Kamala Harris’s new memoir, “107 Days,” reads like a book of excuses. In this episode, the Opinion national politics writer Michelle Cottle and the Opinion columnists Carlos Lozada and Lydia Polgreen unpack why it misses the mark, and what it says about the “big, messy battle” Democrats need to have to find fresh leadership in 2028.
Below is a transcript of an episode of “The Opinions.” We recommend listening to it in its original form for the full effect. You can do so using the player above or on Apple, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts.
The transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Michelle Cottle: Kamala Harris has a new memoir out: “107 Days.” Lydia Polgreen and Carlos Lozada have given it a thoughtful read.
Carlos basically gives everything a thoughtful read, and I’ve gone through all the juicy bits. So we’re going to break it down and talk through the implications for the Democratic Party, especially going forward.
So let’s get right into it. I want your first impressions. I need a one-word reaction on what you two thought of the book.
Carlos Lozada: One word? Why must we be so reductionist? I wrote 2,000 words, and you tell me to pick one.
I’ll say the word is “excuse.” This is not just an explanation for why Harris thinks she lost. I think it’s the excuse that she gives, and the excuses are right in the title: 107 days.
Throughout the book, she keeps saying: If I’d had more time, I could have better sold my economic vision, I could have forged a stronger tie of voters, I could have made clear I offered a superior alternative to Trump. But basically, 107 days is her excuse for why she lost the election.
Cottle: That’s pretty harsh. Lydia?
Lydia Polgreen: I would say “lawyerly.”
Cottle: That may be harsher, though.
Polgreen: Famously, Kamala Harris is a lawyer. I don’t know if you’ve heard.
Lozada: I hear she’s a prosecutor.
Polgreen: Yes, and when you think of lawyers and literary works or movies or whatever, you think about courtroom scenes and closing arguments. This book, to me, felt lawyerly in the sense that it felt like a legal brief, almost.
I mean that in the sense that it was not a document for a jury of American citizens aimed at persuasion but an almost insider account of her argument for herself. So I guess I’m saying something quite similar to what Carlos is saying.
Cottle: Just gentler.
Polgreen: It has this quality of a legal brief. And that feels of a piece with the whole problem with her campaign, which is: Who, ultimately, was this for? It often felt like she was performing for a political class of elites rather than actually trying to win over the American people.
Cottle: My word — and it’s a little bit harsh, but I got on Thesaurus.com and looked up if there’s an alternative that’s less harsh, and there’s not — it’s just a little whiny or defensive, I guess, but that’s stepping on Carlos’s line.
But it was like, “Well, I only had 107 days, and all these people didn’t trust me in the Biden White House, and these people weren’t respectful, and how am I supposed to operate with this going on?” I mean, I get it. She did yeoman’s labor in the time she was given, and she was in a bad position.
But my big question coming out of this is what you have alluded to, Lydia: What is the point of this book? Carlos, as far as her excuses for what happened, she does point out the very real challenges that she was up against — either from the administration or from outside. Do you think that these excuses are fair or accurate?
Lozada: When I say “excuse,” I should emphasize I’m not reading tea leaves. She very overtly says that this is why she feels that she lost. In the second-to-last page of the book, she says, “107 days were not, in the end, long enough to accomplish the task of winning the presidency.”
That made me try to go through a thought experiment: What if she had had more time? What if she and the Democrats, in fact, had had a lot more time? What if right after the midterm elections, Biden had said: Look, I said I’d be a transitional figure. I’m getting older. I’m slowing down. I’m going to hand this off. We have a deep bench in the party. Let’s have a process to pick the next nominee.
In that kind of scenario, do you think Kamala Harris would’ve necessarily emerged as the victor? The counterfactuals are hard, but I don’t think it would be preordained.
There are ways in which the short time frame actually helped her, rather than hindered her. She says it herself. She said that when Biden drops out and people were asking her, “What should the process be like to pick a new nominee?” she shut it down entirely.
She said: “If they thought I was down with a mini-primary or some other half-baked procedure, I was quick to disabuse them. How much more time would it have taken to pull that off?”
So it feels a bit rich to complain about the short time frame that kept you from winning and at the same time rely on the short time frame to secure the nomination in the first place.
Cottle: I looked at that as two different issues, though, which is that if there had been a process, which folks like Nancy Pelosi were pushing for, Kamala might not have wound up the nominee. But whoever was given 107 days could have made a similar argument if they were so inclined. So she’s trying to have her cake and eat it, too. They are kind of separate arguments.
Polgreen: Maybe. But I think that probably the most devastating proof that time wasn’t the issue is that she actually got a huge boost — polling, fund-raising, all of that — right at the beginning.
I went out on the campaign trail, but it wasn’t actually the campaign trail yet because Biden hadn’t dropped out yet, and there was a lot of electricity. There was a lot of energy. There was this huge groundswell, and it all just kind of frittered away. It just didn’t last, and she was unable to sustain it.
I think that one of the problems, though, with talking about excuses is that she actually does have a really big and very valid excuse in the broadest sense, which is: This is all Joe Biden’s fault.
He’s the one who chose not to drop out after the midterms and create the space and enough time. But the case that she could have made — that ultimately this was Biden’s fault — because of loyalty or misplaced feelings she’s having, she really doesn’t directly go after Biden at all in this book, except in the most glancing ways and usually putting the words in somebody else’s mouth.
Cottle: Yeah, talk about lawyerly there.
Polgreen: That’s the thing. It’s: I didn’t have enough time, but there was no time to do this. I was stuck in this position by my predecessor, but I don’t actually want to go out there and name the thing that put me in this position and put responsibility on that person.
So it’s an incredibly frustrating thing to read. And you just wonder: Who is actually thinking about what was best for the country?
Cottle: She, on multiple occasions, has the killer lines in somebody else’s mouth. For instance, David Plouffe apparently telling her that everybody hates Joe Biden —
Lozada: Even her husband.
Cottle: But this speaks to her general problem of being too cautious and scripted and lawyerly. How did you read all of that?
Lozada: I said earlier I didn’t want to be reductionist, but I’ll be reductionist here.
This is an odd sort of political memoir. And here’s the reductionism: There are two main kinds of Washington memoirs, and which kind you write depends on what stage you’re in in your career.
If you still have high hopes for bigger jobs, then the memoir you write tends to be careful. It’s lawyerly ——
Cottle: You can say “boring.”
Lozada: You don’t want to piss too many people off. They’re keeping their powder dry for some future campaign, laying out your positive policy, vision, et cetera, et cetera. “The Truths We Hold,” her prior book, in 2019, was that kind of book.
Then there’s the kind of memoir that you write when you’re done with your career and you can unload and tell everyone what you really think ——
Cottle: Those I love.
Lozada: What’s really wrong with the world or with the country or with the party or with your colleagues, whoever it is.
Harris’s memoir is weird because it’s stuck between the two. She does just enough to kind of annoy some people and some potential future allies but not enough to really feel like she’s telling us everything or revealing something significant. It’s neither fish nor fowl.
In Peru we’d say, “Ni chicha, ni limonada.” It’s not chicha. It’s not lemonade. It’s something else. She takes the potshot at Josh Shapiro or Gavin Newsom, but it’s kind of small potatoes. Then when she can talk about some big issues, she really pulls her punches. Gaza is the perfect example, right? She speaks very generically, like: Look, I wanted to have a more nuanced conversation, and people are demonizing people on all sides, and I don’t want to do that.
Then when she talks about a specific controversy, she says there was some tension and bitterness that we didn’t give a speaking slot at the convention to a Palestinian speaker. And that’s it. She doesn’t say why. She doesn’t get into that at all.
So it’s a weird memoir because it doesn’t really do either thing that these memoirs usually attempt to do. It’s sort of trying to do them all and therefore does neither.
Cottle: Lydia, how much do you think that policy issues played a role in her frittering away all this, versus just the general climate or the issues with Biden or her. If she’d done something on Gaza, would it have been different?
Polgreen: We’ll never know. I think that it is clear that there was a hunger for someone to speak truth to power in a really meaningful way about the lawlessness and the complete pitilessness of the Israeli campaign in Gaza.
And I think what’s interesting — and this came up in the campaign of Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York to win the primary — that the appeal of taking a stand on Gaza was a message that meant: I actually, really believe in something, and even if it costs me politically, I’m going to stick with my principle on this issue.
That told people something that actually goes beyond policy. It says: I stand for a policy because I really believe in something.
Reading this book, it was really a reminder of just how small ball so much of what Kamala Harris was proposing in her campaign was. I had conveniently, or inconveniently, forgotten about the $25,000 first-homeowner credit that she had put out there as her policy to help with the affordability crisis, which she didn’t really call the affordability crisis.
There was example after example after example of that kind of thing, where you had very big-picture, high-flown rhetoric about quote-unquote ideas, meaning saving democracy, bipartisanship, “We’re better than this.”
Lozada: Freedom.
Polgreen: Freedom! All of those kinds of things, without a ton of specificity, matched with, frankly, some really small-bore policy proposals.
I think at one point in the book she talks about really only wanting to propose things that were possible.
Cottle: Oh, that’s madness in a presidential race.
Polgreen: It just felt like you’re basically limiting yourself to begin with. So there’s just a real lack ——
Lozada: You campaign in poetry and govern in prose, right?
Polgreen: Yeah, exactly.
But even beyond that, it’s like you campaign in policy papers, but those policy papers are things that, like, literally, a congressional intern couldn’t get excited about. It’s stuff that I don’t understand how any of this is going to motivate American voters at this particular juncture, at that time.
Cottle: She was supposed to be leading a party that doesn’t really have a clear vision or didn’t seem to have a clear vision, except for “We are not Trump.”
And the question now is, if you look at this book, it seems to suffer from a similar problem, which is it’s almost entirely backward looking and doesn’t really seem to have an idea of where she or the party would go.
Lozada: She says flat-out near the end that we need to come up with our own blueprint that sets out our alternative vision for the country.
It’s like, well, yeah, but you didn’t just have 107 days; you had four years as vice president of the United States. And to say now — I mean, it’s like she has concepts of a plan, right? We need to come up with our blueprint.
Polgreen: Only Trump can get away with concepts of a plan.
Lozada: And that’s not just an off-the-cuff thing in a debate. That’s how she wrote it in the book. And so I think you’re right, Michelle, in that the party has defined itself so fully as being against Trump that it sometimes has a hard time articulating what it’s for. It’s almost like Trump and Trumpism are the guide: Whatever they do, I’m going to push against. It’s like Costanza: I will do the opposite.
Part of the reason, for instance, that they didn’t do more on the border is that they felt they had to be completely opposite of what Trump had done — the sort of performative cruelty against immigrants during his term. But they won’t be running against Trump in 2028. They’ll be running against some form of Trumpism.
What this reminded me of, in terms of books, is Michael Wolff’s first book about Trump, “Fire and Fury,” that book that got so much attention. There’s a really brutal moment early in the first year of the presidency, where a deputy chief of staff, possibly Katie Walsh, confronts Jared Kushner about Trump’s objectives. She asks, “Just give me the three things the president wants to focus on. What are the three priorities of this White House?” Kushner responds, “Yes, we probably should have that conversation,” but it never occurred to him. There were no priorities.
So when I saw Harris saying, “We need to come up with our own blueprint for what we want” and how we want to leave the country, I thought: Yes, of course you should. That’s your job. It reminded me of that kind of cluelessness early in the Trump years.
Polgreen: I had it written down in my notebook that line that you just quoted about the blueprint. It’s on Page 297 of a 300-page book, so make of that what you will. We were talking earlier about time and was it enough time? Did she suffer because there was, in fact, just a little bit too much time? And if you’d had less or more — I think that that conversation about time is actually downstream of a conversation about competition and democracy.
This brings us into the conversation of the present and meeting the midterms in 2026 and then also the 2028 race for the presidency, which hopefully the Democrat will not be facing Donald Trump in that race, although you never know.
Cottle: You have to hedge your bets there.
Polgreen: But I think the solution to this problem of ideas is actually to have a competition about ideas. And the way that you have a competition about ideas is that you have big, brawling, knockdown primaries. You put your ideas in front of voters, you describe them, build them out. You argue for them. You alter them.
It strikes me that not having a primary — and frankly, Harris was right: There really wasn’t enough time to hold even a mini-primary. A mini-primary would have required elites identifying certain candidates as eligible beforehand. So it would have been a cursed process, no matter what.
But I came away from this book thinking we need a big, messy battle within the Democratic Party to figure out the blueprint. Ultimately, it needs to come from voters. We need lots of different ideas out there for people to debate and decide on and to tell their leaders: These are the things that really resonate with us.
Cottle: I mean, it is worth noting that 2016, when we wound up with Trump for the first time, was a Republican primary that was pretty rowdy. I mean, everybody thought ——
Polgreen: Pretty rowdy.
Cottle: Maybe the next Bush. Jeb Bush was seen as a big contender. Ted Cruz wouldn’t give up the race for an extended period. It was brutal. In the end, the voters had their say, and the Democrats ——
Polgreen: Well, that’s the thing. Maybe the way to save democracy is by actually doing democracy — having open competition where people bring their personalities and their ideas and fight for the support of voters. That’s true within parties, and it’s true between parties.
Lozada: Well, think about the last time the Democrats had that kind of debate in a presidential primary. It wasn’t 2020. It’s not that Joe Biden emerged from a battle of ideas. He was quickly anointed because there was fear it might be Bernie Sanders, and the thinking was that Bernie couldn’t beat Donald Trump — so they put Joe in. You have to go back to 2016, a long time ago, to see when they last did that at the presidential level, and you get rusty. You need to be able to hash these things out publicly, and that’s the power of primaries.
Polgreen: Yeah, the last one where that was really, truly the case produced Barack Obama. A two-term, incredibly successful Democratic president who remains one of the most popular figures in American public life. I think that that in and of itself is testament to what can be achieved.
Cottle: And I think, too often, especially on the Democratic side, people wait and pay attention at the presidential moment. But this year you have two governor’s races, which are always a little bit different. And then you have the beginnings of a lot of these Senate fights. It’s good to see what is rising to the top, what is resonating with voters and what is not before you get into the heat of a presidential race. Especially with a party that doesn’t have any obvious leaders, and of course, all of that sort of clarifies after the midterms.
But it is good to watch some of these battles being played out and for voters to pay attention before it comes time to pick a president, which is always one of my hobby horses. Please pay attention to something other than the presidential level so that you know what’s at stake.
Polgreen: I think the most exciting possibility is that the Democratic nominee in 2028 is someone we aren’t even talking about right now. It’s someone who will emerge long after all the review copies of “107 Days” have been sold at the Strand Bookstore and marked down at Barnes & Noble.
The name of the person who ultimately wins the Democratic primaries — the party’s standard-bearer in 2028 — is someone we don’t know yet, someone not even in the conversation. There’s tremendous risk in that, but there’s also tremendous excitement and possibility. You see candidates emerging, some even running as independents rather than as Democrats, which is interesting in itself.
It’s exciting to see people saying something different, trying to connect with voters on a new level and really listening to what their constituencies are telling them. I really hope some of that energy carries over into whatever happens and we don’t end up with a depressing choice between the same menu of options people were considering if there had been a mini-primary after Joe Biden dropped out.
Cottle: Absolutely. I think back to 2008, when they thought the candidate that might be the dark horse to come in and beat Hillary Clinton was going to be Mark Warner of Virginia. And instead we wound up with this first-term senator from Illinois who nobody had ever heard of. But that’s the problem with parties trying to game things out too far in advance. Or when you try to line up your ducks before you see what voters are telling you.
This was obviously a huge problem in the last presidential election. Voters were telling the Democratic Party: We have big concerns about Joe Biden. And the party leaders just weren’t listening. I think ultimately that is what doomed Kamala. She could’ve run the best race in the world. I’m not sure it would’ve been enough to overcome voters’ sense that they had been sold a bill of goods with her predecessor. But again, armchair quarterbacking — not that useful, I guess, at this point.
Polgreen: I will say that one of the people who I think really benefits from this book is Pete Buttigieg. This maybe gets to some of the ways in which this book inadvertently does work that is perhaps important.
Pete Buttigieg is a talented guy, and I think we’ll see more of him. I’m not saying that he’s my favorite or even on my list of people who should be considered for 2028. But a real favor this book does for him is it really does put some daylight between him, Harris and Biden, which I think is much needed. I would almost say the same for Josh Shapiro, and it makes Harris look pretty petty and small. So I think we have no way of knowing how any of this is going to play out now.
Cottle: Like, for the 15 people who actually pay attention to this book ——
Polgreen: Yeah, exactly.
Lozada: Oh, the book is ——
Cottle: Among other things, anyway. No, it’s not going to be a best seller and have its own Netflix show.
Lozada: It’s selling. The book is selling.
Cottle: How many copies is this book selling? If you’re talking about the American public, nobody reads political books except you, Carlos.
Lozada: I refuse to believe that.
Cottle: You are here so that you can tell America what they need to know.
Lozada: I’m going to tell you right now; the Kindle version is No. 1.
Polgreen: Like, in the world?
Lozada: And No. 1 on Amazon. Not those made-up categories that they have. My book always does great in “political literature/criticism.”
Cottle: I love that category. That’s my favorite category.
Lozada: Numero uno right there.
Cottle: Well, then that clinches it ——
Lozada: She is laughing all the way to the bank.
Cottle: She is on a glide path to be the next president. So Lydia, I love your idea that the major use for this book is to make the people she goes after look better and improve their prospects for a political future. That’s a very weird answer to my question of “What’s the point?” But I actually kind of like it. Beyond that, though, do we think she’s trying to lay the groundwork for running in 2028? Is that what this is?
Lozada: Well, to put out the best possible case for her: She has gotten closer each time. In 2019 she didn’t even make it to the primaries. She didn’t even make it to the first actual primary vote. And then in 2024 she became the nominee. So, you know, baby steps. But I think ——
Cottle: There’s a mantra, there’s a political slogan.
Lozada: I think that anyone who thinks they should be president of the United States usually doesn’t stop thinking they should be president of the United States. I’m not a betting man. I hate all those betting commercials on TV sports broadcasts, but if I were betting for 2028, the Democratic nominee, I would take the field over Kamala Harris.
Cottle: But you think she’s going to be in there? You think she’s going to be in there fighting?
Lozada: I suspect she’s going to run and then she’ll drop out.
Cottle: Lydia, what about you?
Polgreen: I think that if Kamala Harris honestly wanted to compete for the 2028 nomination, I think her best bet would have been to write searingly honest, burn it all down, tell the truth about her own mistakes, the things that she learned, why coloring inside the lines led to her defeat, show some real humility but also some real kind of spine in saying, like, “I took bad advice, and I’m never going to do that again, and here’s how I would’ve done it differently.”
I think there was another book that she could have written that could have been a real scorcher, really indicting the Democratic establishment and saying: I know this because I was a part of it. After Biden dropped out, I think I felt a certain amount of projection of those hopes personally onto Kamala Harris that perhaps she would start to speak the truth.
But I think this book reveals that the truth is that she’s a kind of bog-standard politician who just doesn’t really have a lot of ideas and worked her way up inside the technocratic machine that is the contemporary Democratic Party. I don’t think a person like that should be the nominee in 2028. And I certainly pray that they won’t be the nominee in 2028, regardless of who the Republicans nominate.
Cottle: Yeah, I think you’ve hit on it right there, even if she does have ideas, I think she’s too cautious to let those off the chain. So I think that this book is a reflection of what her shortcomings as a politician are in general.
Lozada: I wanted to say I have her two prior books, “Smart on Crime” and “The Truths We Hold,” and now “107 Days.” I’ve read all of Kamala Harris’s books, all three of them. She was never going to write the scorcher that you wanted, Lydia, for precisely the reason that you gave — that she is a cautious party bureaucrat. I don’t mean that in the most pejorative sense. I mean ——
Cottle: It’s pretty pejorative.
Lozada: She’s not saying that, like, bureaucracy is bad. Max Weber didn’t write about it as a pejorative. It’s not always negative.
Cottle: But as a presidential candidate characteristic …
Lozada: She’s someone who works her way up the greasy pole of party politics, and she’s done that in a generally cautious manner. In a sense, this new book is consistent with that. It goes a little further than some of the others, but it’s still true to the kind of politician she has been.
Cottle: OK, we’re going to let you have the last word, but now, to get the unappealing image of a greasy political pole out of everybody’s minds — please, God — we’re going to do what we usually do to end these conversations, which is: I need a recommendation from both of you for listeners. Lydia, you want to go first?
Polgreen: Sure. So we’ve all been talking a lot about political violence in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk. There’s been a lot of discussion about which side is more violent and whether this is better or worse than the 1960s and ’70s. There are lots of great books about political violence in that era, but I want to recommend my absolute favorite, which is “The Skies Belong to Us” by the journalist Brendan Koerner.
It tells the story of the skyjacking craze in the 1960s and ’70s. It’s great because it gives you a portrait of the political atmosphere at the time — including all the mail bombings and the Weather Underground — but it really focuses on the skyjackings and what it was like to fly back then. But I think that if you want an actually incredibly entertaining but also really, really insightful book that gives a unique window into that period of American life, it’s one of my absolute favorites.
Cottle: That sounds great.
Polgreen: I picked it up again recently because I love it so much.
Cottle: Love it. Carlos? If you tell me Kamala’s memoir, I’m just going to cut the camera.
Lozada: No, I had something that I was going to say, but Lydia, you said something in the middle of this conversation that made me change my mind. So I’m going to call an audible, and I’m going to read a poem. It’s called “The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered” by Clive James.
Cottle: OK.
Lozada:
The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I am pleased.
In vast quantities it has been remaindered
Like a van-load of counterfeit that has been seized
And sits in piles in the police warehouse,
My enemy’s much prized effort sits in piles
In the kind of bookshop where remaindering occurs.
Great, square stacks of rejected books and, between them, aisles
One passes down reflecting on life’s vanities,
Pausing to remember all those thoughtful reviews
Lavished to no avail upon one’s enemy’s book —
For behold, here is that book
Among these ranks and banks of duds,
These ponderous seeminly irreversible cairns
Of complete stiffs.
The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I rejoice.
It has gone with bowed head like a defeated legion
Beneath the yoke.
What avail him now his awards and prizes,
The praise expended upon his meticulous technique,
His individual new voice?
Knocked into the middle of next week
His brainchild now consorts with the bad buys
The sinker, clinkers, dogs and dregs,
The Edsels of the world of moveable type,
The bummers that no amount of hype could shift,
The unbudgeable turkeys.
I’m going to stop there. There’s two more chunks of it, but Clive James is a genius. He’s an absolute genius writer, and when Lydia talked about how Kamala Harris’s book would one day end up in the remainder pile, all I could think of was “The Book of My Enemy Has Been Remaindered,” which you should all — any author among you or reader among you should check it out.
Cottle: OK. Well, I’m going to lean into my Washington nerdy roots and recommend a Netflix show called “The Residence.” Have you guys watched this? Carlos, you never watch anything.
Lozada: I’ve never heard of it.
Cottle: Lydia did you watch this?
Polgreen: Watched it. Loved it.
Cottle: It’s brilliant, right? It’s produced by Shondaland.
Lozada: How do you hear about these things, anyway?
Cottle: What do you mean? How do I hear? Because I live in America, and we watch TV, especially streaming.
Now your homework is to watch this. It dropped back in March, though we were about six months late to it. It’s a murder mystery set in the White House. The chief usher, played brilliantly by Giancarlo Esposito, who’s a genius, ends up dead at the state dinner for the Australian prime minister. They have to lock down the White House and bring in a very eccentric detective named Cordelia Cupp who is played by Uzo Aduba. She is absolute genius.
She just takes every single line they give her and makes it sing.
If you’re in journalism, political journalism or politics, you might approach shows like this with an eye roll — they often take themselves too seriously or go over the top. But this one is just daffy enough. It doesn’t take itself too seriously and is a fantastic murder mystery. I highly recommend it. I was very sad to hear they’re not picking it up for another season. I’m quite bitter about that.
Polgreen: It’s a really fun show.
Cottle: So, Carlos, you should watch it.
Lozada: I will check this out.
Cottle: All right, then. I think we’re going to leave it there. Thank you, guys, so much for coming to talk this through with me.
Polgreen: That was so great to be reunited with you two.
Lozada: Great to see you again.
Polgreen: “MOO” forever.
Thoughts? Email us at [email protected].
This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Vishakha Darbha. It was edited by Alison Bruzek and Kaari Pitkin. Mixing by Efim Shapiro and Carole Sabouraud. Original music by Pat McCusker and Aman Sahota. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. The director of Opinion Audio is Annie-Rose Strasser.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
Michelle Cottle writes about national politics for Opinion. She has covered Washington and politics since the Clinton administration. @mcottle
Carlos Lozada is an Opinion columnist based in Washington, D.C. He is the author, most recently, of “The Washington Book: How to Read Politics and Politicians.” @CarlosNYT
Lydia Polgreen is an Opinion columnist.
The post Harris’s Memoir Is Another Example of the Democrats’ Problem appeared first on New York Times.
