Article links to it on Twitter, which I wish they wouldn’t use:
https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1816436341703397765
Not bad for a first run. Way better than what Joe was doing.
But I hope she pivots to why she will be a good president instead of how much worse Trump will be.
This is Trump’s third election and we had him as president for a term already. Everyone’s mind is made up on who trump is and what he’ll do.
We need Kamala to tell voters who she is and what she wants to do.
But I hope she pivots to why she will be a good president instead of how much worse Trump will be.
I feel like we watched two different videos. The whole thing was framed in We have a choice and she presented the two choices.
Well put. The best way for Harris to capitalize on her incredible momentum out of the starting gate is to advocate for herself as a candidate and for her policies.
Yep, she’s got the biggest microphone on the planet right now.
She needs to come out hard with action plans and goals now, that’s what voters want to hear about
"And then [Harris’s] campaign says ‘I’m the prosecuter and he’s the convicted felon.’ " - Donald Trump
I’m Kamala Harris and I approve this message.
lol I saw it on TikTok too. It’s fucking BRILLIANT marketing.
Big "
"
VibesNow I want them to play the first couple on SNL.
I’m sure Emhoff would be flattered to be so young.
“Legal woes” is quite the euphemism for “felony convictions”. Convicted felon? No, legally woeful.
I…saw nothing of the sort. No mention of Trumps legal woes at all…
I mean, sure - some light jabs his way, but none of that could have been considered ‘targeting his legal woes’
Wow. You’re absolutely right.
I hate this timeline where we can’t trust any news media to not inject baseless politicisation into news coverage at every opportunity. sigh
It’s rage bait. The more extreme your reaction, the more likely you are to click the link. It’s the result of everything on the internet being funded by advertisement.
My favorite part is that it references Trump but doesn’t obsess over him. The tone is, he’s that mess we’re all going to recover from together, and that is probably bullshit but the vibe is right.
Trump’s afraid of her.
He doesn’t stand a chance from a verbal assault perspective - she’ll steamroll everything he spews.
And she’ll slay him in a debate.She would slay him if his handlers were stupid enough to let him debate her.
I suspect all she has to do is outright call him a coward and keep assaulting his ego on it.
That slaps, just like a movie trailer. I’m looking forward to what comes after that. I’d love to see her herself speaking to the voter because a fake-y personal approach works way better than a usual background narration also used there. Based on the points she sat in the vid, she has a lot of stuff to address like that. And that can feel more engaging and humane to those still undecided and on the fence.
That was good! Thanks!
No policies yet…just straight up attacks?
Governments are dum
60 seconds, and did you watch?
Policies listed: addressing gun violence, women’s bodies, child poverty, healthcare, and treasonous traitors.
Just wait for the next 60 seconds!!
i don’t like this kind of interaction, i see it all the time. We read the articles and watch the videos to gather more information, to get the details, but article/video titles shouldn’t be misleading, it totally hints that that’s what all was about, and there is plenty of characters left to mention otherwise
I don’t like it either, but blame the article and editors, not the OP/commentors.
True, but /c/politics does not require using the original title 🤔
@[email protected] Would you consider editing the title?
OP seems to have pulled through, now mentions a few seconds on legal woes rather than implying the whole thing was about it.
Cool - Thanks OP!
I’m mostly just annoyed that the top comment got away with slagging the video as being an attack video when it wasn’t.
I don’t blame OP at all; it was just a trash headline from ABC.
OP reply comes through a bit condescending, despite clickbaity title.
Yeah you are right, and the full video reference is a couple clicks in. Another lemmy commentor linked the youtube video directly which helps relieve the confusion which you identified.
It’s nobody’s fault but your own that you did not actually watch a video or read an article. Don’t watch/read, don’t comment. Easy. The title isn’t deceptive just because it isn’t a perfect TL;DR for lazy internet forum users.
if you expect readers to do their homework, then writers should also do theirs
Lemmy’s a fucking news aggregator, amongst other things.
Author your own fucking posts if you don’t appreciate mine.Fucking whiners.
the comment you just posted is the whiniest in this whole thread
Sorry for your loss.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this title. It’s not clickbait and it accurately describes the content. You’re just upset you got caught out saying reactive, incorrect things about a video you didn’t watch.
the title got changed, this is not the original
Sorry for your illiteracy. Education for people like you is a policy of hers as well.
