Kamala Harris

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Anti-abortion groups warn Trump’s row back on position risks losing votes

      by

      Over the last two weeks, Donald Trump has publicly backed away from multiple anti-abortion positions – a move that Democrats see as hypocritical and that, anti-abortion activists warn, risks alienating voters who have long stood by him.On Thursday, Trump said that, if elected, he would make the government or insurance companies cover in vitro fertilization – a type of fertility assistancethat some in the anti-abortion movement want to see curtailed. Trump also seemed to indicate that he planned to vote in favor of a ballot measure to restore abortion access in Florida, which currently bans abortion past six weeks of pregnancy. “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks,” Trump told NBC News in an interview.Trump’s campaign quickly rushed to walk back his remarks on the ballot measure, telling NPR that Trump simply meant that six weeks is too early in pregnancy to ban abortion. “President Trump has not yet said how he will vote on the ballot initiative in Florida,” his press secretary said.Since the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, in a decision backed by three justices that Trump appointed, Trump has alternately bragged about toppling Roe and complained that outrage over its fall will cost Republicans elections. But Trump’s comments on Thursday mark his latest attempt to apparently clarify and soften his stance on the controversial procedure. Last week, Trump also suggested that he would not use a 19th-century anti-vice law to ban abortion nationwide, while his running mate, JD Vance, said Trump would not sign a national ban.“I don’t think it tells us necessarily what Trump is or isn’t going to do, because he’s still been leaving himself wiggle room on a lot of critical questions,” said Mary Ziegler, a professor at the University of California, Davis, School of Law who studies the legal history of reproduction. But, she continued: “What had been a strategy of ‘be ambiguous and then hopefully be everything to everyone’ has tilted more in the direction of Trump trying to assure voters that he doesn’t agree with the anti-abortion movement.”Trump’s new strategy comes as Kamala Harris, a far more effective champion of abortion rights than Joe Biden, has taken over as the Democratic nominee for president, and as polls show the two candidates are neck and neck. But this strategy may leave anti-abortion voters feeling less energized to vote for him, warned Kristan Hawkins, president of the prominent anti-abortion group Students for Life of America.“The pro-life movement didn’t always have a firm place in the Republican party. For many years, we were at the little kids’ table,” Hawkins said. “The young people that we work with, they don’t remember that. And so they’re absolutely shocked and saddened to see someone who they thought was pro-life, or who had always reaffirmed pro-life values, walking back on that.”Although the anti-abortion movement was a critical component of Trump’s success in the 2016 presidential election, Republicans have tried to back away from it in the years since Roe’s demise as abortion rights supporters have repeatedly won ballot measures even in red states. Sixty per cent of American adults believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 70% say access to IVF is a “good thing”.Tresa Undem, who has polled people on abortion for more than 20 years, does not think that Trump’s comments will necessarily win him the support of uncertain or independent voters who support abortion rights. Instead, he may be trying to reassure the segment of his base that also supports access to the procedure.“A third of his voters are pro-choice,” Undem said. “In a recent survey we did, 16% of 2020 Trump voters say abortion rights are a top five issue. So when you have an election that is probably going to be determined based on 1% of people, 16% of Trump voters saying their abortion rights is top in their mind – that’s a problem for him.”Democrats have cast Trump’s new strategy, particularly his comments on IVF, as a sham. In a Friday press call organized by the Harris campaign, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, repeatedly pointed out that Vance had voted against a Senate bill to create federal protections for IVF.“Trump that thinks women are stupid and that we can be gaslighted,” Warren said. “He seems to believe he can do one thing when he talks to his extremist base and then turn around and smile at the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to see access to abortion and IVF protected.”On Friday, the DNC is rolling out billboards in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state, that slam Trump over IVF, according to a strategy shared exclusively with the Guardian. “Trump overturned Roe, threatening the future of IVF,” one billboard reads. Another says: “Donald Trump’s Project 2025 Undermines Reproductive Care and Threatens IVF.”Project 2025, a playbook of conservative policies drawn up by the influential Heritage Foundation, contains a long list of anti-abortion proposals. Trump has tried to distance himself from it over the last several weeks.At least one prominent anti-abortion activist, Lila Rose, has publicly declared she currently does not plan to vote for Trump, given his recent turn away from anti-abortion positions. But Hawkins is still committed to getting people to vote for Trump – not because of Trump himself, but because she fears how a Harris presidency would strengthen abortion access.“I don’t like it. It’s not where I think we should be as a nation, but I think that we’ve had to do this at times within the pro-life movement,” she said. “Folks are asked: if you can’t vote for a candidate, vote against the worst one.”What Hawkins is less sure of is whether Trump’s comments will affect Students for Life’s get-out-the-vote program for the 2024 election. “I think it remains to be seen whether or not we’re also talking about Donald Trump at the doors,” she said. More

    • 88 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Harris’s interview: Democrats swoon while Republicans grimace

      by

      Democrats lauded it as the perfect pitch; Donald Trump dismissed it as “boring”, while fellow Republicans invoked derogatory terms like “gobbledygook”.Between the two extremes, Kamala Harris appeared to have achieved what she wanted from Thursday’s groundbreaking CNN interview, given along with her running mate, Tim Walz – her first since become the Democratic presidential nominee.Under fierce scrutiny after nearly six weeks of interview radio silence, the vice-president earned lavish praise from the Democratic base while denying Republicans a clear line of attack simply by avoiding major missteps of the type that undid Joe Biden’s candidacy in June’s climactic debate.The performance is also unlikely to shake up a race that has reversed itself since Harris entered it and replaced Biden, flipping a narrow but solid Trump lead into a contest in which she is now firmly ahead.A commentator with AZCentral.com – a news site in the key swing state of Arizona – called the performance “too sane to be great TV”, an implicit comparison with Trump’s frequently ostentatious media appearances.Commenting on her championing of Biden’s record in office, the New York Times noted that “it turns out, Ms Harris is a better salesperson for Mr Biden’s accomplishments and defender of his record than he ever was”.But the highest praise came from Harris’s party supporters.“This interview with Dana Bash is a moment to recognize that it is absolutely under-appreciated that Vice President Harris is running a perfect campaign,” Bill Burton, a former deputy press secretary in Barack Obama’s presidency, posted on X.“She took over a campaign that she did not hire. She added pieces to the team who have made it stronger. She ran a convention that was absolutely electric in its energy. And she stepped up to the biggest speech of her life and achieved at the highest level … She is a true inspiration.”Ed Krassenstein, a pro-Democrat X user with 1m followers, wrote: “Kamala Harris is killing it. She’s showing she is a unifying, non-divisive force … Her poll numbers will go up after this interview.”Another vocal Democratic supporter, Alex Cole, praised Harris for sidestepping a question from the interviewer, Dana Bash, on Trump’s recent comments denigrating her mixed racial identity, which the vice-president dismissed as “the same tired old playbook”.“Kamala isn’t playing by Trump’s or the media’s rules. They can’t lay a hand on her,” Cole wrote. “Trump craves the attention.”Harris’s low-key approach even won the grudging praise of the Republican pollster Frank Luntz when she vowed to enact a bipartisan immigration bill that Trump had pressured his GOP congressional allies into torpedoing.“Harris reminding voters that Trump sunk a bipartisan immigration solution makes him look pretty bad. Smart approach,” Luntz wrote.Predictably, the most forceful attacks came from Trump himself, who began went on the offensive even before the interview was broadcast.On Harris’s response to being pressed on her abandonment of previous leftwing policy positions, Trump wrote: “Her answer rambled incoherently, and declared her ‘values haven’t changed.’ On that I agree, her values haven’t changed.”A related post conjured up Trump’s frequent and bizarre depiction of Harris as a communist, reading simply: “Comrade Kamala: ‘My values have not changed.’”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUnder a Harris presidency, “America will become a WASTELAND,” Trump wrote, reverting to his habit of using block capitals.He even took issue with the interview’s setting, a Black-owned restaurant in the historic Georgian city of Savannah, suggesting it made Harris look unpresidential.“She was sitting behind that desk – this massive desk – and she didn’t look like a leader to me,” Trump said at a campaign event in Wisconsin. “I’ll be honest, I don’t see her negotiating with President Xi of China. I don’t see her with Kim Jong-un like we did with Kim Jong-un.”Jason Miller, a Trump spokesperson and former presidential assistant, asked why the interview lasted only 27 minutes, well short of the hour CNN had slotted for it in its schedule.“How many minutes of fluff filler did CNN have to run to make up for the ridiculously short interview?” he wrote, asking if the network was forced to “cut some of Kamala’s answers, and that’s why they couldn’t fill the hour?”The rightwing Fox News channel highlighted the mocking responses of conservative commentators to Harris’s comments on the climate crisis, when she extolled her work on the Green New Deal and said the administration was “holding ourselves to deadlines around time”.“Gobbledygook,” posted a conservative commentator, Steve Guest, on X. “The definition of a deadline is ‘the latest time or date by which something should be completed’.”But having promised a presidency that would seek “consensus” and vowed to appoint a Republican to her cabinet, Harris may have noted with quiet satisfaction Trump’s ultimate verdict on her interview: “Boring!”The judgment could have been a tacit admission that Harris’s performance had denied him a clear target as he prepares for a keynote debate with her in two weeks.“On issue after issue, Harris signaled moderation and a gauzy centrism that has been the hallmark of every winning Democratic presidential campaign for decades,” Politico said on its Playbook column. “The interview suggested to us how tough Donald Trump’s job is now – and especially at the Sept. 10 debate.” More

    • 288 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The future of the world may depend on what a few thousand Pennsylvania voters think about their grocery bills | Timothy Garton Ash

      by

      On 5 November, people around the globe will tune in to watch the world election. It’s not a “world” election in the sense of the World Cup – a football championship in which many nations actively participate – but it’s much more than a World Series, the curiously named baseball championship that involves only teams from North America. This year has been called the biggest election year in history. By the end of it, something approaching half the world’s adult population will have had the possibility to put a cross against a name on a ballot paper. But the US presidential election is the year’s big match.Why? Because this is a genuine democratic election that will result in a single person holding exceptionally concentrated executive power in what is still the world’s most powerful country. It’s a highly watchable soap opera, with a classic plot familiar to all. And one of this year’s two contenders, Donald Trump, is a danger to his own country and the world. If the “election” of the president of China, the world’s other superpower, were a genuine democratic choice, that event would perhaps be as consequential. But it isn’t, so it isn’t. Russia had a presidential “election” earlier this year, but at issue was only the size of Vladimir Putin’s declared majority.Equally, if the US were a parliamentary democracy, and especially if it had an electoral system of proportional representation, the stakes would not be so high. The resulting government would depend on the party-political composition of parliament and in many such countries you routinely end up with coalition governments. Even in Britain’s “elective dictatorship”, as the Conservative politician Lord Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) once characterised the British political system, the prime minister has significantly less power than a US president. President Emmanuel Macron of France is now behaving as if he thinks he is the US president, with an unrestricted right to form the nation’s government, but that’s not what his country’s constitution says.As the American political scientist Corey Brettschneider reminds us in his new book, The Presidents and the People, the danger inherent in this concentration of power was already highlighted by Patrick Henry, a hero of the American war of independence, when the US constitution was debated at the Virginia ratifying convention in 1788. What if a criminal were elected president, Henry asked. What if he could abuse his position as singular head of the executive branch and commander in chief of the military to realise his criminal ambitions? Well, here we are 236 years later, and a convicted felon and notorious fan of autocrats is neck-and-neck with the newly crowned Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris.If her opponent were Nikki Haley, the runner-up in the Republican primary contest, the drama would be nothing like as intense. This would be something like a normal election. But it’s Trump, so it isn’t.I arrived in the US the day before Joe Biden finally conceded that he would not stand again. Since then we have witnessed a tidal wave of hope flow into the candidacy of Harris and her folksy running mate, Tim Walz. This culminated in the Democratic national convention in Chicago, where the usual orgy of razzmatazz was accompanied by genuine joy and unabashed flag-waving patriotism.View image in fullscreenTo their own and everyone else’s surprise, the Democrats give every impression of being united. Harris raised about $500m for her campaign in just a month. She is not a great orator, like Bill Clinton and both Obamas, but she gave an excellent acceptance speech. She introduced herself to the American public as the child of an indomitable Indian immigrant mother. She elaborated on her campaign’s brilliantly chosen theme of freedom – therefore taking what has been for years a Republican leitmotif and reconnecting liberty with liberalism. She listed some of those freedoms from that are also freedoms to: women’s freedom to decide about their own bodies, the freedom to live safe from gun violence, the freedom to love whom you choose, the freedom to breathe clean air, the freedom to vote.Importantly for a female candidate with a left-liberal background, Harris successfully conveyed the image of a strong leader who would give the US “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” and enable it to out-do China in the competition for the 21st century and “stand strong with Ukraine and our Nato allies”. In substance, 90% of this could equally have been said by Biden, but the way she said it – not least in seeming credibly to care about the heartbreaking scale of Palestinian suffering – made it feel new and promising.As a result, enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate has soared – but only to the point where this election has become too close to call. Recalling his own electrifying slogan from the 2008 election, “Yes we can”, Barack Obama told the convention, “Yes she can!”Yes, she can; but that doesn’t mean she will. She may be marginally ahead in nationwide polling, but with the antiquated electoral system that the US uses for its presidential election, she could win the popular vote, as Hillary Clinton did in 2016, and still lose because of a few tens of thousands of swing voters in battleground states in the midwest and the sun belt.One leading pollster tells me that the top three issues for the electorate are the economy, crime and immigration, and on all three, Republicans typically have the edge. Trump himself looks all over the place, giving long rambling speeches, but he’s a formidable political counter-puncher.The social aquifers of white working-class anger are still very full, especially among men. (The gender gap is very marked in the Harris v Trump contest.) Moreover, if it’s a narrow victory for Harris, Trump will immediately declare the election “stolen”, and we will be set for a long bout of bitter litigation, as happened in 2000, but with the supreme court now seen by many as biased towards the Republican side.All of which is a long way of saying: nobody knows. And that, after all, is the hallmark of a genuine democratic election. But here’s the uniquely curious thing about this one. Millions of people all over the world, from Austria to Zimbabwe, not only follow it closely but also know many of the sometimes arcane psephological details that may decide the result in the electoral college. This is not just because Washington is the world’s political theatre, as much as Netflix is now the world’s movie theatre, but because the result will have important consequences for them. If you are Ukrainian or Palestinian, it may literally be a matter of life and death.Ultimately, what is most peculiar about this world election is the sheer incongruity of cause and potential effect. Whether women and children in Kharkiv or Rafah live or die may depend on what Mike the mechanic in Michigan and Penny the teacher in Pennsylvania think about their grocery bills.

      Timothy Garton Ash is a historian, political writer and Guardian columnist More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Was Kamala Harris’s big interview a success? Sort of | Moira Donegan

      by

      How much of an incentive does Kamala Harris really have to lay out a thorough policy agenda? With fewer than 70 days until the general election, the newly official Democratic presidential nominee has exited her party’s Chicago convention riding a a wave of tight but improving poll numbers and tremendous party goodwill.Her move to the top of the ticket has prompted waves of enthusiasm and barely concealed relief, as young voters and weary Democrats greeted the happy prospect of an election campaign that was, at last, not between Biden and Trump. The shift of candidates initiated a new shift in the campaign’s voice, with a more playful, irreverent and optimistic turn coming to characterize the Democrats’ public messaging. When the vibes are this good, few people ask about specifics.There are pitfalls, too, for a politician who is too precise about what they aim to do in office. After all, much of the Democrats’ 2024 campaigning has featured deep dives into Project 2025, the 900-plus-page policy prescription for a second Trump term that was compiled by conservative thinktanks under the auspices of the Heritage Foundation. Democrats, including Harris herself, have used the document as a near-depthless well of possible attacks, making each one of the plan’s copious number of proposals into an attack that they can make Republicans answer for. As Harris heads into the final weeks of the campaign, one can see a certain cynical logic to her imprecise policy positions: why would she bother painting a target on her own back?So maybe it’s not surprising that on Thursday night, in her first major interview since ascending to the presidential nomination, the vice-president did not seem interested in making any news. She was competent, personable and a forceful defender of the Biden administration; she was attentive to issues where her campaign believes her to be vulnerable, such as on immigration and energy policy; and she was deliberate in depicting herself as a hawkish advocate for stricter border controls.She did not talk much about her opponent, Donald Trump, brushing off a question from CNN’s Dana Bash about his recent slanderous claim that Harris had only recently “turned Black”. She did not endorse an arms embargo to Israel, whose genocidal war in Gaza has killed upwards of 40,000 Palestinians with the aid of American weapons. And with the exception of a few economic proposals – like for an expansion of the child tax credit, a $25,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers and a repeat of her promise to punish price gauging – she was light on specifics.The interview seemed to be less about presenting a policy vision for the American people than about presenting them with a character. The character that emerged in the form of Vice-President Harris was one who is confident, intelligent and at ease with her authority; one who was unfazed by Bash’s sometimes pointed questioning, in part because she has mastered the art of the dodge.Among the interview’s surprising omissions was abortion, the issue that has redefined the status, health and civil rights of half of Americans as a result of the presidency of her opponent. The word was only mentioned once over the course of the interview, when the vice-presidential nominee, Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, mentioned the issue as something that voters were more interested in than his own previous verbal gaffes. He’s probably right that voters care more about it, but both he and Harris declined to address the issue further.Harris, historically a forceful advocate for abortion rights who was largely tasked with campaigning on the issue while Biden was still in the race, seemed to demur from the historical nature of her candidacy more broadly. When Bash asked her about a viral photo from the Democratic national convention – which pictured Harris at the podium, being gazed up at by her great-niece, a pigtailed young girl – she avoided the question’s implicit inquiry into how she feels about the prospect of becoming the nation’s first female president. Harris said only that she was running because she believed herself to be the best person for the job, and that she aimed to be a president for Americans of all races and genders.It was a nice sentiment, and probably even true. But her words avoided the gender issue that has come to shape the campaign, and left aside an opportunity to rally voters in the 10 states that will have abortion rights measures on the ballot in November. If anyone in the Harris campaign feels that electing a woman president now, in this post-Dobbs era, could be a righteous rebuke to the backward and bigoted misogyny that has come to define the Trump-Vance ticket, then that is not an argument they are interested in having their candidate make.Harris will be criticized on the left for her refusal to endorse an arms embargo to Israel, whose war has become a generational moral catastrophe that threatens to destabilize the region. When asked about the conflict, Harris spoke of the atrocities of 7 October in lurid terms; of the unfathomable human cost that has been imposed on Palestinians, she said only that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed”. (An unfortunate phrase that implies that there is an acceptable number of innocents that Israel can murder.) Her unwillingness to speak with more empathy and commitment about this issue threatens to alienate young voters, a disorganized but growing left, and the large cohorts of Muslim and Arab voters she needs to win over in places like Minnesota and Michigan.That unwillingness also threatens to give more credence to other leftwing suspicions of Harris, such as the marginal but noticeable suspicion among activists over whether she will maintain Biden’s enthusiasm for antitrust enforcement.Maybe Harris is calculating that these voters have nowhere else to go; maybe she just doesn’t really share their values on these issues. But the central argument for her candidacy is about values: that she is a more moral, more principled, more trustworthy candidate than Donald Trump; that she will bring less bigotry, less selfishness, less recklessness and less tedious narcissism to the White House. It’s a low bar, but she still has to clear it. If Harris’s campaign is about values, but she is unwilling to more forcefully champion women’s rights and the value of Palestinian lives, she risks making some wonder just what those values are.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Ilona Maher, US rugby and social media star, endorses Kamala Harris

      by

      The Democratic nominee for US president, Kamala Harris, picked up an endorsement from a key social media influencer: the Olympic rugby star Ilona Maher.“I think it’s going to be cool because there is an opportunity to have female representation and to change this country in a way that I think will benefit us,” Maher told Sports Illustrated, in an interview accompanying a swimwear shoot which saw the 28-year-old center praised as “a feminist trailblazer”.“That’s a Kamala Harris endorsement,” Maher told the magazine, which said she cited abortion rights and access to contraception as key concerns as the presidential election looms.Harris, the current vice-president, has made protecting such rights a central part of her campaign against Donald Trump. As president, the Republican nominee appointed three hardline rightwingers to the US supreme court, which then removed the federal right to abortion and suggested contraception access could also be brought into question.“I have enough money that if I didn’t need an abortion, I could raise a baby myself,” Maher said. “If I wanted to get abortion, I could do that. So I have that privilege [but] it scares me about the other girls. I have options and I want to remember that my followers don’t all have that. And so it’s like, for me, but also mostly for them.”Maher took up rugby in high school in Vermont then won three national collegiate titles with Quinnipiac University in Connecticut. She built a significant social media following in the first phase of her international career, which began in sevens in 2018 and has also brought her two 15-a-side caps. The recent Paris Games saw her rocket to global fame.Maher is now the most-followed rugby player in the world, eclipsing giants such as Siya Kolisi, the South Africa captain and double World Cup winner, and the former New Zealand fly-half Dan Carter.Speaking to SI, Maher said men “get to play rugby and they get paid millions of dollars while we make minimum wage and this won’t be a career for us. I have teammates going into the workforce now, whereas these guys are down there and rugby’s it” for them.Nonetheless, Maher has achieved fame (and endorsement deals) with a message based on body positivity and irreverent humor but also the sort of dynamic and aggressive play that helped the US win bronze in Paris. This week, Maher told followers she wanted to win a place on the US squad for the 15-a-side World Cup, to be held in England next summer.Such has been Maher’s impact since Paris, her Sports Illustrated shoot followed an appearance on NBC’s Late Night with Seth Meyers in which she called rugby “a sport that just really encourages you to be physical and show what your body’s capable of”.“I know what it’s done for me,” Maher said, “and how it’s changed my body confidence by making me feel so good about myself, and I know it can do it for so many other girls.”Speaking to Sports Illustrated, Maher said she “was a big girl growing up so I didn’t love being in pictures” and “was always … called masculine or whatever. But I never felt that way. But I don’t think you’re going to bully the girl who could probably beat you up in a rage. I love that [rugby] showed me what I can do. It showed me how capable my body is and it’s not just like a tool to be looked at and objectified.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionShe also said: “If my cellulite was lower in that perfect range, I wouldn’t be doing what I could do. I wouldn’t be that powerful for it [so] I just really think sports have been so helpful.”MJ Day, editor in chief of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, called Maher a “revolutionary athlete and feminist trailblazer… a modern-day role model of strength, conviction and authenticity”.Maher expressed unease with being seen as a role model, saying: “I just try to really stress like I am human. But I think I do really care a lot. And I do want people to like me.”Harris, 59, has no known ties to rugby. But her current boss, Joe Biden, has often spoken of his love for the game, having played at college in New York and through following the Irish national team, two recent members of which, Rob and Dave Kearney, are the president’s distant cousins.The Harris campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Friday briefing: What we learned from Kamala Harris’ appearance on CNN

      by

      Good morning. It has been 40 days since Joe Biden pulled out of the presidential race and, until last night, Kamala Harris was yet to sit down for a major interview. Alongside her vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz, she finally did so on CNN – and directly addressed some of the more difficult issues facing her campaign for the first time.Their interview with Dana Bash was not exactly riveting TV – but it did shed some light on the state of the race, and the turf where Harris would like the rest of the campaign to be fought. Today’s newsletter runs you through what we learned – and why she probably won’t mind if voters thought it was a bit boring. Here are the headlines.Five big stories

      Health | Keir Starmer is on a collision course with the hospitality industry and political opponents after signalling plans for major curbs on outdoor smoking. The proposals, not denied by the prime minister, would potentially prohibit tobacco use outside pubs and restaurants, including on pavements.

      Israel-Gaza war | The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have said they carried out an airstrike on a humanitarian aid convoy in Gaza aimed at “armed assailants” trying to hijack it. But the charity that organised the aid said people killed in the strike were employees of the transport company it was working with.

      Environment | The UK government is considering making further commitments on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, likely to be announced at the UN climate summit this year. It is hoped the plan will help kickstart global ambitions on cutting emissions.

      Immigration and asylum | A Vietnamese man suffered a “life-limiting stroke” after being rescued from a tiny hidden compartment in a lorry with six other people being smuggled into the UK. The group was packed so tightly inside a space “the width of a human chest” that none could move their arms, a Home Office investigator has said.

      Health | People who “catch up” on missed sleep at the weekend may have up to a 20% lower risk of heart disease compared with those who do not, according to a study.
      In depth: Harris plays it safeView image in fullscreenIt’s been three weeks since Kamala Harris said she wanted to schedule a major interview before the end of August; last night, she met that pledge. As successful as her campaign has been at generating momentum since she became the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, her failure to engage in robust questioning so far has become, if not a major issue, at least A Thing.In one sense, then, the fact of the interview mattered more for Harris than its content – so long as she didn’t make any headline-grabbing howlers. While she had a few tricky moments on CNN, she cleared that bar: as David Smith sets out in this analysis, the interview was “radically normal … She turned a much-hyped first interview as nominee into a soon-to-be-forgotten pit stop along the campaign trail”. Here’s what else we learned.Policy – and changing her mindIn seeking to appeal to the progressive voters of the Democratic base during her unsuccessful run at the presidency in 2019, Harris committed to a number of positions that are a problem for her more centrist campaign today. That was a theme of the CNN interview. Three times, Harris said that her values have not changed – but she also suggested that four years of being vice-president, “travelling the country extensively”, and seeking to “build consensus” had shaped where she stands today.In 2019, she said that she would implement a federal ban on fracking – an important issue in the must-win state of Pennsylvania, one of the world’s biggest sources of natural gas. “As vice-president, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking,” she told CNN, adding: “What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.”On similar questions about immigration and her U-turn on decriminalising border crossings, she said she would “enforce our laws as president going forward”. Meanwhile, on the Israel-Gaza conflict, she trod the same line as in her speech at the Democratic national convention, saying she was “unwavering in my commitment to Israel’s defence” but noting that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed, and we have got to get a deal done”.She waffled a bit when asked what she would do on day one, pointing to general policy priorities rather than any specific action. But there were no glaring errors, and her implicit distancing from her more progressive positions from 2019 will have left few viewers convinced by Republican claims that she is a leftwing radical.Her view of Biden’s competenceThe other inevitable feature of this interview was a question about the president’s ability to do his job. “You insisted that President Biden is extraordinarily strong,” Dana Bash said. “Given where we are now, do you have any regrets about what you told the American people?”“No, not at all,” Harris replied. She said that “he has the intelligence, the commitment, and the judgment and disposition that I think the American people rightly deserve in their president”. Nor did she distance herself from his policies – which would be tricky, obviously – or even really set out a contrast with her own plans for the next four years.At the same time, she found a formulation that maintained her loyalty but cast herself as the candidate of the future, and the Biden-Trump wars as a relic of the past: it was time to “turn the page on the last decade of what I believe has been contrary to where the spirit of our country really lies,” she said.Then she deftly focused that point as a criticism of Trump’s impact on American discourse: “I’m talking about an era that started about a decade ago where there is some suggestion, warped I believe it to be, that the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down instead of … who you lift up.”Little interest in questions about race and genderOne of the most striking features of the interview was Harris’ steadfast refusal to engage in questions about her status as a history-making candidate – whether in terms of Trump’s bigoted claim that she “was Indian all the way and then all of sudden she became a Black woman”, or in dwelling on her campaign as a powerful symbol of American progress.Asked about Trump’s comments, she said: “Same old, tired playbook. Next question, please.” “That’s it?” Bash said. “That’s it,” Harris replied. And when Bash concluded the interview by asking what her gender and race mean in the campaign, she said vaguely that it was “humbling”, but noted: “I am running because I believe that I am the best person to do this job at this moment for all Americans, regardless of race and gender.”That feels emblematic of her campaign’s wider approach: let others talk about the unprecedented nature of her candidacy, and tell voters that all she’s interested in is improving their lives.A supporting role for Tim WalzFor most of the interview, Tim Walz was basically a mascot: understandably, Bash focused her questioning on the candidate for president, and he wisely did not interrupt Harris or elaborate on her answers.The questions that were directed at Walz were about claims of misleading statements in the past – and about the viral video of his son Gus proudly shouting “that’s my dad!” during his speech at the Democratic national convention.Walz didn’t really give a satisfying answer to the criticism he has faced for saying that he carried weapons in war even though he was never deployed in a war zone, saying merely that “my grammar is not always correct”.In talking about his family and that video of his son, Walz provided probably the most human moments of the interview. “I’m grateful for so many reasons to be on this ticket,” he said. “But that moment … was just such a visceral, emotional moment that I’m just grateful I got to experience it. And I’m so proud of him.”The Trump campaign’s reactionYou will be shocked to learn that Trump and Vance did not cover themselves in glory in their response: even before the interview aired in full, Trump said that Harris “rambled incoherently”. (He clearly hasn’t been watching his own rallies.) And Vance posted a blatantly sexist message on X, comparing Harris to a Miss Team America contestant who infamously garbled her answer to a question about Americans not knowing about geography.After the interview aired, the Trump campaign statement criticised Harris for not “addressing the crime crisis in this nation”. (Crime has in fact mostly fallen under Biden.) They also said she “spent a mere three minutes and 25 seconds talking about the economy and two minutes and 36 seconds talking about immigration”.If that is a pretty weird way to analyse an interview in which CNN chose the topics and which had a half-hour time limit, it does key into a sense that the abbreviated campaign has limited discussion of Harris’ agenda. The next big chance to discuss it will be on 10 September, when the two candidates meet for a debate in Pennsylvania.What else we’ve been readingView image in fullscreen

      Kate Hutchinson has a moving interview with the Breeders and Pixies legend Kim Deal, on releasing her first solo album at 63. Hannah J Davies, deputy editor, newsletters

      Adele Zeynep Walton writes wholesomely on moving to a “sleepy town” where the median age is 48 … at just 25. “I’m surrounded by families, friendly pensioners and retired hippies,” she writes. “It would be easy to feel out of place, but in fact I feel the opposite”. Charlie Lindlar, newsletters team

      I’m probably the worst baker in London but Felicity Cloake’s perfect blueberry pie looks so delicious that I might just have to give it a try … or convince someone else tomake it for me. Hannah

      Exploring the galaxy as a lovable rogue in Star Wars Outlaws will keep me going for a while, but the Guardian’s Keza MacDonald has picked the 10 best games coming this autumn, from the next Zelda to the “deliriously joyful” Astro Bot. Charlie

      And, in case you missed it, here are the TV eds’ best shows to look out for, too, from the return of hits including Industry and Bad Sisters to a star-stuffed Apple series with Cate Blanchett. Hannah
      skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSportView image in fullscreenParis 2024 | Britain’s first gold medal of the Paralympic Games went to a teenager, and in world record time, as Poppy Maskill (above) cleared the field in the pool to win the S14 100m women’s butterfly, a moment she described as “unreal”.Tennis | Britain’s No 1 tennis players enjoyed contrasting fortunes at the US Open on Thursday as Jack Draper eased into the third round with a 6-4, 6-2, 6-2 win over Facundo Díaz Acosta to set up a potential battle with former champion Carlos Alcaraz, while Katie Boulter suffered one of her most disappointing defeats of the season, crashing out 7-5, 7-5 to Jessica Bouzas Maneiro.Cricket | Joe Root dedicated his 33rd Test century to the late Graham Thorpe, saluting the heavens upon reaching three figures in tribute to his former coach and friend. Root now sits level with Sir Alastair Cook as England’s top century-maker and is only 198 runs away from becoming his country’s top Test run scorer.The front pagesView image in fullscreenThe Guardian leads with “Starmer risks clash with pub firms over plan for outdoor smoking ban”. The PM faces criticism of another king on the Mail front page with “Outrage as Starmer removes Maggie’s portrait”. The Times reports “Workers to be weighed in office for health MoT”, while the Telegraph says “Workers to get right to demand four-day week”.The Financial Times has news from the US election, with “Vance presses billionaire Thiel to ‘get off the sidelines’ and bankroll Trump”. Finally, the Mirror reports on the cancellation of Taylor Swift’s Austrian concerts earlier this month, under the headline “Terror swoop saved thousands”.Something for the weekendOur critics’ roundup of the best things to watch, read and listen to right nowView image in fullscreenFilm
      Sing Sing
      There’s charm, energy and optimism in this big-hearted film, inspired by the Rehabilitation Through the Arts project that teaches theatre skills to US prisoners. Although Colman Domingo stars, it is performed largely by genuine former inmates playing themselves, featuring rehearsal scenes interspersed with variously tense or moving private conversations. An intriguing filmic tribute to the rehabilitation programme. Peter BradshawMusic
      Jon Hopkins: Ritual
      No one could claim that Hopkins has undersold his seventh album. The electronic producer, soundtrack composer and sometime collaborator with Brian Eno and Coldplay has described the music on Ritual as “a tool … for opening portals within your inner world”. It is obvious from the start that it carries more weight than the acres of anonymous mood music out there. But if it doesn’t quite open the portals of your inner world, it’s still worth taking. Alexis PetridisTVKaos (Netflix)
      Kaos – the new venture from Charlie Covell, the creator of The End of the F**king World, and starring Jeff Goldblum – is anything but chaotic. Multi-stranded, immaculately paced and plotted, it’s a reimagining of Greek mythology that is subtle and intricate, witty, rigorous, hugely intelligent, funny and brutal. You don’t know quite what the next twist or turn may be, but you know that it will be funny, profound, moving – or all three. Lucy ManganToday in FocusView image in fullscreenBlack Box: episode 5 – The white maskIn January 2020, Robert Williams was arrested by Detroit police for a crime he had not committed. The officers were acting on a tipoff, but not from a witness or informant. In fact, not from a person at all. This is the penultimate episode of Black Box, as revisited this week – the final episode will be available in the Today in Focus feed tomorrow.Cartoon of the day | Stephen LillieView image in fullscreenThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badView image in fullscreenUnexplained delays, sardine-like conditions, sweatbox temperatures … the stress of the commuter life is very, very real. A new test, however, has found that there is a natural solution to our rail-rage: birdsong.Research undertaken by South Western Railway on real-life commuters has found that passengers listening to nature sounds, which also included flowing rivers and storms, were 35% less stressed by their travels than those with no audio stimulation, and 24% less stressed than those listening to music or podcasts.“The results clearly demonstrate that listening to nature-inspired soundscapes exerted a significant calming effect on passengers,” said Charles Spence, a professor of experimental psychology at the University of Oxford, who analysed the results.No such news on whether its impact is as effective a cure for the words “rail replacement bus service”, however.Editor’s note: yesterday’s Upside stated that Lego was Swedish – it is of course from Denmark. Sorry/undskyld!Bored at work?And finally, the Guardian’s puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until Monday.

      Quick crossword

      Cryptic crossword

      Wordiply More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris’s much-hyped, first big interview was … radically normal

      by

      Donald Trump spent Thursday in Michigan raving about bacon, windmills, Al Capone, trans boxers, nuclear war and, of course, his crowd size. Weird! Kamala Harris and Tim Walz gave an interview on CNN that was … radically normal.Just as she did a week ago at the Democratic national convention, the vice-president was comfortable and composed, solid and unspectacular, doing enough to clear the bar and doing herself no harm. She turned a much hyped first interview as nominee into a soon-to-be-forgotten pit stop along the campaign trail.Perhaps most important was the personality test. The old saw in presidential campaigns was: which candidate would you rather have a beer with? Harris and Walz came over as the couple you’d be fine sharing cake and coffee with at your kids’ birthday party. The same cannot be said of the former president and his running mate, JD Vance.Democrats’ bet is that Americans crave such relatability after a decade of Trump’s malignant narcissism and Joe Biden’s struggles with old age. The current president turned every interview into a nerve-wracking high-wire act. Harris was a fresh-faced model of steadiness by comparison.But as the 27-minute interview unfolded, she was notably more at ease embracing Biden and his legacy than her own historic candidacy as potentially the first Black female president. Democrats may value her loyalty in refusing to disown her boss. Republicans may scent an opportunity to portray her as Biden-lite.Perhaps Harris’s weakest answer was her first. Wearing grey and sitting in a cafe in Savannah, Georgia, she was asked by CNN’s Dana Bash: “If you are elected, what would you do on day one in the White House?” Harris replied: “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 … ”When Bash pressed: “So, what would you do day one?”, Harris talked about the “opportunity economy”. Political consultant Frank Luntz was unimpressed, tweeting: “Her answer was so vague that it was essentially worthless. Not a good start.”Then again, when Trump was asked the same question about day one, he said he would be a dictator. So there’s that.Harris was then asked about her policy reversals on fracking and the Green New Deal. She avoided a gaffe but gave an answer that bordered on a wonky word salad: “I have always believed – and I have worked on it – that the climate crisis is real, that it is an urgent matter to which we should apply metrics that include holding ourselves to deadlines around time.”She did better explaining a U-turn on decriminalising illegal border crossings, pointing out that she is the only person in the race who has prosecuted transnational criminal organisations who traffic in guns, drugs and human beings, then pivoting to accuse Trump of sinking border security legislation. “He killed the bill – a border security bill that would have put 1,500 more agents on the border.”Policy is often a surrogate for values. Harris’s central message on her policy shifts: “My values have not changed.” Translation: you know and I know that some policies have to be tweaked, or made vague, if I want to win swing state voters.Addressing a national audience, rather than a rally, Harris was also careful not to alienate the type of Republicans who supported Nikki Haley. She said she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet if elected, though she did not have a particular name in mind. “I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion.”When Bash asked her about Trump’s questioning of Harris’s racial identity, she could have unleashed a long and angry tirade about his history of racism. Instead she wisely chose the pithy response: “Same old tired playbook, next question please.”Bash asked: “That’s it?” Harris confirmed: “That’s it.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThis might offer a clue as to her strategy for next month’s presidential debate: cut Trump down to size with a short sharp line, then move on to her own more optimistic, future-facing agenda. Call it the “Honey, I Shrunk the Trump” approach.Much was made of the fact that Walz was involved in the interview. In the end, Harris got the lion’s share, with Walz looking down at the ground during the tougher moments. She seemed to watch him with a benign, proud smile.But when Bash put it to Walz that he once said he carried weapons in war, even though he never deployed in a war zone, Walz parried: “Yeah … in this case, this was after a school shooting … and my wife, the English teacher, told me my grammar is not always correct.” It just felt like a dodge.The interview ended with Bash asking about a photo of one of Harris’s young grandnieces watching as she delivered her address to the last week’s convention – and the historic nature of candidate. Harris seemed to think cautiously, as if wary of an identity politics trap.“I am running because I believe that I am the best person to do this job at this moment for all Americans, regardless of race and gender,” she said. “But I did see that photograph, and I was deeply touched by it.”Just like her convention speech, it was a far cry from the “I’m with her” chants of Hillary Clinton’s effort to smash the glass ceiling eight years ago. Harris is adopting a show, don’t tell approach. That left viewers not entirely clear how a Harris administration would differ from a Biden one. But they may also have no doubt that Harris and Walz would represent a return to the politics of normal. More