Lead: In excerpts published Sept. 10, 2025, former Vice President Kamala Harris criticizes the handling of President Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection in 2024, calling it a choice that should not have been left to an individual’s ambition. The comments appear in her forthcoming book, 107 Days, whose excerpts ran in The Atlantic the same day. Harris, who became the presumptive Democratic nominee in July 2024 after Biden withdrew with 107 days remaining before Election Day, says the process exposed reckless judgment by those closest to the president. Her account also questions how Biden’s team treated her during the 2024 campaign and reflects on Biden’s capacity and stamina at age 81.
Key Takeaways
- Kamala Harris, 60, wrote in her book 107 Days that Joe Biden’s choice to run in 2024 should not have been left to ‘an individual’s ego’ and that the stakes were too high to be purely personal.
- The book excerpts were published Sept. 10, 2025, in The Atlantic and the full memoir is scheduled for release on Sept. 23, 2025.
- Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee in July 2024 after Biden dropped out of the race with 107 days remaining until Election Day.
- She says members of Biden’s inner circle failed to defend her from negative narratives and at times appeared to amplify them, including claims about a ‘chaotic’ office.
- Harris characterizes Biden as knowledgeable and compassionate compared with Donald Trump, but acknowledges he ‘got tired’ at 81 and that fatigue affected some performance.
- This summer Harris announced she will not run for governor of California in 2026, a decision that has prompted speculation about a possible 2028 presidential bid.
Background
Harris served as vice president during a turbulent 2024 election cycle that ended with President Biden deciding not to continue his campaign, a choice that cleared a path for Harris to become the Democratic nominee with just 107 days until Election Day. The timing and internal handling of that decision have been scrutinized by aides, allies and opponents alike because of the compressed timetable and high national stakes. Harris’s new memoir arrives more than a year after those events and revisits the internal dynamics inside the White House during that critical stretch.
Her critique centers both on the choice itself and on how the president’s staff managed public narratives about the vice presidency and campaign operations. Historically, transitions and last-minute candidacy shifts have prompted institutional debates about fitness, succession and party stewardship — debates that in this instance played out amid live campaign pressures. Multiple stakeholders — the president, first lady, senior advisers, party officials and the vice president — had competing incentives that shaped how decisions were framed publicly and internally.
Main Event
In the Atlantic excerpts published Sept. 10, 2025, Harris describes a White House culture in which the president and first lady treated the decision about running as primarily their own. She writes that colleagues repeated the refrain ‘it’s Joe and Jill’s decision’ in a way that discouraged broader deliberation. Harris frames that dynamic as reckless because it prevented a more collective assessment of capacity and national interest at a critical moment before Election Day.
Harris says she debated whether to privately urge Biden to reconsider but concluded that doing so would have appeared self-serving and would have placed her in an untenable position inside the administration. She recounts feeling constrained by optics and loyalty, even as she worried about the broader consequences for the party and the country. The memoir also alleges that some members of Biden’s inner circle did not shield her from damaging narratives and, at times, fed them.
At the same time, Harris offers a measured assessment of Biden’s presidency. She defends his general competence and compassion relative to then-President Trump, while acknowledging that at 81 years old he experienced fatigue that affected his performance. Those passages underline a tension in her account: a blend of personal loyalty, institutional concern and political calculus about leadership during a fraught campaign season.
Analysis & Implications
Harris’s critique reframes the 2024 succession episode as not merely a personnel decision but as an institutional failure of party stewardship. If a major choice about candidacy was treated as the province of the president and first lady alone, the process bypassed customary checks that parties and senior advisers often apply when the stakes are presidential viability and national governance. That interpretation raises questions about internal decision-making norms in the White House and among senior Democratic officials.
The memoir’s charge that Biden aides allowed negative narratives about the vice president to circulate has political and organizational implications. For the Democratic Party, perceived infighting or failure to present a unified front at key moments can dampen voter confidence and create openings for opponents. For future administrations, the episode underscores the need for clearer protocols on succession and for mechanisms that balance personal loyalty with institutional duty.
Harris’s public reflections also have electoral ramifications. Her statement that she will not run for California governor in 2026 keeps the door open for national-level calculations, and speculation about 2028 has intensified. How donors, state party officials and grassroots organizers interpret her memoir may shape primary dynamics and ballot-line decisions in upcoming cycles.
Comparison & Data
| Item | 2024/2025 Detail |
|---|---|
| Days before Election Day when Biden exited | 107 days (July 2024) |
| Kamala Harris’s age | 60 (2025) |
| Joe Biden’s age | 81 (2025) |
| Book release date | Sept. 23, 2025 |
The table above highlights key factual markers Harris and other participants reference when describing the timeline and personnel involved. Those numbers matter because the compressed 107-day window limited conventional campaign planning and testing of messages, staffing and fundraising strategies. The ages cited — 60 for Harris and 81 for Biden — have repeatedly entered public debate over stamina and succession in national leadership discussions.
Reactions & Quotes
Several responses have followed the Atlantic excerpts. Democratic operatives and allies have offered guarded reactions, emphasizing loyalty to party unity while acknowledging the need for clearer decision processes. Conservative commentators seized on Harris’s account to question Democratic organization and cohesion during the 2024 cycle.
Context before quote: Harris frames the 2024 candidacy decision as too consequential to be made privately and reflects on how the mantra that it was ‘Joe and Jill’s decision’ functioned inside the White House.
It should have been more than a personal decision; the stakes were simply too high, and leaving it to an individual’s ego was reckless.
Kamala Harris, 107 Days (excerpt)
Context after quote: That passage crystallizes her central critique: major choices with national implications required broader consultation. The remark is simultaneously a personal assessment and a call for institutional accountability.
Context before quote: Harris also weighs Biden’s comparative fitness, offering a contrast between his abilities and those of his Republican opponent while noting the impact of age and fatigue.
On his worst day he remained more knowledgeable and compassionate than his rival, but at 81 he got tired — a reality that affected the campaign.
Kamala Harris, 107 Days (excerpt)
Context after quote: Her attempt to balance praise and critique is politically significant: it defends Biden’s aptitude but underscores limits that influenced campaign outcomes. That dual posture shapes how pundits and party officials parse responsibility for the 2024 trajectory.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Harris will launch a full presidential campaign in 2028 remains undecided and speculative; public statements have neither confirmed nor ruled out such a bid.
- Specific internal conversations described in memoir excerpts have not been independently corroborated by multiple contemporaneous witnesses outside Harris’s account.
- Allegations that specific Biden aides intentionally amplified negative narratives about Harris are asserted in the book but lack detailed documentary evidence available in the public domain.
Bottom Line
Harris’s memoir reframes a pivotal episode in recent Democratic politics as a failure of collective judgment rather than solely a personal choice. By arguing that the 2024 decision should not have been left to the president and first lady alone, she presses for a reassessment of internal decision-making norms and party oversight when succession or candidacy questions arise.
For the Democratic Party and for future administrations, the account carries two lessons: first, the importance of transparent, consultative processes for choices with national impact; second, the political cost of allowing internal friction and negative narratives to fester. As 2026 and 2028 political calendars approach, Harris’s reflections will shape both public debate and strategic calculations within the party.
Sources
- CBS News — news report publishing details and context (news).
- The Atlantic — magazine that published excerpts of 107 Days (magazine / published book excerpt).