Kamala Harris's interview was not helpful, according to a NY Times columnist who described it as "vague" and "vacuous."

Vice President Kamala Harris' first sit-down interview as a 2024 candidate was criticized as "vague" and "vacuous" by New York Times columnist Bret Stephens in a scathing piece published Friday.

A conservative columnist who opposes former President Trump harshly criticized Vice President Harris' presidential campaign, stating that she lacked specific policy details, evaded direct answers, and used weak talking points, with CNN anchor Dana Bash appearing hesitant to press her on tough questions.

Stephens declared that there was too much fluff in the interview, which failed to quell doubts about Harris's readiness for the presidency.

While Harris and Bash received positive feedback from liberal outlets such as Poynter and the New York Times, conservatives criticized the vice president and CNN for lacking specifics on Harris' policy plans.

Stephen commenced his column by highlighting the positive aspects of Harris' interview, emphasizing that she appeared warm, relatable, and, in the words of Barack Obama's 2008 exchange with Hillary Clinton, "more than 'likable enough'."

He commended her for staying away from identity politics and focusing on being president for all Americans, regardless of race and gender, and for setting herself apart from Trump by uplifting people instead of tearing them down.

She was evasive and unclear, often giving vague responses when asked about her views on fracking and border security, stating only that her values remained unchanged.

He remarked that the interview did not clarify why she changed her previous policy positions, while also stating that the executive order implemented by the Biden administration to gain better control of the border could have been put in place earlier.

Daniel Dale, a CNN fact-checker, criticized Harris for stating during a 2020 interview that she would not ban fracking, despite her previous claims to the contrary.

According to Dale, the fact-check conclusion is that she did not explicitly state during a 2020 debate that she had changed her stance on a fracking ban, despite promising President Biden would not ban it.

Harris' policy proposal to prevent price gouging was criticized by Stephens, who accused her of using misleading talking points.

"Harris's reliance on a few talking points may not benefit her in the upcoming months. While she mentioned price gouging, it is unlikely that Americans will believe grocery chains with minimal profit margins are the true cause of their increasing food expenses."

He stated that the $100 billion plan to provide first-time home buyers with $25,000 in down payment support was primarily an incentive for rising home prices. Even Trump might be intelligent enough to explain how this gimmick could lead to inflation.

Stephen's assessment of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's presence during the interview as a "bigger weakness" for Harris was that he was evasive in answering Bash's questions about his military service, false claims about a D.U.I. arrest, and misleading statements about his family's fertility treatments.

"Tougher questions next time, please," he urged Bash.

Planet Chronicle Digital's request for comment from the Harris campaign was not immediately responded to.