The news is abuzz with the possibility that Kamala Harris may, perhaps, be giving some thought to the remote chance of running again.
What, exactly, does a failed presidential candidate run for, after ignominously losing to Donald Trump?
Oh, you know, maybe the governorship of California? After all, why not, since Harris was once the attorney general there, before becoming a U.S Senator. It’s technically her home state, so isn’t she entitled to run?
Perhaps she could just run for president again? Why not, since she ran on absolutely no platform, and squandered over $1 billion, with a “b,” on things like T-shirts that proudly identified the wearer as a “Harriz-Walz” supporter, and projecting her image on a giant disco ball in Las Vegas so that passing aliens in their spaceships might see it and spread the word.
This is a woman who had no agenda and couldn’t articulate, to the friendliest of late night hosts, Stephen Colbert, why anyone should vote for her. What, he asked, made her a change candidate? “I’m obviously not Joe Biden,” she began, stammeringly, “but also, with 28 days to go, I’m not Donald Trump.” Even on The View, with another friendly audience, she could not express what made her different. Asked point blank, “Would you have done something different than President Biden in the past four years?”, she responded, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”
It is possible that Harris imagines she can win if she has to face Trump (who has been murmuring about a currently unconstitutional third term) or another Republican, given that so much of the country and the world is reeling from his policies and the contrast, she thinks, might serve her well. But while her fans might yass-queen her candidacy, for no reason other than the fact that she is a woman of Black and Indian heritage, Harris shows no signs that she has learnt anything at all about her fundamental disconnect from Americans, the vast majority of whom are currently watching their lives fall apart. These include immigrants, to whom she has expressed only hostility—recall her firm admonition, “Do not come”—and the many people of Arab descent with whom she would not even meet, despite their calls to declare an opposition to the genocide in Gaza. Even after her catastrophic loss, she seemed incapable of any self-reflection and offered no substantive thoughts on the loss. In a bizarre Thanksgiving video where she appeared to have melded Drunk Indian Aunty and Drunk Black Aunty into one boozy, garrulous figure, she delivered a long and rambling speech that said nothing in particular. It was in the driving spirit of her entire campaign: talk a lot, say nothing.
In contrast, Tim Walz, distancing himself from a recent Harris event where she snarked, “I told you so,” pointed to the failures of the Democratic party to connect with voters.
Okay, look, I could go on, but it’s pointless and repetitive to do so. Enough already with the resurrection of Harris. I predicted what would happen in 2024, in “Kamala Harris Will Lose,” and Nathan J. Robinson’s “How Much of the Harris Campaign Was a Scam?” is a detailed look at what an absolute disaster her campaign turned out to be (it was marked by the exploitation of idealistic workers and, astoundingly, a massive amount of debt despite the millions raised). Even now, she has nothing to say about the issues facing people and Gaza, except to act like she—the actual vice president over the last four years—had nothing at all to contribute to the current state of affairs, as if Trump just manifested suddenly, like Voldemort, and changed all the systems.
There is so much going on right now, with dumpster fires everywhere: people are being hauled off the streets and into black vans to be disappeared into prisons, the tariff situation(s) help no one but billionaire investors, and millions of lives have been and will be thrown into chaos. Harris, in the meantime, is more than fine. The Times reports that she and her husband are finding “time for fun, taking in the Broadway shows ‘Gypsy’ and ‘A Wonderful World: The Louis Armstrong Musical.’ They considered a bicoastal life, even picking out a rental apartment in New York, but decided they weren’t ready to sign a lease.” (I generally loathe the Times, but I will admit it has a knack for delivering reports with these absolute gems tucked inside, bits that reveal more than all the words put together.)
While liberals everywhere are critical of Trump’s ties to billionaires like Elon Musk, they appear to take no note of Harris’s connections to such: “Her call list also includes Hillary Clinton, Mr. Biden, Pete Buttigieg and the billionaire Reid Hoffman.”
Of course it does. What’s a modern politician without a call list that includes at least one billionaire?
Enough already. Harris, the most vacuous candidate in recent history, needs to retire somewhere, enjoy a bi-coastal life she can afford to contemplate, and spend the rest of her time sipping drinks with the likes of Hillary Clinton, instead of emerging every four years to whinge and cry about how she was denied her rightful place in the sun. Dump that call list, keep going to those musicals.
Don’t plagiarise any of this, in any way. I have used legal resources to punish and prevent plagiarism, and I am ruthless and persistent. I make a point of citing people and publications all the time: it’s not that hard to mention me in your work, and to refuse to do so and simply assimilate my work is plagiarism. You don’t have to agree with me to cite me properly; be an ethical grownup, and don’t make excuses for your plagiarism. Read and memorise “On Plagiarism.” There’s more forthcoming, as I point out in “The Plagiarism Papers.” If you’d like to support me, please donate and/or subscribe, or get me something from my wish list. Thank you.
