Kamala Harris just dropped a bombshell in her upcoming book 107 Days that has the political world buzzing.
In a stunning revelation, Harris confesses that while she ultimately picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate last year, her heart was set on Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, only to sideline him over fears of voter backlash, as the New York Post reports.
Let’s rewind to last year when Harris was mulling over her options for a vice presidential partner. She had a list of eight potential candidates, but Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who made waves in the 2020 Democratic Party primaries, stood out as her favorite. Yet, she hesitated, worried about how America might react to his personal life.
Harris put it bluntly in her book, saying, “Buttigieg ‘would have been an ideal partner -- if I were a straight white man.’” Well, isn’t that a convenient dodge? If leadership is about courage, playing it safe with voter prejudices sounds more like a cop-out than a strategy.
She went on to elaborate, “But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man.” Fair point on the optics, but isn’t the whole point of progress to challenge outdated mindsets, not cater to them? This smells like the kind of over-calculated pandering that turns voters off faster than a tax hike.
Continuing her reasoning, Harris admitted, “Part of me wanted to say, Screw it, let’s just do it.” But fear won out, and she deemed the choice “too big of a risk” with so much on the line. Risk aversion might sound pragmatic, but it’s hard to rally a base when you’re already waving the white flag on conviction.
Harris didn’t skimp on compliments for Buttigieg, calling him “a sincere public servant” with a knack for making liberal ideas palatable even to conservative ears. High praise, indeed, but if he’s so great, why not trust the electorate to see it too? This feels less like protecting the ticket and more like underestimating the American voter.
She also shared a personal note, saying, “I love Pete.” Admirable affection, but personal fondness doesn’t win elections -- bold decisions do. Hiding behind perceived biases instead of confronting them head-on is exactly the kind of timid politics that fuels distrust in the system.
Harris added, “I love working with Pete. He and his husband, Chasten, are friends.” Sweet sentiments, but friendships don’t override the need for a ticket that inspires, not one built on playing defense against imaginary boogeymen in the voting booth.
In the end, Harris settled on Walz as her running mate, a decision that steered clear of the controversies she feared with Buttigieg. Safe? Sure, but safe doesn’t always equal smart when the stakes are this high.
The outcome of her choice was a bitter pill -- Harris and Walz lost the popular vote, the Electoral College, and every swing state to Donald Trump in the 2024 election. Could Buttigieg have turned the tide? We’ll never know, but playing it safe clearly didn’t pay off.
Meanwhile, Buttigieg’s star hasn’t dimmed despite being passed over. An Emerson College survey from June showed him outpacing Harris in a hypothetical Democratic primary for president, pulling 16% to her 13%, with other big names like Gavin Newsom trailing behind. Seems like voters might not be as skittish as Harris assumed.
Looking ahead, Buttigieg is already pegged as an early favorite for the Democratic Party's nomination in 2028. If Harris had such glowing words for him, maybe she should’ve trusted her gut instead of her pollsters. Hindsight’s 20/20, but this missed opportunity stings.
Harris’ book lays bare a decision-making process steeped in caution rather than conviction, reflecting a broader trend in politics where optics often trump principle. It’s a shame to see potential squandered over fears of what might be, rather than a fight for what should be.
So, what’s the takeaway from 107 Days? Harris’ candor reveals a party wrestling with identity and electability, but it also exposes a reluctance to challenge the status quo -- a strategy that, in this case, led to a resounding defeat. Perhaps it’s time for leaders to stop tiptoeing around perceived voter biases and start leading with the courage they claim to champion.
