Eyes on the prize. Kamala Harris watches Joe Biden. Credit: Roberto Schmidt/AFP/ Getty
Kamala Harris began her vice-presidency in a mist of excited commentary about her role in making history. She has turned out to be isolated, frustrated, unpopular and ineffectual in office — and, right now, that suits Joe Biden’s team down to the ground.
Harris has been getting it in the neck for being tetchy, ill-prepared and mishandling the immigration brief she was assigned by the President, while he has sailed through unscathed. Her own camp has been riddled with factionalism and leaks. An article in Politico describes her office as riven with tension, with staff complaining of “being treated like shit”, while the media marvels at Biden’s own leak-free operation.
Has she behaved well? No, not particularly. She has been unable to hide her resentment that the job of vice president hasn’t turned into a smooth glide path for her ultimate ambition. She is the author of her own misfortune. But she hasn’t been helped by Biden and his aides, who have been sighing and rolling their eyes about Harris’s performance, yet who also set her up to fail.
Biden knew all about her political shortcomings after watching her implode during the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination — but went on to select her as his running mate, regardless. The optics of having the first woman, first black and first Asian vice-president at his side were too good to resist. And then, as President, he handed her two unwinnable assignments — solving the “root causes” of the migrant crisis (created by his own open door to families with children), and fending off Republican attempts to reform statewide voting systems (over which she has no power).
“Maybe I don’t say no enough,” Harris joked last weekend, when asked if she had been given too many tasks, but she didn’t seem that amused. “It’s just a lot of hard work, but that’s why we’re here and that’s what people wanted. Right?'”
Tough luck, insiders say. Vice presidents always get the worst jobs. There was no love lost between Joe Biden and Barack Obama, either, who haven’t seen each other for months despite their supposed closeness. There is, though, more to it than that. The reputation of the “big guy” — as Hunter Biden likes to call his father — has been shored up at the expense of Harris in the hope of neutralising any threat to the now 78-year-old Biden running again in 2024.
As a bonus, the stitching up of Harris has put paid to all those wounding accusations, from Donald Trump and his supporters, that Biden was merely a doddery placeman, whom she was eying up for lunch and bound to dispatch on the grounds of senility at the earliest opportunity. The ploy has worked. With her approval ratings on 44%, according to the latest YouGov/Economist poll, Harris is no longer seen as the heir apparent to the President. With her presidential hopes torpedoed, the path has been cleared for Biden to stand for a second term, if he can possibly do so. The trouble is, he does need to govern competently in the meantime.
Biden has several experienced, trusted aides, including his chief of staff, Ron Klain. But they can’t make up for the leadership vacuum at the top. Every time Biden emerges from the White House, Democrats are on high alert. The merest fumble of his script guarantees a new round of anxiety as to whether he is up to the job.
What nobody expected is that every outing by Harris would be greeted with the same level of apprehension. Even a visit last April to a cake shop in Chicago ended in a damaging “bakery versus the border” row about why she was so reluctant to make a trip to the border to see the immigration crisis for herself. Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki, let her irritation show. “Like many Americans, she got a snack,” she snapped. “I think she’s allowed to do that.”
Inside the White House, it doesn’t help that Harris has a strained relationship with Jill Biden. The President is said to be the forgiving type, but the first lady isn’t. According to Battle for the Soul, a new book on the Democratic campaign by Edward-Isaac Dovere, Jill Biden fumed “go fuck yourself” about Harris after the latter accused her husband, then a rival for the nomination, of cosying up to racist senators and opposing school bussing in a televised debate.
“With what he cares about, what he fights for, what he’s committed to, you get up there and call him a racist without basis?” Jill Biden complained to a group of supporters. She was particularly affronted because Harris, a former attorney-general for California, had been a friend of Biden’s late son, Beau, the attorney-general for Delaware. That anger, says Dovere, was “real and it doesn’t fade for her. She is very protective of her husband.”
I’m told that Biden, who used to rely on his sister Valerie for policy advice, has come to depend more and more on his wife as a sounding board in their private quarters at the White House. It is not unusual for first ladies and VPs to compete for the President’s ear — Hillary Clinton and Al Gore bitterly mistrusted each other — but with Jill Biden, it’s personal.
A fawning recent article on Jill Biden in Vogue revealed for the first time her burgeoning policy role. Describing the first lady as “a key player in her husband’s administration, a West Wing surrogate and policy advocate”, the magazine gushed about her transformational impact on education and child poverty, and claimed she was selling “a new vision for how our fundamental institutions ought to work — infrastructure, education, public health.”
No wonder Harris has been sounding snippy. Isn’t she, as vice president, supposed to be the key player and policy advocate in the Biden administration? Instead, the immigration brief has become such a “sore spot” for the VP that some Democrats are speculating that Biden himself may have told her not to go to the border, leaving Republicans free to lob missiles at her for months for avoiding the issue — until she was bounced into showing up in Texas because Trump announced he was visiting.
In any case, it was always highly doubtful she would be an effective vice president. During her botched run for the Democratic presidential nomination, Harris frequently got into a muddle on policy. Was she a progressive or a centrist? Nobody knew for sure, not even Harris herself, it seemed. It was never clear whether she was proud or embarrassed about being tough on crime as a prosecutor, and she backtracked on a debate pledge to support universal health care. Did she really support abolishing private health insurance, she was asked afterwards? “No, I do not,” she replied to confusion all round.
Moreover, her presidential campaign team was beset with the same feuding that has now broken out in her VP’s office. Kelly Mehlenbacher, Harris’s state operations director, resigned less than 90 days before the start of the Iowa caucus (the first date in the primary calendar) complaining in a letter that it was “unacceptable…that we still do not have a clear plan to win”.
She continued: “I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly…We have refused to confront our mistakes, foster an environment of critical thinking and honest feedback or trust the expertise of talented staff.” Other employees, according to the New York Times, criticised the lack of clear leadership in her campaign and for “going on the offensive against rivals, only to retreat”. In the event, Harris — initially one of the most starry candidates — was forced to abandon her campaign before the Iowa vote.
Given this past muddled form, it is not surprising she upset the Left by telling potential migrants “Do not come,” on a trip to Guatemala, while annoying the Right with her lack of urgency about the problem. Nor that she was ill-prepared to respond to an obvious question from a television presenter about when she would visit the border. “And I haven’t been to Europe either,” she griped, leading to further sighs from exasperated aides in the White House.
Nobody knows Harris’s faults better than Team Biden. The truth is they thought they needed her to win, but not to govern. Now looks like they didn’t consider the competence of the team once they made it to the White House. Biden is too frail to shoulder the burden by himself and Harris has become too weak to help him.
As the VP wanders haplessly around the White House — and country — it looks very much like the Biden camp has overdone the sabotage. Throwing the most diverse Vice President in history to the wolves doesn’t reflect well on the Democrats, and it has left them dangerously dependent on a geriatric president.
Sarah Baxter is the former Deputy Editor of The Sunday Times. She is now based in the US.
SarahbaxterSTM 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOne should not put too much stock in potential Presidential candidate campaign statements. Things always look different once in the White House, especially as POTUS often able to exert more influence on foreign than domestic affairs.
What the US increasingly knows is that Cold War 2 is not just a contest in the South China Sea. Much as for Cold War 1 it is contested over all Continents. How the US/Western Allies behave towards Ukraine has meaning and message to many pondering whether to lean towards the CCP or back towards the West. This has to form part of the calculus.
There seems no doubt though that Europe, whilst more unified than many would have predicted, will have to step forward and provide a greater proportion of guarantees for the eventual peace in Ukraine. This will beg big questions, especially of the Germans and French. The Brits too. The Poles and Scandinavians we know will step forward.
Agreed. Presidential ratings will be hurt by any activity that condemns Ukraine to defeat. There may be a reduction in enthusiasm which could cause problems, particularly if that encourages the Russians.
The best hope is that the forthcoming Ukrainian offensive pushes the Russians back to their original borders and forces Putin to negotiate. At some point the Russians will realise they can’t conquer the entirety of the Ukraine and will have to talk.
What Ukraine actually needs to do is sever the land bridge to Crimea (the southern land corridor). Resupply of Crimea will then become far more difficult. Not necessary to recover territory in the East to do this. They only need to cut the long southern flank at one point and it’s over. At that point the Russians may have to seriously negotiate.
What Ukraine actually needs to do is sever the land bridge to Crimea (the southern land corridor). Resupply of Crimea will then become far more difficult. Not necessary to recover territory in the East to do this. They only need to cut the long southern flank at one point and it’s over. At that point the Russians may have to seriously negotiate.
The Russians will have little interest in guarantees from Europe, once Merkel and the Germans admitted they have been lying for years and have no real intension of implementing any negotiated settlement, the question will be solved on the battle field with the destruction of the Ukrainian army
Rather like it was solved on 24 Feb 2022.
Ingenious solutions lead to quite fascinating outcomes!
Rather like it was solved on 24 Feb 2022.
Ingenious solutions lead to quite fascinating outcomes!
Agreed. Presidential ratings will be hurt by any activity that condemns Ukraine to defeat. There may be a reduction in enthusiasm which could cause problems, particularly if that encourages the Russians.
The best hope is that the forthcoming Ukrainian offensive pushes the Russians back to their original borders and forces Putin to negotiate. At some point the Russians will realise they can’t conquer the entirety of the Ukraine and will have to talk.
The Russians will have little interest in guarantees from Europe, once Merkel and the Germans admitted they have been lying for years and have no real intension of implementing any negotiated settlement, the question will be solved on the battle field with the destruction of the Ukrainian army
One should not put too much stock in potential Presidential candidate campaign statements. Things always look different once in the White House, especially as POTUS often able to exert more influence on foreign than domestic affairs.
What the US increasingly knows is that Cold War 2 is not just a contest in the South China Sea. Much as for Cold War 1 it is contested over all Continents. How the US/Western Allies behave towards Ukraine has meaning and message to many pondering whether to lean towards the CCP or back towards the West. This has to form part of the calculus.
There seems no doubt though that Europe, whilst more unified than many would have predicted, will have to step forward and provide a greater proportion of guarantees for the eventual peace in Ukraine. This will beg big questions, especially of the Germans and French. The Brits too. The Poles and Scandinavians we know will step forward.
Americans have learned this, but our ruling class remains quite enamored with them. Any why not? Using tax money to buy bombs and missiles made by friends you play golf with so you can blow up stuff halfway around the world is fun and makes you look strong.
Suspect Russia has also learned lessons about the futility of trying to control borderlands where people universally hate them.
Or rather, maybe they haven’t…
Suspect Russia has also learned lessons about the futility of trying to control borderlands where people universally hate them.
Or rather, maybe they haven’t…
Americans have learned this, but our ruling class remains quite enamored with them. Any why not? Using tax money to buy bombs and missiles made by friends you play golf with so you can blow up stuff halfway around the world is fun and makes you look strong.
Logically China and other enemies of the West would want to prolong this conflict as long as possible. Exhausting the West’s resources and reaching the point where the cost and compassion fatigue for what seems like an interminable war has turned public opinion against further support, the USA, Britain and Ukraine’s other supporters would once again be forced in to a shameful cut and run just like they were with Iraq and Afghanistan.
China and our other geopolitical enimies would assume – probably quite rightly – that after yet another humiliatng retreat, there would be no appetite to commit resources to defend Taiwan or any other target our enemies have in their sights
I imagine, then, that China and others will be assisting Russia with sufficient finance and armaments to ensure that Russia is not defeated. With the US presidential elections taking place next year, and a sceptical Republican president a strong probability, there is additional incentive to keep Russia in the fight for the next 18 months.
With new military and economic alligiances centred on China created and he West: humilated, exhausted, conflict wear and engaged in a cultural nervous breakdown, it is not hard to imagine that the the long touted fundamental shift in the geopoliical balance of power could finally happen.
Russia has to win its first victory before any of that can happen.
Backing incompetents is not China’s style.
Whereas stealing Russia’s erstwhile clients in Central Asia is. Nice to see that their new railway also totally bypasses Russia.
Maybe they know something about Russia we don’t?
Russia has to win its first victory before any of that can happen.
Backing incompetents is not China’s style.
Whereas stealing Russia’s erstwhile clients in Central Asia is. Nice to see that their new railway also totally bypasses Russia.
Maybe they know something about Russia we don’t?
Logically China and other enemies of the West would want to prolong this conflict as long as possible. Exhausting the West’s resources and reaching the point where the cost and compassion fatigue for what seems like an interminable war has turned public opinion against further support, the USA, Britain and Ukraine’s other supporters would once again be forced in to a shameful cut and run just like they were with Iraq and Afghanistan.
China and our other geopolitical enimies would assume – probably quite rightly – that after yet another humiliatng retreat, there would be no appetite to commit resources to defend Taiwan or any other target our enemies have in their sights
I imagine, then, that China and others will be assisting Russia with sufficient finance and armaments to ensure that Russia is not defeated. With the US presidential elections taking place next year, and a sceptical Republican president a strong probability, there is additional incentive to keep Russia in the fight for the next 18 months.
With new military and economic alligiances centred on China created and he West: humilated, exhausted, conflict wear and engaged in a cultural nervous breakdown, it is not hard to imagine that the the long touted fundamental shift in the geopoliical balance of power could finally happen.
The War will be over by summer.
The War will be over by summer.
The far more consequential fact right now is that Putin is walking an impossible tightrope.
He’s creating a quite psychotic cocktail inside Russia, by forcing people like Medvedev, and TV presenters like Solovyov, to make insane statements about “totally destroying Ukraine.”
It’s designed to convince both Russians and westerners that he is the only sane ruler for Russia.
But the far more likely outcome is that this will only embolden the real psychotics in Russia to overthrow a weak and cowardly Tsar.
We’ll soon see a civil war between psychos like Prigozhin, against the (much weakened) Russian Army and oligarchs.
Looks like 1917 all over again. Just the inevitable outcome of Muscovy’s 800-year old culture.
The sure sign that someone is wrong is when they can’t even think of a reply.
The sure sign that someone is wrong is when they can’t even think of a reply.
The far more consequential fact right now is that Putin is walking an impossible tightrope.
He’s creating a quite psychotic cocktail inside Russia, by forcing people like Medvedev, and TV presenters like Solovyov, to make insane statements about “totally destroying Ukraine.”
It’s designed to convince both Russians and westerners that he is the only sane ruler for Russia.
But the far more likely outcome is that this will only embolden the real psychotics in Russia to overthrow a weak and cowardly Tsar.
We’ll soon see a civil war between psychos like Prigozhin, against the (much weakened) Russian Army and oligarchs.
Looks like 1917 all over again. Just the inevitable outcome of Muscovy’s 800-year old culture.