Kamala Harris Made History. Then Her History Caught Up With Her.

She couldn’t outrun her record as a prosecutor.

Curtis Compton/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Kamala Harris is out.

The junior senator from California suspended her bid for the Democratic nomination for president Tuesday afternoon. The announcement capped off a historic campaign that started with a bang and quickly devolved into a sputtering operation torn between two coasts and warring staffers, according to damning reports from Politico and the New York Times. Harris entered the race as one of the favorites but ended it polling in the low single digits—far behind Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigeig, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Harris is used to making history. As a biracial black woman of Jamaican and Indian descent, she ticked off a list of firsts as she climbed the ranks of national politics. She was the first woman, at the age of 38, to lead San Francisco’s district attorney’s office. She was the first black woman and first Asian American woman to serve as California attorney general and US senator from the state. She centered her campaign on the symbolism of pioneering black women politicians who came before her, like Shirley Chisholm, whose historic 1972 run for president inspired everything from Harris’ first stump speeches to her team’s retro yellow, purple, and burnt orange design scheme.

But in the end, it was Harris’ own history that worked against her. As district attorney, she pioneered an innovative program that kept nonviolent first-time offenders out of jail. But she also boasted a tough-on-crime approach, including truancy programs that sent a handful of parents to jail. Harris, still in her first term in the Senate, ultimately could not reconcile the nearly two decades she spent in law enforcement with a rapidly changing political landscape on criminal justice issues that’s driven by the progressive base’s desire for systemic change.

This narrative was baked in early, even before Harris launched her campaign in front of 20,000 people in her hometown of Oakland. Days before her official entry into the race, Lara Bazelon, a law professor at the University of San Francisco and a former public defender, published a scathing opinion piece in the New York Times titled “Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor,'” pushing back hard against Harris’ claims in her memoir that her prosecutorial approach was in line with modern-day reformers like Larry Krasner in Philadelphia and Kim Foxx in Chicago. “If Kamala Harris wants people who care about dismantling mass incarceration and correcting miscarriages of justice to vote for her, she needs to radically break with her past,” Bazelon wrote.

And then there were the searing stories of the human toll of Harris’ career in California. Jamal Trulove, a San Francisco man convicted of murder by her DA’s office, later had his conviction overturned and won a $13 million settlement. Cheree Peoples was arrested in 2013 during Harris’ crackdown on truancy as attorney general—even though, as the Huffington Post reported, Peoples’ chronically truant daughter was in fact battling sickle cell anemia. Several news outlets later reported that Harris’ campaign battled internally over how to talk about her record as a prosecutor—she did issue a handful of apologies—but never settled on anything beyond telling voters that she had the prosecutorial chops to take on Donald Trump.

In the last months of her campaign, as rivals like Warren and Sanders enlivened the Democratic base with ambitious and unapologetically ideological agendas to remake health care and cancel student debt, Harris seemed to move tepidly. In one interview with the New York Times, she boasted about not being ideologically driven and said that she was instead a pragmatist focused on solutions. 

Harris’ standout campaign moment came during a debate in June, when she challenged Biden’s record on school desegregation by pointing to her own childhood, when she was bused to a nearby majority-white school in Berkeley. 

That moment sowed the seeds for what could have been a true breakout moment—there were t-shirts and memes—but it ultimately failed to do much in the long run. Turns out, words and memes weren’t enough to convince Democratic voters that Harris was the right choice to run against Trump.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate