Dana Bash is CNN’s chief political correspondent, anchor of Inside Politics with Dana Bash weekdays at 12 pm ET, and co-anchor of State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the network’s flagship Sunday morning program. She has covered Congress and U.S. politics for more than two decades, reporting from the Capitol, the campaign trail, and multiple presidential debates. Bash has interviewed presidents, world leaders, and policymakers across the political spectrum, earning recognition for her incisive and balanced coverage. In 2024, she co-moderated the first presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The Harvard Political Review sat down with Bash to discuss the craft of political interviewing, the evolution of Washington’s media culture, and the role of integrity in journalism today.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Harvard Political Review: What’s the interview or segment of State of the Union you’re proudest of, whether because it featured someone you really enjoyed talking to or because it was a tough one to pull off?
Dana Bash: I can probably answer that in both ways. One of the most meaningful interviews I’ve ever done — and this can be generally, not just for State of the Union — was with John Lewis on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It was tremendous. I was honored to be invited with other journalists and bipartisan lawmakers on one of his civil rights pilgrimages. It turned out to be one of the last, or at least among the last, when he was still healthy. To talk to him about his recollections in the very place where he was almost murdered for demanding the right to vote, it was like living history; it was amazing.
HPR: What have been your toughest interviews?
DB: How much time do you have? The list goes on! Some of the toughest interviews I’ve done go back as far as Dick Cheney. That was a pretty tough one. Maybe it’s a vice-presidential thing, because JD Vance was another. He’s extremely quick and very smart, so you have to be on your toes. He likes to spar; that’s his style. I don’t necessarily think of interviewing as a sparring match, but with him, you have to know what you’re getting into.
HPR: One of your landmark interviews was with Kamala Harris during the 2024 campaign, when she was named the Democratic nominee. Was there anything that you think hasn’t been fully explored in the public eye about her?
DB: That interview was her first after she formally became the nominee, about halfway through her hundred-plus-day run. They waited a long time, and the longer they waited, the more hype there was. In her book, she wrote that waiting that long was a mistake, and doing it with her running mate was another. I didn’t have many questions for Governor Tim Walz because she was the one running for president.
I’m not in the business of grading people whom I interview, but just objectively speaking, strategically, she knew what she had to do, I think. But the optics of it and the setup were very frustrating for us. Her campaign wanted the segment to be shot outdoors so the campaign bus would be visible. It rained, of course, because we were in Georgia, where it usually rains in summer, and you couldn’t even see the bus. The setup ended up not being what we would’ve chosen. It became its own character in the “after-action report” we did in the wake of the interview.
HPR: You moderated the 2024 debate that many say reshaped the election. What was the turning point moment for you that night, when you felt history shift in real time?
DB: Honestly, it was minute one. When the candidates walked out, we noticed President Biden shuffling more than before. His first answer, when he said something along the lines of I killed Medicare, I just went “whoa,” to myself. The struggle was real and obvious. I do think that it was more pronounced to people who are watching at home. For us, in the studio, we just saw the forum because there was no audience, and we were kind of far back. At home, you had a split-screen setup, and you’d get more zoomed-in shots. I actually think it might have felt worse at home than in the studio, but regardless, you could tell right away that this wouldn’t be like any other debate.
HPR: What was going through your head that night? Was moderating this debate a unique challenge, and if so, how?
DB: I was more nervous than I’ve ever been, hands down. The stakes were incredibly high, and prep was intense, not just for substance but technically, too. The Biden campaign dictated a new rule: They wanted the microphones to be turned off when the other candidate spoke, which was a logistical challenge. That presented us with a big technical challenge. If Biden was talking and Trump was trying to get in or vice versa, how do you manage that? There could also be times when we could hear the person cutting in, but you may not be able to hear it at home. So of course, there was a lot of prep on that front. It turned out not to really matter because nobody interrupted each other, and it was completely different from what anybody expected.
HPR: You’ve covered Capitol Hill for years. How has the culture there changed — in terms of civility, off-camera conversations, or the general willingness to engage with the media?
DB: I don’t think the change is about talking to the media; that’s roughly the same. What’s changed dramatically is the erosion of swing seats because of redistricting and gerrymandering. In states like Texas, it’s happening mid-decade. With every cycle, there are fewer members holding competitive seats. That means more polarization because “safe” seats are only safe from the other party, not from a primary challenge. So Democrats fear challenges from the left; Republicans from the right. Social media, algorithmic bubbles, and nonstop fundraising are just other confounding factors. You see how the culture’s shifted dramatically.
Right now, the mid-decade redistricting push is being driven by President Trump and his team in a very brazen way. But traditionally, after each census, you see it in blue states too — Maryland and Illinois are among the most gerrymandered, and that’s Democrats doing it. It’s a bipartisan problem.
HPR: Who do you think is the most interesting political figure today?
DB: It sounds so obvious, but the president. He’s constantly upending norms and reshaping the balance of power, and he’s been pretty successful. As much as it drives people crazy, a lot of voters support him precisely because he disrupts things. Of course, his victory was also about more practical issues like affordability and the economy. Many voters just remembered things feeling better during his first term and weren’t enthusiastic about Biden or Harris. Yes, there’s definitely a core group that just wants to blow it all up, metaphorically, and that’s what he’s doing.
HPR: How do you navigate being objective as a journalist in this polarized era?
DB: I think you can be objective about truth and facts, just not about the party you’re commenting on. When I started, it was “Democrats say this, Republicans say that, you decide.” We still do some of that, but now, if one side lies, we call it out. That’s the difference.
HPR: Have you ever regretted not pushing harder in an interview?
DB: Every interview! I always wish I’d had more time or phrased something differently. I’m very hard on myself — I don’t need Twitter to tell me what I missed.
HPR: Finally, as one of the few women who’ve risen to the top of political journalism, how has credibility for women on air evolved since you started?
DB: There are more of us now, which is great. When I started, there was this unspoken rule that for “credibility,” you had to wear a suit, have a deep voice, and maybe even a few wrinkles or some balding hair. That’s changed, not completely, but thanks to pioneers like Judy Woodruff and other women who led the way, we’ve earned our gravitas.
