Just because I'd already made up my mind, doesn't mean I'm happy with non-answers and dodging responsibility for everything bad that happened instead of taking ownership.
Instead of answering a yes/no question directly and then spend the rest of her time explaining, Harris instead used that time to let voters know a little more about her - as the media and rightwingers have been demanding.
I don't know why intelligent people are so hopped up about stupid questions that answer themselves if one takes 30 seconds to analyze. Politicians change their positions on issues due to multiple reasons, but one chief reason for changing is to place themselves where their constituents are on the issues. Politicians (outside of Trump) shouldn't be running to only project their own pre-formed determinations on issues, they should always transition to where their constituency and voters are on an issue if that position doesn't conflict with the candidate's established values.
To me, it would take even Kamala Harris more time than she's allotted in this debate to explain the nuances involved in changing positions and how she justifies that change with detailed reasoning for said change. A time limited debate isn't the place for this to happen, and quite frankly, it's almost 100% certain that she will give answers to those questions multiple times during upcoming interviews and town halls where time is not at such a premium.
The ultra-short answer to 'why the change(?)' is simply this: I changed my positions because where I am now is where the voters in my coalition need me to be in order to best serve the nation's immediate needs. She changed on fracking because clean energy production - at present - is not enough in and of itself to completely abandon the domestic extraction of fossil fuels, and our reality is this: The OPEC oil cartel is an ongoing threat to the prosperity of the United States. And with America producing record amounts of oil - mainly due to fracking - trying to shut the industry down right now would not only give more power and leverage to Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela among other oil exporting nations, it would be antithetical to shutter thousands of good paying jobs in America and weaken our defensive postures with allied countries as well as driving inflation higher during a time we're focused on lowering it.
As with most rational Democrats understanding the threat of climate change, the future has to be one where fossil fuel use is obsoleted. But today is not the time to fight that battle because doing so would do immediate harm to American families, something no president wanna-be should support.
