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。
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。
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。
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
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。
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。
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
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。
她最擅长的反复几个词的排比句，因为她脑容量不够。
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。
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
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
擅长哈哈哈哈哈哈哈
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。
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
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
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.
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？
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。
😄 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。
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。