As I watched Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign unfold last year, I remember thinking and writing about how remarkable it was that she had been transformed almost overnight into a political heavyweight. Before that moment, most accounts described her as a low-impact vice president who, even according to those who helped put her in office, had “not risen to the challenge of proving herself as a future leader of the party, let alone the country.” Another notable aspect of her campaign was its focus on mood and spectacle rather than substance, or on building trust in Harris as a clear departure from an unpopular and visibly declining Joe Biden. Her new book, 107 Days—a memoir covering the exact number of days she had to win the presidency—does much to explain why that was. In short, Harris and those around her, including supportive media outlets, became intoxicated by their own hype.
Unintentionally, 107 Days is a hilarious book—the kind where you have to laugh to keep from crying. As the second Trump administration spirals into deeper chaos, Harris and the alternate reality in which she won take on a disastrous, almost mythical quality. She seems to be telling us that her defeat wasn’t a tragic twist of fate but a farce. There was no better, suppressed version of Harris held back by circumstances—just a woman with a stunning lack of self-awareness and a tendency to glorify herself.
The book reveals a politician consumed by the mechanics of politics rather than driven by conviction, duty, or a clear set of values that set her apart. Her response during the campaign—that nothing came to mind when asked what she would have done differently from Biden—wasn’t caution but honesty. There’s no indication she would have taken a meaningfully different stance on Gaza, for example, beyond using more balanced language about compassion. Nor is there any sign she would have tackled economic policy seriously, despite accusing Donald Trump’s agenda of working “best if it works for those who own the big skyscrapers.”
This lack of a distinct agenda explains why she often seemed vague, nervous, and rambling. How does she react to learning she’ll be the candidate? By reminding herself (and readers) that she had the best contacts, name recognition, and the strongest case. She tries to downplay her ambition, saying she “knew she could” be president only because she “wanted to do the work” and has “always been a protector.” But it’s fine to aspire to be president—every cardinal dreams of becoming pope, as one said in Conclave, even admitting with shame, “To be this age and still not know yourself.”
My overwhelming feeling while reading was: oh God, it really was as bad as it looked. The celebrity-filled campaign wasn’t a sign of panic but reflected the preferences of Harris and her team. They believed such star power showed she was “welcoming everyone into the campaign,” as if celebrities could unite people instead of her own policies and political skill. The immersion in the theatrical side of U.S. politics is so complete that there’s even a line about Jon Bon Jovi performing for her—seen as a good omen because he performed for a winning candidate in The West Wing. The media adored her; one Washington Post writer praised her approach to Gaza by saying, “And behold, she had her boat through the impossible strait.” Jon Favreau called Harris “a sight to behold” at the Democratic convention.
I lost count of how many times crowds were described as exploding or roaring.On fire. The applause for Harris’s Saturday Night Live appearance was among the loudest ever heard. She revisits her greatest hits, exposing a politician lost in the adoration of enthusiastic, self-selecting crowds and trendy studios, yet fatally unable to connect with voters outside that bubble. These voters had grown disillusioned with the Democrats, tuning out or turning to Trump.
In a fullscreen image, then US President Joe Biden attends a Department of Defense commander-in-chief farewell ceremony at Fort Myer with Kamala Harris. Photo: Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters
Biden frequently appears as a self-absorbed and petty figure, snapping at her heels and causing distractions. Yet she repeatedly emphasizes her loyalty to him—so much so that she couldn’t openly criticize him as some demanded (“People hate Joe Biden!” a senior adviser told her). However, her loyalty doesn’t stop her from subtly conveying that Biden was a burden, mentioning her too late in speeches and calling her before her major debate with Trump to thinly veil a threat if she spoke ill of him.
What’s most revealing and concerning is her insight into the Democratic establishment, and thus the slim hope for a wake-up call within its ranks—one that could effectively challenge Trump now and Trumpism in the future. Those 107 days were brief but condensed a process where the party and its candidate had to quickly find a compelling vision for Americans. The outcome was to avoid risks, promise continuity, and chastise dissenters as enablers of Trump, all with flair. It wasn’t sufficient and never will be.
The answer to “what went wrong” isn’t a lack of time to establish Harris. It’s that even now, with ample time for reflection and honesty, she remains a politician overly focused on image and completely absolving herself of failures, blaming a bad political hand. What more can be said except, “to be this age and still not know yourself.”
Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about Nesrine Maliks argument regarding Kamala Harriss memoir and the Democratic Partys state of denial
General BeginnerLevel Questions
1 Who is Nesrine Malik and what is her main argument
Nesrine Malik is a columnist for The Guardian Her main argument is that Kamala Harriss election memoir The Truths We Hold avoids a deep honest critique of the Democratic Partys failures and instead presents a polished overly optimistic story which shows the party is in a state of denial about its systemic problems
2 What is the state of denial Malik is talking about
Its the idea that the Democratic Party refuses to fully acknowledge why it struggles to connect with many voters Instead of confronting issues like a weak grassroots strategy taking certain voter blocs for granted or failing to deliver on key promises the party often blames external factors like misinformation or Republican obstruction
3 What book is this about
The book in question is The Truths We Hold An American Journey the memoir written by Kamala Harris which details her life and her perspective on the 2020 election
4 Why is Kamala Harriss memoir a focus for this criticism
As a highprofile leader and potential future presidential candidate her memoir is seen as a representation of the partys official narrative Malik argues that by glossing over the partys internal conflicts and narrow electoral victories with a story of triumph the memoir exemplifies the denial of deeper unresolved issues
Advanced Analytical Questions
5 What specific failures does Malik believe the Democrats are denying
Malik points to failures such as an overreliance on charismatic leaders rather than strong policy taking the Black vote for granted without delivering proportional benefits and failing to build a lasting multiracial coalition that can consistently win elections
6 How does the memoirs narrative contribute to this denial according to Malik
Malik suggests the memoir frames the 2020 election victory as a moral and political triumph thereby sidestepping a critical analysis of how close the race actually was the surge of Trump voters and the underlying discontent that the Democrats have not adequately addressed
7 What is the danger of this state of denial for the Democratic Party
The danger is that without honest selfcriticism the party will continue
