采访几个标准经济问题都给不出好答案,动辄就是喷心灵鸡汤,现在经济这样,普通人喝不下。最近这个记者Stephanie Ruhle还是她铁粉
m
m_小鱼儿_m
那她擅长什么呢?
m
milctea
川普虽然颠三倒四毫无逻辑但至少说得都是平民语言,关闭大脑不介意鸡汤有毒的至少能喝得暖洋洋的挺开心;哈里斯的支持者就比较惨一点,鸡汤都喝不上一口热的,看辩论好不容易有些亮点,看采访觉得还是差点。
d
dalianyin
就是不够聪明 临场应变能力差 需要背后做工作
N
NumbersOnly
milctea 发表于 2024-09-27 03:20
川普虽然颠三倒四毫无逻辑但至少说得都是平民语言,关闭大脑不介意鸡汤有毒的至少能喝得暖洋洋的挺开心;哈里斯的支持者就比较惨一点,鸡汤都喝不上一口热的,看辩论好不容易有些亮点,看采访觉得还是差点。

听一两次川普集会讲话,基本全程脱稿,条理,节奏,气氛,力量,时事, 逻辑/常识 都把握得非常好。
哈里斯回答自己这边的主持人提问都已经答非所问,反复背诵辩论时记下的标准答案。她最适合象当年拜登一样躲地下室。一接受采访就露陷了。要碰上Sean Hanity, Jesse Walters, Tucker Carlson, 她会直接傻得很难看的。相反,川普上次一个人在CNN的town hall, 面对“敌意的”CNN主持人和现场观众,辩论中占尽上风。
当年川普在主流媒体中是个大红人,主持《学徒》时,谁说他颠三倒四毫无逻辑?看看黑人女大名嘴Oprah当年采访他的视频: https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1836927568080978002?t=uxST8S_3V3zzi509V3y3Cg&s=09

m
milctea
回复 6楼 NumbersOnly 的帖子
集会讲话和接受采访时不一样的,苹果橘子不能比。
川普语言能力是强的,但这轮可能年纪大了,讲到后来往往会忽然偏题然后不知所云,当然也和他一讲就很长时间有关系,感觉他是能从面对观众演讲表演里面汲取能量的,哈里斯则反之是在消耗能量,客观上对她是不利的。
木瓜瓜
因为不是竟选出来的,而是指定出来的… democrats 已把民主玩儿坏了。
w
westlake
到现在还觉得被忽悠更好,也不知道该说啥了,白人被忽悠说外来移民多不好会被赶走以为这就是考虑到自己也就罢了,作为移民,作为在他的忽悠中是要被赶走的那种移民,陶醉在他的忽悠中,这是为啥? 川普其实没啥经济政策。他的经济政策就是不分青红皂白降利率,只要大家都把钱投到股市里,他就喜欢。其它什么经济杠杆,货币政策,他不懂也不想知道。 前几天他接受采访问他如何解决通货膨胀,他说继续给进口商品加税,这个加税对美国老百姓是涨价到现在都不承认?然后说别管啥了就相信我,我做总统一天就能把价格降下来,傻子才信他的。
麻辣鸡丝22
milctea 发表于 2024-09-27 02:57
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/us/politics/kamala-harris-interviews-campaign.html
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.
The first question Vice President Kamala Harris faced on Wednesday night, in her first solo interview with a major cable network as the Democratic presidential nominee, was posed as a gentle hypothetical: What would she say to the many Americans who do not see how her economic policies would serve them? “Well,” Ms. Harris began, shaking her head, “if you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations — of what I believe you do — you’re in my plan.” She paused and smiled. “You know, I have to tell you,” she said, eyes lightly closed, hands raised, “I really love and am so energized by what I know to be the spirit and character of the American people.” In her dizzying ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, Ms. Harris has proved to be a disciplined and effective debater and a tireless campaigner, nimble and energetic in rallies. But one-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal. She often winds her way slowly toward an answer, leaning on jargon and rehearsed turns of phrase, using language that is sometimes derided as “word salad” but might be better described as a meringue. As a presidential candidate, Ms. Harris has largely eschewed such interviews, a calculation by her campaign that she can reach more of the voters who matter through town-hall events with celebrities, local television spots, curated videos and social media, without the risks of a prime-time spotlight. But the avoidance also appears to reflect something deeper, a nervousness that is palpable from the moment Ms. Harris takes her seat across from an interviewer, looking as if she were bracing for a hostile cross-examination — from the witness stand. Ms. Harris’s background as a prosecutor and as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared her to be the one asking difficult questions in high-stakes exchanges; she has had less experience on the other side of the microphone. It has opened her up to mockery from her opponents and detractors — if she does not do an interview, she is hiding something; if she does, she is a lightweight. It has also led to grumbling in the news media, where it is an article of faith that somebody seeking the presidency should be willing and able to answer questions from nonpartisan journalists about her plans for that role. It is a fundamental imbalance of the campaign, not lost on Ms. Harris’s supporters, that while her every remark is scrutinized, her opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, seems to suffer few consequences for his public remarks, which are often undisciplined explorations of grudges, rumors and preoccupations, laden with innuendo and outright falsehood, often untethered from standard syntax and, at times, reality. To many, the disconnect smacks of sexism. While her responses are parsed for proof of slipperiness or incompetence, Mr. Trump’s can drift out of public consciousness, evidence only of his persistence in being Donald J. Trump. Consider an answer Mr. Trump gave last month in an interview with Dr. Phil McGraw, in response to a question about what he thought about Ms. Harris: “She’s a Marxist. Well, I can see, by action, she’s a person that wanted to defund the police very strongly, bailed out a lot of people in Minnesota from jails who did some really bad things. I saw that very loud and clear then, when that took place, a lot of bad things. She’s done a lot of bad things. There will be no fracking. There’ll be no drilling. She doesn’t want to drill, which will mean our country is going to shrivel up and die. You can’t run the country without fossil fuel, at least not for quite a while because you don’t have the power. They don’t have the power. You have all sorts of nice contraptions, but they don’t have — wind is fine, but it kills the birds. It destroys the fields. Destroys the fields, what it does.” Reporters and fellow prosecutors who have known Ms. Harris over the years say that she has always been polite but cautious with the press, even in informal settings, a wariness that stems not from lack of preparation or curiosity but from a fear of saying the wrong thing. “She can be very engaging, very quick; she’s witty, a lot of eye contact,” said Dan Morain, a longtime political journalist in California who covered Ms. Harris starting with her run for state attorney general in 2010, and who wrote a biography of her in 2020. “She was well briefed. She knew the issues. She was very good at answering questions, and very good at not answering questions.” With few exceptions, Mr. Morain said, she did not “go out of her way” to speak with the press, and he did not expect that to change. “Why would she take the risk?” Ms. Harris is acutely aware of the consequences of a public misstep. Her clumsy 2021 interview with the NBC anchor Lester Holt, in which she responded to a question about the crisis on the southern border with a retort about going to Europe, deeply bruised her confidence. She avoided interviews for a year and, according to people who covered her, she became fearful of making mistakes that would upset the White House. These days, when Ms. Harris gives an interview, she hews to a set of well-rehearsed talking points, at times swimming in a sea of excess verbiage. Her first answer is often the most unsteady, a discursive journey to the point at hand. Like all politicians, she sometimes answers the question she would prefer to address, rather than the one actually asked of her — but not always artfully. She tends to muddy clear ideas with words or phrases that do not have a precise meaning. On Wednesday night, in response to a question about how the federal government could encourage the building of affordable housing despite stringent local regulations, she used the word “holistic” three times in the space of one long sentence: “For example, some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.” She relies on rhetorical touchstones: In many ways. Let’s be clear. And when she is asked about her economic agenda, in particular, she tends to begin with a familiar windup: I grew up in a middle-class family. “I think we can’t and we shouldn’t aspire to have an economy that just allows people to get by,” she said on Wednesday night. “People want to do more than just get by. They want to get ahead. And I come from the middle class.” She is best with a live audience, especially when she has a scrip t but also when she has a foil (like Mr. Trump at the debate), where she can work an applause line or a long silence, marshal a theatrical brow or hand gesture, or react to something unexpected.
Ms. Harris’s background as a local prosecutor, including as the district attorney of San Francisco, gave her a different kind of media training than almost any presidential candidate in recent history. Prosecutors are not expected, like a mayor or an elected political representative might be, to speak — let alone spar — regularly with the press, and they are constrained, by law, in what they can and cannot share with reporters. While prosecutors in some places, like New York City, tend to engage more openly with the press, that is not the norm. The power dynamics are different, too: Reporters are eager for details about a case and might be more inclined to be solicitous of prosecutors, who hold the secrets, and the cards.  “There’s a little bit of walking on a balancing line, telling the truth, but not telling things you shouldn’t be telling,” said Summer Stephan, the district attorney of San Diego County and the president of the National District Attorneys Association. As district attorney, Ms. Harris spoke with the press, including live television hits with a local news station — for example, she spoke in 2005 about a case involving a woman charged with killing her three young children by dropping them into San Francisco Bay. Ms. Harris’s role was to provide clear answers, within the limits of the law and ethical guidelines, about a complicated and tragic episode. She seemed quite at ease. Still, her own description of the early days of her career hints at another factor in her uneasy relationship with reporters. Last week, in a panel discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists, Ms. Harris pivoted from an answer about the Trump ticket’s disproved claims about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, to a reflection on the power of public speech, and a lesson she learned “a long time ago in my career, having a background as a prosecutor.” In those positions, she said, “when you have that kind of microphone in front of you, you really ought to understand at a very deep level how much your words have meaning. I learned at a very young stage of my career that the meaning of my words could impact whether somebody was free or in prison.” “When you are bestowed with a microphone that is that big, there is a profound responsibility that comes with that.”
看最后一句,NYT挽尊也是很用力了……
不过从另一个角度看,大家都不喜欢不信任媒体,结果不擅长被媒体采访又是罪过,也挺矛盾的。

正常啊,时商不是很好。但是很多深度思维的人(不知道她怎样),都是时商不好的。
不是那种张嘴就可以信手拈来的。
有的人,就是说一句话,必须自己内部的逻辑很清晰,想的很深入,才可能很自信。
但是有的人,就是可以很自信,随口长篇大论,但是其实是经不起推敲的。搞得听的人,当下都被虎的一愣一愣的。
k
kitty2
脑子里没东西呗,一路睡上去的。
r
rbtop
有什么好奇怪的,领导发言手里都要有稿子的,没稿子怎么读。新闻联播中常有的
f
fino819
duoweisa 发表于 2024-09-27 03:04
她能力不行,底下的人也不行,到现在采访几个标准经济问题都给不出好答案,动辄就是喷心灵鸡汤,现在经济这样,普通人喝不下。最近这个记者Stephanie Ruhle还是她铁粉

经济现在好得一逼,还要怎样?难道川粉一个个都是生活在地下室拿救济金的?那倒是没涨钱
T
TEMUPDD
NumbersOnly 发表于 2024-09-27 04:02
听一两次川普集会讲话,基本全程脱稿,条理,节奏,气氛,力量,时事, 逻辑/常识 都把握得非常好。
哈里斯回答自己这边的主持人提问都已经答非所问,反复背诵辩论时记下的标准答案。她最适合象当年拜登一样躲地下室。一接受采访就露陷了。要碰上Sean Hanity, Jesse Walters, Tucker Carlson, 她会直接傻得很难看的。相反,川普上次一个人在CNN的town hall, 面对“敌意的”CNN主持人和现场观众,辩论中占尽上风。
当年川普在主流媒体中是个大红人,主持《学徒》时,谁说他颠三倒四毫无逻辑?看看黑人女大名嘴Oprah当年采访他的视频: https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1836927568080978002?t=uxST8S_3V3zzi509V3y3Cg&s=09


川粉们视川大嘴为神明
可惜嘴巴讲的再好,也掩盖不了干的都是烂事的事实。
g
gmgamer
NumbersOnly 发表于 2024-09-27 04:02
听一两次川普集会讲话,基本全程脱稿,条理,节奏,气氛,力量,时事, 逻辑/常识 都把握得非常好。
哈里斯回答自己这边的主持人提问都已经答非所问,反复背诵辩论时记下的标准答案。她最适合象当年拜登一样躲地下室。一接受采访就露陷了。要碰上Sean Hanity, Jesse Walters, Tucker Carlson, 她会直接傻得很难看的。相反,川普上次一个人在CNN的town hall, 面对“敌意的”CNN主持人和现场观众,辩论中占尽上风。
当年川普在主流媒体中是个大红人,主持《学徒》时,谁说他颠三倒四毫无逻辑?看看黑人女大名嘴Oprah当年采访他的视频: https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1836927568080978002?t=uxST8S_3V3zzi509V3y3Cg&s=09


她最擅长的反复几个词的排比句,因为她脑容量不够。
b
brookeyang
NYT别洗了。哈利斯真正的想法和她被训练时对大众讲的南辕北辙,智商又有限,就是个phony。 比如明明她不关心中产阶级,采防时非讲day one 首先要build 强大的中产。明明core value 想open border, 采访时又必须讲secure border, 多难啊。
c
ca563
milctea 发表于 2024-09-27 03:20
川普虽然颠三倒四毫无逻辑但至少说得都是平民语言,关闭大脑不介意鸡汤有毒的至少能喝得暖洋洋的挺开心;哈里斯的支持者就比较惨一点,鸡汤都喝不上一口热的,看辩论好不容易有些亮点,看采访觉得还是差点。

presentation和debate这些都是可以做好答案背下来,interview还是更要求临场发挥。
M
Moscow79
回复 7楼 milctea 的帖子
Rally都是有提词器的,能一样吗?而且就算有提词器,川普还是经常突然脑子一抽抽各种胡言乱语,哈里斯要是来这么一次,马上就是各大新闻头条
b
brookeyang
还有那个Walz, 就没见过什么电视采访,为了下周副总统debate, 早早就进了debate camp进行mock 训练。这个主党选的都啥candidates. 两个极端分子,要通过训练变成温和派,所以害怕interview, 怕露馅。
t
teapot
工作中脑袋空空,做事三心二意的人,被点名上来demo的时候就是这个样子。 就以日常工作中遇到的人做参考,有的人不做事但是口才好机变力强,没做事也能讲。她真是日常工作中遇到的最差那一种,工作态度差,智商也堪忧。可见民主党这个选拔过程有多么糟糕。而且一堆人精看着她在台上表演,大家心里没数吗?都是利益使然。
d
duoweisa
回复 20楼 teapot 的帖子
咖喱姐演讲对着稿子也是一堆沙拉,不知道是天生的还是写稿的水平差
s
singlemummy
m_小鱼儿_m 发表于 2024-09-27 03:12
那她擅长什么呢?

擅长哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
川粉现在培训的就打这个点? 可惜你家川总现在就是个老年痴呆,因为大放厥词胡说八道是他的常态,所以川粉当然看了当没看到。
a
asvs
进来错了,原来这贴是黄川粉贴。
d
dukenyc125
80岁老川普这前后错乱,神志不清的发言也有人捧LOL
m
meonline
麻辣鸡丝22 发表于 2024-09-27 06:53
正常啊,时商不是很好。但是很多深度思维的人(不知道她怎样),都是时商不好的。
不是那种张嘴就可以信手拈来的。
有的人,就是说一句话,必须自己内部的逻辑很清晰,想的很深入,才可能很自信。
但是有的人,就是可以很自信,随口长篇大论,但是其实是经不起推敲的。搞得听的人,当下都被虎的一愣一愣的。

我觉得主要是她怕错。老川是蜜汁自信,我就是最好的,我说啥都是对的,要把观众忽悠了至少先得把自己忽悠了。
m
meonline
工作中脑袋空空,做事三心二意的人,被点名上来demo的时候就是这个样子。 就以日常工作中遇到的人做参考,有的人不做事但是口才好机变力强,没做事也能讲。她真是日常工作中遇到的最差那一种,工作态度差,智商也堪忧。可见民主党这个选拔过程有多么糟糕。而且一堆人精看着她在台上表演,大家心里没数吗?都是利益使然。
teapot 发表于 2024-09-27 08:24

并不是。经常公司里真正做事的人没准备好就不会demo不会presentation q&a回答得不好。倒是有的人有能力看别人的成果两眼就能说得溜溜的跟自己做的一样。 我没说她水平怎么样。光是觉得另外一种情况更常见
M
MajiaZ
我觉得是她自己不信的原因。很多夸夸其谈的,虽然没货,但是真的是发自内心地自信,尽管实际上有多差。她感觉做不到自己相信自己。😄 这点,在她同胞里算很差。
揽月听风
三姐里面她真的属于口才垫底的,满口跑火车倒是顶级,人家三哥视频都说了,她要是总统了简直是印度人最大骗局,无人与之匹敌
T
TEMUPDD
MajiaZ 发表于 2024-09-27 11:02
我觉得是她自己不信的原因。很多夸夸其谈的,虽然没货,但是真的是发自内心地自信,尽管实际上有多差。她感觉做不到自己相信自己。😄 这点,在她同胞里算很差。

她需要一个正经八百的传销培训
差的就是那种睁眼说胡话,黑的说成白的白的说成黑的的自信和底气
p
purplebasil
duoweisa 发表于 2024-09-27 03:04
她能力不行,底下的人也不行,到现在采访几个标准经济问题都给不出好答案,动辄就是喷心灵鸡汤,现在经济这样,普通人喝不下。最近这个记者Stephanie Ruhle还是她铁粉

其实就是肚子里没货, 啥经济计划都没有, 所以说不出来 但是对很多人来说, she is not Trump就够了, 她就算是一条狗也要选她
J
Jaelynleaf
她是内定的啊。这个世道,聪明人没有谁愿意出来趟这个滩浑水,都闷头发财呢。 只有她是身不由己,还有一个是“要来这个世界走一趟,荣华富贵都有了,就差个名垂青史”的老头。 你说,你怎么办,你以为人家贺经理愿意啊,我看一百个不愿意。
J
Jaelynleaf
singlemummy 发表于 2024-09-27 08:32
擅长哈哈哈哈哈哈哈

她还是讲了句真话,在美国男人世界里混“ 碧池和力量要一起并用“,这样女的才能网上升啊。 可以好多人就着眼点在人家的那句碧池,没有看明白周围这个世界到底怎么个回事。 我呢,就凭这一点,有点喜欢上她了,虽然,她确实对经济不在行,但是很坦诚很现实啊。
p
percipient64
她要是釆访和Rally 上不停地说我最能干我最漂亮我啥都会我啥都有一个concept of a plan, 我是你们的Protector,也许黄川们会高看她一眼?
g
gokgs
duoweisa 发表于 2024-09-27 03:04
她能力不行,底下的人也不行,到现在采访几个标准经济问题都给不出好答案,动辄就是喷心灵鸡汤,现在经济这样,普通人喝不下。最近这个记者Stephanie Ruhle还是她铁粉

不一定。 参见 包子。
g
gokgs
NumbersOnly 发表于 2024-09-27 04:02
听一两次川普集会讲话,基本全程脱稿,条理,节奏,气氛,力量,时事, 逻辑/常识 都把握得非常好。
哈里斯回答自己这边的主持人提问都已经答非所问,反复背诵辩论时记下的标准答案。她最适合象当年拜登一样躲地下室。一接受采访就露陷了。要碰上Sean Hanity, Jesse Walters, Tucker Carlson, 她会直接傻得很难看的。相反,川普上次一个人在CNN的town hall, 面对“敌意的”CNN主持人和现场观众,辩论中占尽上风。
当年川普在主流媒体中是个大红人,主持《学徒》时,谁说他颠三倒四毫无逻辑?看看黑人女大名嘴Oprah当年采访他的视频: https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1836927568080978002?t=uxST8S_3V3zzi509V3y3Cg&s=09


trump 有一定的想法, 可惜眼高手低, 执行力太差, 基本搞什么把什么搞砸。
B
BKS
哈哈姐总共去了三个友好媒体的interview, 即使是softball question, 她都只能在那儿 word salad, nonsense 反复那几句而不回答问题, 事后 TikTok 等social media 一堆嘲笑她的段子。。。 她真是出来也不好,不出来也不好, 两难。话说今年如果民主党好好选出一个侯选人,赢川普是分分钟的事,毕竟很多川普hater, 只可惜内部指了一个没有competency 的 empty suit
m
moonlight20
不知道这样的口才是怎么走到今天的
g
gokgs
Jaelynleaf 发表于 2024-09-27 11:50
她是内定的啊。这个世道,聪明人没有谁愿意出来趟这个滩浑水,都闷头发财呢。 只有她是身不由己,还有一个是“要来这个世界走一趟,荣华富贵都有了,就差个名垂青史”的老头。 你说,你怎么办,你以为人家贺经理愿意啊,我看一百个不愿意。

用内定也不恰当, 运气太好, 机会来了而已。
有人挑战 Biden, 都没成功, 等到 Biden 撤退了, 没人有时间金钱来挑战了, 于是只能是她了。
你说狗屎运也好, 事实就是事实。
t
teapot
meonline 发表于 2024-09-27 10:59
并不是。经常公司里真正做事的人没准备好就不会demo不会presentation q&a回答得不好。倒是有的人有能力看别人的成果两眼就能说得溜溜的跟自己做的一样。 我没说她水平怎么样。光是觉得另外一种情况更常见

她是leader,你见过公司哪个leader对自己的东西心里没数,讲不出个一二三?不要说高层,连小team lead突然被点名都不至于磁带卡壳。哪怕口才不好的老中说别的不行,说到自己天天干的活也能掰扯一下。 她是不能做不能说,公司考核都要垫底。
h
hr717
她有个狗屁strength。几天学一个新的句子或者词汇,然后翻来覆去拌word salad。本质就是个power hungry但是及其懒惰贪婪的女人。she wants the job, but doesn’t want to do the job. 公司里这样的人见的还少吗。到处拉关系搞小团体,正经事根本没有clue。基本上走下坡路的公司都是这类货色。
心澄
口才再不好的人,只要肚子有货,或是讲到自己熟悉的东西,还是可以做到滔滔不绝的,最多条理差点
B
BKS
moonlight20 发表于 2024-09-27 12:00
不知道这样的口才是怎么走到今天的

哈哈姐是DEI hire,当时拜登要一个有色的女性,哈哈姐符合了。这次民主党也吃到了DEI的苦果,和波音一样的问题。
s
shoppingspree
m_小鱼儿_m 发表于 2024-09-27 03:12
那她擅长什么呢?

卖笑装傻呗……今年真是没得选
H
HermesMsg
回复 5楼 dalianyin 的帖子
不是这样的 和观众智商正相关 民主党票仓教育程度普遍高 说话的逻辑性一致性正确性乃至传达方式 都是评判因素 川普的受众呢 只要语速够快 嘴里喷啥都无所谓
H
HermesMsg
经济现在好得一逼,还要怎样?难道川粉一个个都是生活在地下室拿救济金的?那倒是没涨钱
fino819 发表于 2024-09-27 07:52

川粉都是各种losers 对社会不满 底层逻辑就是想fck up America because they''ve got nothing to loose
c
cucumber88
回复 5楼 dalianyin 的帖子
四个字,就是肚里无货
r
royalflush2004
milctea 发表于 2024-09-27 02:57
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/us/politics/kamala-harris-interviews-campaign.html
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.
The first question Vice President Kamala Harris faced on Wednesday night, in her first solo interview with a major cable network as the Democratic presidential nominee, was posed as a gentle hypothetical: What would she say to the many Americans who do not see how her economic policies would serve them? “Well,” Ms. Harris began, shaking her head, “if you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations — of what I believe you do — you’re in my plan.” She paused and smiled. “You know, I have to tell you,” she said, eyes lightly closed, hands raised, “I really love and am so energized by what I know to be the spirit and character of the American people.” In her dizzying ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, Ms. Harris has proved to be a disciplined and effective debater and a tireless campaigner, nimble and energetic in rallies. But one-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal. She often winds her way slowly toward an answer, leaning on jargon and rehearsed turns of phrase, using language that is sometimes derided as “word salad” but might be better described as a meringue. As a presidential candidate, Ms. Harris has largely eschewed such interviews, a calculation by her campaign that she can reach more of the voters who matter through town-hall events with celebrities, local television spots, curated videos and social media, without the risks of a prime-time spotlight. But the avoidance also appears to reflect something deeper, a nervousness that is palpable from the moment Ms. Harris takes her seat across from an interviewer, looking as if she were bracing for a hostile cross-examination — from the witness stand. Ms. Harris’s background as a prosecutor and as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared her to be the one asking difficult questions in high-stakes exchanges; she has had less experience on the other side of the microphone. It has opened her up to mockery from her opponents and detractors — if she does not do an interview, she is hiding something; if she does, she is a lightweight. It has also led to grumbling in the news media, where it is an article of faith that somebody seeking the presidency should be willing and able to answer questions from nonpartisan journalists about her plans for that role. It is a fundamental imbalance of the campaign, not lost on Ms. Harris’s supporters, that while her every remark is scrutinized, her opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, seems to suffer few consequences for his public remarks, which are often undisciplined explorations of grudges, rumors and preoccupations, laden with innuendo and outright falsehood, often untethered from standard syntax and, at times, reality. To many, the disconnect smacks of sexism. While her responses are parsed for proof of slipperiness or incompetence, Mr. Trump’s can drift out of public consciousness, evidence only of his persistence in being Donald J. Trump. Consider an answer Mr. Trump gave last month in an interview with Dr. Phil McGraw, in response to a question about what he thought about Ms. Harris: “She’s a Marxist. Well, I can see, by action, she’s a person that wanted to defund the police very strongly, bailed out a lot of people in Minnesota from jails who did some really bad things. I saw that very loud and clear then, when that took place, a lot of bad things. She’s done a lot of bad things. There will be no fracking. There’ll be no drilling. She doesn’t want to drill, which will mean our country is going to shrivel up and die. You can’t run the country without fossil fuel, at least not for quite a while because you don’t have the power. They don’t have the power. You have all sorts of nice contraptions, but they don’t have — wind is fine, but it kills the birds. It destroys the fields. Destroys the fields, what it does.” Reporters and fellow prosecutors who have known Ms. Harris over the years say that she has always been polite but cautious with the press, even in informal settings, a wariness that stems not from lack of preparation or curiosity but from a fear of saying the wrong thing. “She can be very engaging, very quick; she’s witty, a lot of eye contact,” said Dan Morain, a longtime political journalist in California who covered Ms. Harris starting with her run for state attorney general in 2010, and who wrote a biography of her in 2020. “She was well briefed. She knew the issues. She was very good at answering questions, and very good at not answering questions.” With few exceptions, Mr. Morain said, she did not “go out of her way” to speak with the press, and he did not expect that to change. “Why would she take the risk?” Ms. Harris is acutely aware of the consequences of a public misstep. Her clumsy 2021 interview with the NBC anchor Lester Holt, in which she responded to a question about the crisis on the southern border with a retort about going to Europe, deeply bruised her confidence. She avoided interviews for a year and, according to people who covered her, she became fearful of making mistakes that would upset the White House. These days, when Ms. Harris gives an interview, she hews to a set of well-rehearsed talking points, at times swimming in a sea of excess verbiage. Her first answer is often the most unsteady, a discursive journey to the point at hand. Like all politicians, she sometimes answers the question she would prefer to address, rather than the one actually asked of her — but not always artfully. She tends to muddy clear ideas with words or phrases that do not have a precise meaning. On Wednesday night, in response to a question about how the federal government could encourage the building of affordable housing despite stringent local regulations, she used the word “holistic” three times in the space of one long sentence: “For example, some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.” She relies on rhetorical touchstones: In many ways. Let’s be clear. And when she is asked about her economic agenda, in particular, she tends to begin with a familiar windup: I grew up in a middle-class family. “I think we can’t and we shouldn’t aspire to have an economy that just allows people to get by,” she said on Wednesday night. “People want to do more than just get by. They want to get ahead. And I come from the middle class.” She is best with a live audience, especially when she has a scrip t but also when she has a foil (like Mr. Trump at the debate), where she can work an applause line or a long silence, marshal a theatrical brow or hand gesture, or react to something unexpected.
Ms. Harris’s background as a local prosecutor, including as the district attorney of San Francisco, gave her a different kind of media training than almost any presidential candidate in recent history. Prosecutors are not expected, like a mayor or an elected political representative might be, to speak — let alone spar — regularly with the press, and they are constrained, by law, in what they can and cannot share with reporters. While prosecutors in some places, like New York City, tend to engage more openly with the press, that is not the norm. The power dynamics are different, too: Reporters are eager for details about a case and might be more inclined to be solicitous of prosecutors, who hold the secrets, and the cards.  “There’s a little bit of walking on a balancing line, telling the truth, but not telling things you shouldn’t be telling,” said Summer Stephan, the district attorney of San Diego County and the president of the National District Attorneys Association. As district attorney, Ms. Harris spoke with the press, including live television hits with a local news station — for example, she spoke in 2005 about a case involving a woman charged with killing her three young children by dropping them into San Francisco Bay. Ms. Harris’s role was to provide clear answers, within the limits of the law and ethical guidelines, about a complicated and tragic episode. She seemed quite at ease. Still, her own description of the early days of her career hints at another factor in her uneasy relationship with reporters. Last week, in a panel discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists, Ms. Harris pivoted from an answer about the Trump ticket’s disproved claims about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, to a reflection on the power of public speech, and a lesson she learned “a long time ago in my career, having a background as a prosecutor.” In those positions, she said, “when you have that kind of microphone in front of you, you really ought to understand at a very deep level how much your words have meaning. I learned at a very young stage of my career that the meaning of my words could impact whether somebody was free or in prison.” “When you are bestowed with a microphone that is that big, there is a profound responsibility that comes with that.”
看最后一句,NYT挽尊也是很用力了……
不过从另一个角度看,大家都不喜欢不信任媒体,结果不擅长被媒体采访又是罪过,也挺矛盾的。

她智商还是差一点。 估计比较容易被大佬们控制。
d
duoweisa
gokgs 发表于 2024-09-27 11:58
trump 有一定的想法, 可惜眼高手低, 执行力太差, 基本搞什么把什么搞砸。

他任内物价还好,没有通胀, 经济不错,上下都受益. 否则他还能扑腾到现在
B
Bridgette
进来错了,原来这贴是黄川粉贴。
asvs 发表于 2024-09-27 08:56

你们除了贴标签,能正经回答问题嘛?
哈哈姐最擅长的事就是拌词沙拉。她最近特别喜欢用holistically这个词.
系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vGg9dxqBDEY
d
duoweisa
gokgs 发表于 2024-09-27 12:02
用内定也不恰当, 运气太好, 机会来了而已。
有人挑战 Biden, 都没成功, 等到 Biden 撤退了, 没人有时间金钱来挑战了, 于是只能是她了。
你说狗屎运也好, 事实就是事实。

如果要因为年龄搞掉白等, 应该早点动手, 腾出时间来让想上位的人都参加初选, 有初选混战胜出底气就足多了. 就和共和党的咖喱妹挑战川普一样.
F
Frank01
NumbersOnly 发表于 2024-09-27 04:02
听一两次川普集会讲话,基本全程脱稿,条理,节奏,气氛,力量,时事, 逻辑/常识 都把握得非常好。
哈里斯回答自己这边的主持人提问都已经答非所问,反复背诵辩论时记下的标准答案。她最适合象当年拜登一样躲地下室。一接受采访就露陷了。要碰上Sean Hanity, Jesse Walters, Tucker Carlson, 她会直接傻得很难看的。相反,川普上次一个人在CNN的town hall, 面对“敌意的”CNN主持人和现场观众,辩论中占尽上风。
当年川普在主流媒体中是个大红人,主持《学徒》时,谁说他颠三倒四毫无逻辑?看看黑人女大名嘴Oprah当年采访他的视频: https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1836927568080978002?t=uxST8S_3V3zzi509V3y3Cg&s=09


川粉们撒谎造谣真是无敌,天天爬在中文网上,你听得懂川普的演讲吗?
扶苏
Jaelynleaf 发表于 2024-09-27 11:52
她还是讲了句真话,在美国男人世界里混“ 碧池和力量要一起并用“,这样女的才能网上升啊。 可以好多人就着眼点在人家的那句碧池,没有看明白周围这个世界到底怎么个回事。 我呢,就凭这一点,有点喜欢上她了,虽然,她确实对经济不在行,但是很坦诚很现实啊。

世界舞台上,女政客,女王者出现好几个了。撒契尔夫人,说话有理有据,用理性,实力赢得自己的地位。英国女王用她的韧性,坚定,勤奋,赢得英国民众的喜爱。宋美龄,一个中国女性,二战期间去美国国会演讲,也没有怯场。
优秀的女性非常多。只是Harris不在其中。
H
Horsemom
没有能力没有水平讲啥?还好,可以哈哈哈
M
MajiaZ
TEMUPDD 发表于 2024-09-27 11:07
她需要一个正经八百的传销培训
差的就是那种睁眼说胡话,黑的说成白的白的说成黑的的自信和底气

😄 我们华人更是需要。连把白的说成白的,都没有足够底气。真是做不到啊,眼睛都会出卖自己。
c
chopincminor
kitty2 发表于 2024-09-27 07:00
脑子里没东西呗,一路睡上去的。

前半句算了,后半句有证据吗?为什么女的一出头就必然有人包括很多女人说是睡上去的?也没见她男人当副总统总统啊
扶苏
chopincminor 发表于 2024-09-27 14:20
前半句算了,后半句有证据吗?为什么女的一出头就必然有人包括很多女人说是睡上去的?也没见她男人当副总统总统啊

这个是被证实的,她三了Willie Brown,旧金山曾经的市长。
J
Jack-lee
脑子里是浆糊,草包一个。根本就是德不配位。
小喵呜
Bridgette 发表于 2024-09-27 13:00
你们除了贴标签,能正经回答问题嘛?
哈哈姐最擅长的事就是拌词沙拉。昨儿学了个新词: holistically.
系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vGg9dxqBDEY

Holistically 是时髦词啊,我们单位大佬们言必称holistic solution。
k
kitty2
扶苏 发表于 2024-09-27 13:14
世界舞台上,女政客,女王者出现好几个了。撒契尔夫人,说话有理有据,用理性,实力赢得自己的地位。英国女王用她的韧性,坚定,勤奋,赢得英国民众的喜爱。宋美龄,一个中国女性,二战期间去美国国会演讲,也没有怯场。
优秀的女性非常多。只是Harris不在其中。

n年前的慈善晚宴,演讲嘉宾就是撒切尔夫人,见识过她的风采,确实铁娘子名不虚传。
i
ichbins
她擅長狂笑。
m
mayjunejuly
都不是好鸟。两害取其轻。
B
Bridgette
小喵呜 发表于 2024-09-27 14:29
Holistically 是时髦词啊,我们单位大佬们言必称holistic solution。

是的,在左派里面很流行,比如大学录取,不能AA了,就HA (holistically admit). 其实就是没有标准,没有政策,自己看着办,没法问责.
爱吃木瓜
她擅长用笑打哈哈,反正让大家伙都记住了
p
purplebasil
前半句算了,后半句有证据吗?为什么女的一出头就必然有人包括很多女人说是睡上去的?也没见她男人当副总统总统啊
chopincminor 发表于 2024-09-27 14:20

她是不是"一路" 睡上去的, 不好说 但是她的确是在成为三藩市长的情妇以后开始飞升上仙的, 这个连DEM和媒体都无法抵赖, 只能洗白说那时候市长已经跟老婆分居了
S
Silong006
fino819 发表于 2024-09-27 07:52
经济现在好得一逼,还要怎样?难道川粉一个个都是生活在地下室拿救济金的?那倒是没涨钱

我也是纳闷那些整天说经济不行的人究竟是些生活状况多糟糕的人。
S
Silong006
挺有意思的,人家能说会到的做了CEO,就说这些人就靠一张嘴上位,啥都不会。人家不牙尖嘴利的,又说怎么上位的。太矛盾了吧
定慧寺
Bridgette 发表于 2024-09-27 13:00
你们除了贴标签,能正经回答问题嘛?
哈哈姐最擅长的事就是拌词沙拉。昨儿学了个新词: holistically.
系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vGg9dxqBDEY

哈哈,我也是昨天特意查了一下这个词是啥意思。
定慧寺
这帖子是骂贺锦丽的,想骂川普另外去开一个。别把自己个儿给气坏了。🤔
定慧寺
白登对川普是傻子对阵疯子,贺锦丽对川普依然是傻子对阵疯子……
m
muckraker
麻辣鸡丝22 发表于 2024-09-27 06:53
正常啊,时商不是很好。但是很多深度思维的人(不知道她怎样),都是时商不好的。
不是那种张嘴就可以信手拈来的。
有的人,就是说一句话,必须自己内部的逻辑很清晰,想的很深入,才可能很自信。
但是有的人,就是可以很自信,随口长篇大论,但是其实是经不起推敲的。搞得听的人,当下都被虎的一愣一愣的。

终于看到一个解释了,我就是必须得想清楚了才能说。
h
happylife999
回复 2楼 duoweisa 的帖子
把钱都放在股市就喝下了
F
Frank01
ichbins 发表于 2024-09-27 14:35
她擅長狂笑。

你这样的川粉躲在地下室,笑不出来。
s
singlemummy
定慧寺 发表于 2024-09-27 15:12
这帖子是骂贺锦丽的,想骂川普另外去开一个。别把自己个儿给气坏了。🤔

不行, 抓住一切机会骂床铺。。。。。。。
w
wenli100
kitty2 发表于 2024-09-27 07:00
脑子里没东西呗,一路睡上去的。

她脑子里除了歪门就是邪道。看她总统辩论一上来紧张的样子,我都怕她会一口气上不来。其实她自己也知道根本不是那块料,但她别无选择了。
w
wenli100
gmgamer 发表于 2024-09-27 07:59
她最擅长的反复几个词的排比句,因为她脑容量不够。

TIKTOK上模仿她的人很多,反正就是几句话翻来覆去地捯饬是她的讲话风格。
p
purplelavender
脑子里没东西呗,一路睡上去的。
kitty2 发表于 2024-09-27 07:00

Harris从来没有真正竞选过,她靠傍上Willie Brown踏入政坛,当年DA选举时Willie Brown直接逼她的竞争对手退选;2020Dem初选的时候她票数最低;现在被直接推上总统竞选,可不就露馅了嘛
A
A20170216
不想说错话,有把握的才敢说,当然比不上无脑hallucination张口就来还蜜汁自信的人“口才好”
a
annaide
duoweisa 发表于 2024-09-27 03:04
她能力不行,底下的人也不行,到现在采访几个标准经济问题都给不出好答案,动辄就是喷心灵鸡汤,现在经济这样,普通人喝不下。最近这个记者Stephanie Ruhle还是她铁粉

她能力极差,连提供鸡汤的能力都很差,基本说不出有逻辑的话来,而且好像总是很恐惧的样子。她的鸡汤佐料就是I grow up in a middle class family, opportunity, inspiration, forward, unburdened, holistic,而且只有佐料没有鸡肉😓
E
Echo9927
主要还是太少接触民众了吧,所以她面对这些问题都不能侃侃而谈,有所顾忌。好像很少看她和民众一起。
B
BKS
哈哈姐还真是在这个大选季给我们提供了很多欢乐,social media 上天天一堆一堆哈哈姐inspired 笑料段子,堪称史上最欢乐的大选季!可惜他们不准哈哈姐笑。。。哈哈😂
定慧寺
“Spirit, dreams, inspiration, ambitions…..”, what else she can talk? “From a middle class family”? Again?
She is so pathetic! Moron!
s
star1991
啥问题都喜欢来句我出生于中产阶级家庭…..
d
duoweisa
回复 80楼 annaide 的帖子
没事,咖喱粉们什么都能吃下
w
witmail
milctea 发表于 2024-09-27 02:57
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/26/us/politics/kamala-harris-interviews-campaign.html
Harris Has a Lot of Strengths. Giving Interviews Isn’t One of Them.
The first question Vice President Kamala Harris faced on Wednesday night, in her first solo interview with a major cable network as the Democratic presidential nominee, was posed as a gentle hypothetical: What would she say to the many Americans who do not see how her economic policies would serve them? “Well,” Ms. Harris began, shaking her head, “if you are hardworking, if you have the dreams and the ambitions and the aspirations — of what I believe you do — you’re in my plan.” She paused and smiled. “You know, I have to tell you,” she said, eyes lightly closed, hands raised, “I really love and am so energized by what I know to be the spirit and character of the American people.” In her dizzying ascent to the top of the Democratic ticket, Ms. Harris has proved to be a disciplined and effective debater and a tireless campaigner, nimble and energetic in rallies. But one-on-one televised interviews with journalists have long been a weakness in her political arsenal. She often winds her way slowly toward an answer, leaning on jargon and rehearsed turns of phrase, using language that is sometimes derided as “word salad” but might be better described as a meringue. As a presidential candidate, Ms. Harris has largely eschewed such interviews, a calculation by her campaign that she can reach more of the voters who matter through town-hall events with celebrities, local television spots, curated videos and social media, without the risks of a prime-time spotlight. But the avoidance also appears to reflect something deeper, a nervousness that is palpable from the moment Ms. Harris takes her seat across from an interviewer, looking as if she were bracing for a hostile cross-examination — from the witness stand. Ms. Harris’s background as a prosecutor and as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee prepared her to be the one asking difficult questions in high-stakes exchanges; she has had less experience on the other side of the microphone. It has opened her up to mockery from her opponents and detractors — if she does not do an interview, she is hiding something; if she does, she is a lightweight. It has also led to grumbling in the news media, where it is an article of faith that somebody seeking the presidency should be willing and able to answer questions from nonpartisan journalists about her plans for that role. It is a fundamental imbalance of the campaign, not lost on Ms. Harris’s supporters, that while her every remark is scrutinized, her opponent, former President Donald J. Trump, seems to suffer few consequences for his public remarks, which are often undisciplined explorations of grudges, rumors and preoccupations, laden with innuendo and outright falsehood, often untethered from standard syntax and, at times, reality. To many, the disconnect smacks of sexism. While her responses are parsed for proof of slipperiness or incompetence, Mr. Trump’s can drift out of public consciousness, evidence only of his persistence in being Donald J. Trump. Consider an answer Mr. Trump gave last month in an interview with Dr. Phil McGraw, in response to a question about what he thought about Ms. Harris: “She’s a Marxist. Well, I can see, by action, she’s a person that wanted to defund the police very strongly, bailed out a lot of people in Minnesota from jails who did some really bad things. I saw that very loud and clear then, when that took place, a lot of bad things. She’s done a lot of bad things. There will be no fracking. There’ll be no drilling. She doesn’t want to drill, which will mean our country is going to shrivel up and die. You can’t run the country without fossil fuel, at least not for quite a while because you don’t have the power. They don’t have the power. You have all sorts of nice contraptions, but they don’t have — wind is fine, but it kills the birds. It destroys the fields. Destroys the fields, what it does.” Reporters and fellow prosecutors who have known Ms. Harris over the years say that she has always been polite but cautious with the press, even in informal settings, a wariness that stems not from lack of preparation or curiosity but from a fear of saying the wrong thing. “She can be very engaging, very quick; she’s witty, a lot of eye contact,” said Dan Morain, a longtime political journalist in California who covered Ms. Harris starting with her run for state attorney general in 2010, and who wrote a biography of her in 2020. “She was well briefed. She knew the issues. She was very good at answering questions, and very good at not answering questions.” With few exceptions, Mr. Morain said, she did not “go out of her way” to speak with the press, and he did not expect that to change. “Why would she take the risk?” Ms. Harris is acutely aware of the consequences of a public misstep. Her clumsy 2021 interview with the NBC anchor Lester Holt, in which she responded to a question about the crisis on the southern border with a retort about going to Europe, deeply bruised her confidence. She avoided interviews for a year and, according to people who covered her, she became fearful of making mistakes that would upset the White House. These days, when Ms. Harris gives an interview, she hews to a set of well-rehearsed talking points, at times swimming in a sea of excess verbiage. Her first answer is often the most unsteady, a discursive journey to the point at hand. Like all politicians, she sometimes answers the question she would prefer to address, rather than the one actually asked of her — but not always artfully. She tends to muddy clear ideas with words or phrases that do not have a precise meaning. On Wednesday night, in response to a question about how the federal government could encourage the building of affordable housing despite stringent local regulations, she used the word “holistic” three times in the space of one long sentence: “For example, some of the work is going to be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state and local governments around transit dollars, and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing, and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in a holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.” She relies on rhetorical touchstones: In many ways. Let’s be clear. And when she is asked about her economic agenda, in particular, she tends to begin with a familiar windup: I grew up in a middle-class family. “I think we can’t and we shouldn’t aspire to have an economy that just allows people to get by,” she said on Wednesday night. “People want to do more than just get by. They want to get ahead. And I come from the middle class.” She is best with a live audience, especially when she has a scrip t but also when she has a foil (like Mr. Trump at the debate), where she can work an applause line or a long silence, marshal a theatrical brow or hand gesture, or react to something unexpected.
Ms. Harris’s background as a local prosecutor, including as the district attorney of San Francisco, gave her a different kind of media training than almost any presidential candidate in recent history. Prosecutors are not expected, like a mayor or an elected political representative might be, to speak — let alone spar — regularly with the press, and they are constrained, by law, in what they can and cannot share with reporters. While prosecutors in some places, like New York City, tend to engage more openly with the press, that is not the norm. The power dynamics are different, too: Reporters are eager for details about a case and might be more inclined to be solicitous of prosecutors, who hold the secrets, and the cards.  “There’s a little bit of walking on a balancing line, telling the truth, but not telling things you shouldn’t be telling,” said Summer Stephan, the district attorney of San Diego County and the president of the National District Attorneys Association. As district attorney, Ms. Harris spoke with the press, including live television hits with a local news station — for example, she spoke in 2005 about a case involving a woman charged with killing her three young children by dropping them into San Francisco Bay. Ms. Harris’s role was to provide clear answers, within the limits of the law and ethical guidelines, about a complicated and tragic episode. She seemed quite at ease. Still, her own description of the early days of her career hints at another factor in her uneasy relationship with reporters. Last week, in a panel discussion with the National Association of Black Journalists, Ms. Harris pivoted from an answer about the Trump ticket’s disproved claims about the Haitian community in Springfield, Ohio, to a reflection on the power of public speech, and a lesson she learned “a long time ago in my career, having a background as a prosecutor.” In those positions, she said, “when you have that kind of microphone in front of you, you really ought to understand at a very deep level how much your words have meaning. I learned at a very young stage of my career that the meaning of my words could impact whether somebody was free or in prison.” “When you are bestowed with a microphone that is that big, there is a profound responsibility that comes with that.”
看最后一句,NYT挽尊也是很用力了……
不过从另一个角度看,大家都不喜欢不信任媒体,结果不擅长被媒体采访又是罪过,也挺矛盾的。

她有时,会和提问者争辩, 还有是,有时 不会 pivot
T
TEMUPDD
duoweisa 发表于 2024-09-27 17:00
回复 80楼 annaide 的帖子
没事,咖喱粉们什么都能吃下

宁要草包,不要坏蛋
还有啥好说的?
j
juliazry9
到现在还觉得被忽悠更好,也不知道该说啥了,白人被忽悠说外来移民多不好会被赶走以为这就是考虑到自己也就罢了,作为移民,作为在他的忽悠中是要被赶走的那种移民,陶醉在他的忽悠中,这是为啥? 川普其实没啥经济政策。他的经济政策就是不分青红皂白降利率,只要大家都把钱投到股市里,他就喜欢。其它什么经济杠杆,货币政策,他不懂也不想知道。 前几天他接受采访问他如何解决通货膨胀,他说继续给进口商品加税,这个加税对美国老百姓是涨价到现在都不承认?然后说别管啥了就相信我,我做总统一天就能把价格降下来,傻子才信他的。
westlake 发表于 2024-09-27 06:13

问题是trump那四年通胀几乎没有吧。反正我是感受不到。油价又如此之低,trump也是反对AA 的,支持能力至上,这点算是帮中国人的。治安,至少我们这里是TRUMP 时期比现在好太多。我们这里这几年民主党政府超高价买了好几个小宾馆安置非法移民,然后增加我们的房产税。
没有对比没有伤害。拜登这四年通胀多恶化大家有目共睹。其实裁员很厉害。很多刚毕业的小孩找不到工作。这些都是事实啊。虽然大家的房子因为通胀也都涨价了。但是大部分人也就一套自住房而已。平稳才是最好的。
对我们普通人来说,共和党说的8个月后不让堕胎是正常的啊。但是经济就业,通胀,治安,就学就业不看肤色看能力,不要在学校理拼命宣传LGBT ,小孩变性不需要家长同意这些毒害孩子们才是我们最看重的。
有人总威胁华人说TRUMP 上台对华人不好。我不觉得。我也不担心什么集中营的事情。亚裔在美国有2500万不算少数人口真的弄集中营是绝对不可能的。但是要是经济崩溃。一党独裁的话才是最大的问题,到时候我们不得不再次移民。
我是希望公平竞争,在媒体不作妖不故意黑TRUMP 选票上不作弊大家公平选举,不要拼命让非法移民进来做票仓。要是这样大家都愿赌服输也没啥话好说。
蔷薇307
purplelavender 发表于 2024-09-27 16:12
Harris从来没有真正竞选过,她靠傍上Willie Brown踏入政坛,当年DA选举时Willie Brown直接逼她的竞争对手退选;2020Dem初选的时候她票数最低;现在被直接推上总统竞选,可不就露馅了嘛

靠独裁上位的投机分子如今成了民主党的旗帜,真是滑天下之大稽
可惜这个Willie Brown已经被昔日的小三当作瘟神一样避之不及
r
riple
说Thrump现场好的是认真的?和Harris的辩论,问什么问题他都扯移民吃宠物。
定慧寺
她的”strength”就是很会给有用的人做”companion”,这在旧金山湾区根本不是什么秘密。
b
briel
上次Oprah采访她之后连CNN和NBC的记者都忍不住吐槽说为什么人家给你softball了你还是blahblah半天就是不肯回答简单的问题,为什么一边要禁枪一边说自己家里有枪难不成是喊口号的,她水平真的不行。。。有时候感觉她看着机灵其实比拜登还痴呆,拜登要不是年纪太大怎么也轮不上她
定慧寺
riple 发表于 2024-09-27 17:15
说Thrump现场好的是认真的?和Harris的辩论,问什么问题他都扯移民吃宠物。

这红嘴白牙的真敢说! 川普回答了几个问题?扯了几次吃宠物?
b
briel
riple 发表于 2024-09-27 17:15
说Thrump现场好的是认真的?和Harris的辩论,问什么问题他都扯移民吃宠物。

Trump说移民吃宠物那块我都快笑疯了,他还反复说,总统辩论沦落成这水平太丢人了
小喵呜
老川水平也不咋地。看今天和司机一起出来的时候他的说话. 我觉得全是废话。 it has to end at some point, it had to end, He’s gone through hell, and his country had gone through hell like few countries have ever, like it’s happening everywhere, nobody’s even seen anything like this.
He said, President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong. He said loud and clear, and the impeachment hoax died right there. So we have a very good relationship. And I have a very good relationship as you know with President Putin. And I think if we win, I think we’re going to get it resolved very quickly.
j
juicycandy

系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/VEu2Tbjs6So?si=hU9LuA_LIATaOp_d
痘痘猪
m_小鱼儿_m 发表于 2024-09-27 03:12
那她擅长什么呢?

和老男人搞和发出哈哈哈的声音
j
juicycandy
juicycandy 发表于 2024-09-27 18:03

系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/VEu2Tbjs6So?si=hU9LuA_LIATaOp_d

好莱坞几个老明星水平也就那样了,有钱了就矫情了,根本不管老百姓死活。Meryl Streep 这么虚伪夸张做作,不知当初怎么拿的奥斯卡奖。
定慧寺
😁Holistically speaking, she is not any smarter than Joe.