‘107 Days’ by Kamala Harris: Can the Democratic Party Rebuild?

“107 Days” cover, courtesy of Simon & Schuster.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris’s new book, “107 Days,” was released Sept. 23. The memoir chronologizes her journey from July 21, 2024, to November 4, 2024: the day former President Joe Biden withdrew his bid for reelection to the day Harris lost the election to President Donald Trump. This unique perspective takes readers behind-the-scenes of Harris’s 107-day campaign, and has given both the American public and elected officials new ideas of where the Democratic Party is headed.

An excerpt of the first chapter was published by the Atlantic ahead of the release date, and many news publications had early access to the book to release their reviews. Through these accounts, Harris uncovers the hard truths behind the ignorance of Biden’s mental state, the treatment she received while under his administration and the actions of other big-players in the Democratic Party.

Harris reveals while the public expressed concerns over Biden’s age and ability to lead, his team remained mostly passive on the matter. The decision on whether Biden would run or not was thought to be a private one between Biden and his wife. The administration would use this idea as an excuse or “mantra,” repeating it whenever the question of Biden’s declining performance arose. Even after his faltering debate performance against Trump, his team pushed toward the goal of a second Biden presidency, actions which Harris now calls “reckless.”

But, Harris had her own reasons for remaining silent on the matter of a second Biden term, as she did not want to come off as being “self-serving” or having “naked ambition." She knew the likelihood of her being the replacement was high, and thus strongly believed it was best for her to remain quiet to avoid accusations of misguided motivations.

Harris continues to distance herself from the Biden administration by accounting that she felt undermined and underappreciated during her term. She explained how, especially when it came to her role as “border czar,” she felt unsupported. Her specific task under this label was to go to the Northern Triangle — a term used to categorize the three Central American counties of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador — and attack the rampant issues of poverty and gang violence at their root. She was given this task as the woes of this region cause many residents to migrate to the U.S. 

These migrants are a main catalyst in the debate on U.S. immigration and border control, and instead of defending her efforts to address this issue non-domestically, Harris felt Biden let the Republicans mischaracterize her role to blame this contentious debate on her. When negative stories appeared in the press about her, Harris wrote she felt the Biden team seemed “fine with it,” as long as Biden’s approval rating was not affected.

She also points fingers directly at Biden, revealing a contentious phone call that happened right before Harris’s own debate with Trump. Harris details how Biden called her moments before she entered the debate stage, accusing her of bad-mouthing him to “powerbrokers.” Harris was shaken by this quick exchange and could not figure out why Biden felt the need to “make it all about himself,” right before one the most important moments of her short campaign.

Beyond her link to Biden, Harris reveals the logic behind her own campaign strategy, specifically when it came to picking her own running mate. Her first choice was Pete Buttigieg, Biden’s former secretary of transportation. However, Harris thought that as a woman-of-color, she would need a “traditional” candidate — a straight, white man — in order to appeal to a larger audience of Americans. 

Buttigieg, who is openly gay, was not aware of Harris’s take on the matter until statements from her memoir were released, and he expressed surprise at her reasoning. Buttigieg told Politico he believes Harris should have given “Americans more credit," and it was unjust of her to believe American voters were not “ready” for a more diverse ticket.

Harris continues by deeming Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) as one of her finalists for the job. She characterized him as “poised, polished, and personable,” and thought he would have been the ideal candidate. However, Harris was deterred by Shapiro’s ambitious attitude, as she claims he seemed more focused on the title of vice president than his duty to the American people. Harris detailed how in interviews, Shapiro was more focused on decorating the White House with Pennsylvanian artists’ work than questions about his campaign goals. 

Shapiro’s team has harshly pushed back, with Shapiro’s spokesman Manuel Bonder telling CNN that Harris’ comments were “simply ridiculous.” Shapiro himself also fired back by criticizing Harris for her silence on Biden’s mental state during his second campaign. Shapiro claimed he was very “vocal” with the former president about his concerns and juxtaposes his actions with Harris’, stating she will “have to answer” for her silence.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) was also a consideration for Harris’ running mate, but was knocked out due to his delay in backing pro-union legislation. Harris was concerned how he would hold up against the Trump campaign. 

Her eventual pick, Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN), was thought to be “appealingly authentic” and had a large amount of pull with rural and working-class voters. However, he was not as seasoned of a politician as many of the other choices, and when it came time for his vice presidential debate, Harris recalled cringing as Walz fell for “JD’s fake bipartisanship.”

It can be argued that Harris is “burning bridges” with this memoir, as many see it as a potential “goodbye” to politics from her. Some take the viewpoint that she is projecting the blame for the 2024 election loss onto others to give herself another shot. Harris detailed how she wants to benefit the current political sphere by not working within the system. Instead, she wants to engage with communities directly, to find out what Americans truly want going into the future.

The advent of “107 Days” has left many Democrats feeling conflicted. Some applaud its truthful and raw nature, yet the larger consensus is the party needs to stop dwelling on the past. In the wake of immense loss in November, the party is in clear need of rebuilding. Most Democrats agree that new candidates, new energy and new ideas are a necessity for them to push back against the increasing influence of the Republican Party. 

However, many feel Harris’s memoir does the exact opposite of that, as it brings up old wounds, especially ones regarding Biden. One former Biden and Harris campaign aide described it as, “too little, too late,” referring to the revelations about when Biden decided to drop out. Many Democrats feel Harris’s memoir and overall rhetoric are stuck on the “Biden question,” while the current administration is moving forward with its extreme and opposed ideals.

Democrats know they must restore the spirit within their party if they want any shot at weakening the current Republican control. Therefore, many feel while Harris’ book reveals interesting secrets of her historic campaign, it is unnecessary in a time of such unrest. Michael Hardaway, a Democratic strategist, encapsulates this idea when he states, “In an era where Democrats need all hands on deck in the fight to protect the country and the constitution from the lawlessness of the Trump administration … This book seems to be unhelpful and divisive.”