denninger is never shy in speaking his mind, and this about the kamala is spot on;

That's the only accurate (well, ok, that doesn't even allude to the degree this was poor) one-word summary of Harris' interview last night.

There's bad, there's horrible (Finnish translation of "Kamala") and then there's radioactive-terrible at a level so bad you don't want to get within 100' of it lest it be communicable.

Yeah, that bad.

I'm sorry, when interviewing for a job (and let's face it, that's what this is) the answer to every question is not "my opponent is {whatever slur}."  Your opponent is not being interviewed -- you are -- and the question is directed at you, particularly when you have a nearly-four-year record on which you're forced to run.

I get it -- there are "tough" (but easy to ask) questions of anyone with a multi-year record in a job.  You might not like them being asked because (1) they're tough and (2) you'd have to use three words a politician never uses: "I was wrong."

And I only give Baier half a point for cutting off the attempted filibusters rather than answering the questions.  He did try but there is a point where an interviewer comes off as "badgering the witness" and worse, when the interviewer is a man and the interviewee a woman there is a risk of being called a misogynist on top of it if you get aggressive with trying to extract an answer.

Nonetheless, that's the job and IMHO this, in particular, is not an excuse and in fact is trivially turned into an argument against having women in the job at all because sex is not an excuse for refusal to answer question or perform up to snuff, right?  We're supposed to be better than that irrespective of your sex........more.......