Liberals slam Harris memoir and tour as 2028 questions shape Democratic messaging

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is facing renewed criticism from fellow Democrats and a chorus of media commentators over her memoir and a high-profile promotional tour for it. Harris’s new book, 107 Days, recounts her brief 2024-2025 presidential campaign and has been the subject of a media circuit that included interviews with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, ABC’s Good Morning America, and The View. A cadre of liberal pundits and Democratic strategists argued that the book prioritizes internal party grievances and pettiness at a moment when voters are seeking a clear, forward-looking vision. One adviser to a potential 2028 candidate told Politico that the book’s tone was “embarrassing for her, and for all Democrats, considering she was the leader of the party less than a year ago.”

Chris Cillizza, a former CNN reporter who now writes for his Substack, said Harris’s return to the political arena underscores a perception that she’s not a skilled operator. Cillizza argued that Harris speaks in “word salads” and suggested the memoir and tour reprised a pattern that contributed to questions about her political instincts. On The View, Harris was pressed about why she didn’t differentiate herself more clearly from President Joe Biden during the 2024 campaign, and Kasie Hunt of CNN joined Rahm Emanuel in noting Harris’s admission that she didn’t fully grasp how much voters wanted to see a distinction between her and Biden. Emanuel, the former Chicago mayor, said that not appreciating that imperative was a mistake given the country’s condition at the time. In the same interview cycle, Harris wrote that she chose not to select Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg as a running mate because he posed a “risk” as a gay man, a line she described as influenced by the stakes of running a historic ticket. 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. Part of me wanted to say, ‘Screw it, let’s just do it.’ But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk.” The View’s reception of that rationale was notably pointed, with Maddow challenging Harris’s account during the interview.

The book’s reception among Democratic insiders has been more uniformly skeptical. Several strategists cited in The Hill and Politico described excerpts as illustrating a tendency toward grievance-mongering rather than a disciplined political program. A California Democratic strategist told The Hill that the timing could not be worse, arguing that the memoir’s tone risks undermining Harris’s potential as a unifying figure for the party as it looks toward 2028. Michael Hardaway, a former senior adviser to House Speaker Hakeem Jeffries, told Politico that the book is “unhelpful and divisive” and could complicate efforts to present Harris as a candidate who can lead a broad coalition. He added that the volume’s focus on blame “doesn’t serve a political agenda.” Axelrod, the former Obama adviser, echoed that assessment, saying the proliferation of grievances and finger-pointing risks alienating centrists and independents. Harris’s team did not respond to requests for comment.

The broader political dynamic remains unsettled as Democrats assess how to balance introspection with message discipline ahead of a potential 2028 bid. Some party veterans view the memoir as a distraction from a sustained, issue-driven critique of the Trump era and a plan to mobilize the base against what they characterize as a threat to the Constitution. Others warn that internal frictions echoed by pundits and allied outlets can complicate efforts to present a coherent, forward-looking alternative. The New York Post, which helped publicize some of the criticism surrounding Harris’s book and tour, framed the reception as indicative of broader unease within the party about how Harris positions herself for the next presidential cycle. Harris’s office has not publicly weighed in on the most pointed criticisms.

As Democrats contemplate the path to 2028, the Karla Harris narrative—one that intertwines a candidacy with a memoir—illustrates how internal debates over strategy, tone, and timing will shape the party’s leadership image for years to come. The questions extend beyond Harris herself to the broader question of how the party defines its future direction, how it communicates a plan to voters, and how it balances accountability with unity in a volatile political environment. The ongoing discussion reflects a party at a crossroads: seeking to build a broad, durable coalition while navigating the attention and rival expectations that come with high-profile leadership leaves.