Harris memoir remark on Buttigieg viability tied to sexuality draws swift backlash

Former Vice President Kamala Harris drew swift criticism after remarks in her memoir that critics said mischaracterized her stance on Pete Buttigieg as a potential running mate. In 107 Days, Harris writes that Buttigieg would have been an ideal running mate "if I were a straight White man"—a line that critics said suggested his sexuality could undermine electability. Harris later said she did not mean that a gay running mate would be unviable, but that the climate of a high-stakes race made such a choice untenable.

Harris explained that the stakes of a Black woman candidate running for president, alongside a gay man, created concerns about electability amid a highly polarized 2024 landscape. She noted she was an ally of the LGBTQ community, but that there were "real risks" in the climate at the time. "We had such a short period of time. And the stakes were so high. I think Pete is a phenomenal, phenomenal public servant," she said. The remarks were quickly amplified on social media and by commentators across the political spectrum, with conservatives arguing the admission exposed a preconceived bias against a gay running mate, while some progressives urged caution about drawing conclusions from a single line in a memoir.

Harris clarified that the remark was not a reflection of prejudice against Buttigieg, but a description of how the political dynamic can unfold in a presidential race. She said she had been an ally of the LGBTQ community her whole life and stressed that her concerns were about electability in a scenario where a Black woman would be the presidential candidate and a gay man would appear on the ticket. "That’s not what I said, that he couldn't be on the ticket because he is gay," she said. "I was clear that in 107 Days, in one of the most hotly contested elections for president of the United States against someone like Donald Trump, who knows no floor, to be a Black woman running for president of the United States, and as a vice presidential running mate, a gay man. With the stakes being so high, it made me very sad. But I also realized it would be a real risk."

The remarks drew immediate reactions online. Critics used the episode as evidence of lingering questions about how identity factors into ticket choices. Conservative commentators mocked Harris’ eventual running-mate selection as evidence of bias against Buttigieg and other minority candidates. One frequently cited mockery came from CNN contributor Scott Jennings, who said Harris effectively settled for Tim Walz after stating Buttigieg could not be viable because of his sexual orientation.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined the chorus, writing that in today’s Democratic Party Harris could not choose Buttigieg because he is gay, could not choose Shapiro because he is Jewish, and ultimately settled for Walz, whom he described in dismissive terms. On the other end of the spectrum, talk-show hosts and media personalities questioned the logic of the admission and its potential impact on voters—some framing the episode as a reflection of shifting norms around LGBTQ inclusion in the political sphere.

Buttigieg himself addressed Harris’s comments indirectly, telling Politico he was surprised by the admission. He said trust with voters, in his view, comes from what a candidate will do for people’s lives rather than categories about identity. "My experience in politics has been that the way that you earn trust with voters is based mostly on what they think you’re going to do for their lives, not on categories," Buttigieg said.

The political moment surrounding Harris’s memoir also touched on broader debates about representation and electoral risk. In response to the remarks, Harris’s team and the Human Rights Campaign, a major LGBTQ advocacy group, were contacted for comment, but there was no immediate response provided. The episode underscores how authors’ retrospective reflections on past campaigns can become flashpoints for ongoing conversations about who is considered viable on a national ticket and how identities intersect with electoral calculations.

Within recent years, Harris had already faced scrutiny over how her decisions about the 2024 ticket were made in the face of a crowded field and a volatile political environment. The discussion around Buttigieg’s viability, and the way that discussion is framed in public discourse, illustrates how a single anecdote can become a proxy for larger questions about inclusion, political bravery, and the tradeoffs candidates may confront when assembling a national governing team.

The episode also comes as the political landscape continues to evolve with new generations of voters and heightened attention to diversity in leadership roles. Supporters argue that acknowledging the complexities of electoral calculations does not negate a commitment to inclusion, while opponents contend that recognizing or disclosing potential biases risks normalizing discrimination. The dialogue reflects ongoing tensions in American politics about how identity intersects with electability and policy.

As the conversation moves forward, observers will watch how Harris and her allies address questions about his comments and how Buttigieg’s role and perception in the public eye evolve in light of the memoir’s revelations and the broader debates about representation in the presidency and its circle.