Former Vice President Kamala Harris has stumbled into a firestorm with her new memoir, "107 Days," as fellow Democrats and media figures tear into her for what they see as a self-absorbed and poorly timed reflection on her failed 2024 presidential bid.
According to Fox News, Harris' book and accompanying media tour have sparked frustration within her own party, with critics calling the project divisive at a moment when unity is desperately needed. The memoir, detailing her short campaign, has been labeled as petty and embarrassing by some strategists.
An advisor to a potential 2028 candidate didn’t hold back, telling Politico that focusing on political gossip instead of offering a forward-looking vision is "pretty crazy" for someone who led the party less than a year ago. This kind of navel-gazing, especially when the nation faces serious threats, feels like a misstep of epic proportions.
Harris hit the airwaves to promote "107 Days," appearing on MSNBC with Rachel Maddow, as well as ABC's "Good Morning America" and "The View" earlier this week. Her interviews, meant to explain her loss, instead highlighted her struggles to articulate a clear message.
Former CNN journalist Chris Cillizza, writing on Substack, pulled no punches, stating Harris is "simply not a very good politician" despite decades in the game. His post on X doubled down, pointing out her tendency to speak in "word salads" when pressed on tough questions.
CNN's Kasie Hunt, alongside former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, dissected Harris' admission on "The View" that she underestimated voters’ desire for a break from President Joe Biden’s policies. Emanuel expressed shock at her misreading of the public mood, especially when 70% of Americans felt the country was on the wrong track.
Harris’ memoir doesn’t shy away from pointing fingers, a move that has rubbed many the wrong way. California Democratic strategist Gary South told The Hill that the book shows her "flailing" and blaming everyone but herself for the defeat.
South also called the tone "curiously negative and ungracious" for someone who might harbor ambitions for another run in 2028. This kind of bitterness doesn’t exactly scream leadership or inspire confidence in a future candidacy.
Former Obama advisor David Axelrod echoed the sentiment, telling Politico that the book’s grievances and finger-pointing serve no clear political purpose. If there’s a strategy behind this release, he argued, it’s a profoundly misguided one.
One of the memoir’s more contentious revelations involves Harris’ decision not to select Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg as her running mate, citing his identity as a gay man as too big a "risk." She wrote, "We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man," and felt adding another layer was too much.
Maddow called this rationale "hard to hear," forcing Harris to clarify her stance to MSNBC viewers. The explanation did little to quell the unease, as it seemed to prioritize political calculation over principle in a way that feels out of step with the party’s stated values.
Rahm Emanuel, reacting to Harris’ broader campaign missteps, emphasized that great leaders must grasp the pulse of the electorate. Her failure to see the hunger for change, he suggested, was a fundamental error that cost her dearly.
Michael Hardaway, a former senior advisor to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, told Politico that Harris had a chance to be a powerful voice against current challenges but squandered it with this book.
Instead of rallying Democrats, the memoir comes off as unhelpful and divisive.
At a time when the party needs to stand firm against policies and actions that many see as undermining core freedoms, Harris’ focus on personal grudges feels like a detour from the fight at hand. A true leader would pivot to the bigger picture, not settle
